People not accepting our Millennial theory

[nguyenivy]

(05-31-2021, 12:50 AM)galaxy Wrote:

(05-25-2021, 12:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: A 4T might have society relax on one old stricture (LGBT rights) while getting more rigid in enforcement on other matters of sexuality and marital life. People who got slaps on the wrist for messing with children now get long prison terms if they don't "off" themselves as did the late Jeffrey Epstein. Likewise we see more of a crackdown on domestic violence.

I'm definitely seeing the conformism and conservatism coming. There's a peculiar sort of "new sexual conservatism" that has been rising for a decade now but has really taken off  since about 2017 or so with the beginning of MeToo - except this is best described as a "left-wing conservatism."

What this really reminds me of is this proposed cycle of language types:



Basically, there's a theory that languages proceed through these types in order over centuries and millennia. Yet, at the same time, people feel like languages are "always getting simpler." Despite seeming contradictory, these two things are not mutually exclusive, because each step in the process can be thought of as a "simplification" for the speakers of the language, even if later on it will look like a complexification (is that a word?). I can explain it in more detail if anyone is curious, but the point is this:

What we are experiencing is the rise of a new kind of gender and sex conservatism, in the name of greater liberalism and justice, supported primarily by the political left. It's a conservatization that looks like a liberalization, like how languages can become more complex while looking like they're simplifying. People are now thinking of greater cultural (and possibly legal) restriction on aspects of gender and sexuality as the "more liberal" position, and the "rules" governing the way genders/sexes interact are increasing in both number and strictness. For example, consider the death of "hookup culture" over the last decade, because it came to be viewed as superficial and misogynistic.
Groups are separating themselves, and separate sets of rules for each group are beginning to develop. See also: the strange new left-wing segregationism (well, maybe that's too strong of a word, but you get the point) and the increased cultural separation and "different sets of rules" for races. For example, in the early 90s (3T), newscasters would say what "N.W.A." was an abbreviation for on TV, hard R and all. If a non-black reporter did that today, it would be an instant career-ender.

In a way, this is the dark side of a 1T: it's a peaceful and prosperous era, but it's also the "stay in your lane" and "know your place" and "follow the rules (or else)" era.

The connotations of the names given to the turnings (high, awakening, unraveling, crisis) sometimes lead us to forget that all eras are "morally neutral" and have good and bad points in equal number, and no one era is "better" or "worse" to live in than any other. They are all a product of humanity's total inability to find any kind of healthy middle ground, instead overcompensating for every past mistake in turn, and making new mistakes to overcompensate for in the future in the process.


(I now feel a need to point out that my political views are pretty consistently left-wing on most issues and I (cautiously) support most of these causes, because this post makes me sound very...well, it makes me sound very 3T, doesn't it? I guess this is the increasing conformism in action, right here right now).

Very interesting to see someone else say a trend I started noticing in years leading up to COVID-19. To me, it seems like this new conservatism began with the concept of safe spaces, namely who is allowed in.

I feel weird calling it conservatism because usually the only environments I have encountered safe-space terminology is in heavily liberal-voting circles. I am familiar with safe spaces in the LGBT community, but I imagine it exists in other groups of society too. A conference I attended every summer in the 2010s had some workshops that were open only to 'People Of Colour' (POC). It wasn't like there was anyone checking any official documentation, but I wouldn't be surprised if once the pandemic is over & large indoor events like this could safely happen, they may start to get more strict about who they allow in such workshops. Identifying as <ethnicity>/<sexuality>/<gender> won't be enough anymore. How it's enforced in an environment where people are just accepted by identifying as XYZ (placeholder - gender/sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, ...) remains a question. In the new environment, where do for instance people of mixed ethnicity go? Will they have to choose a side & reject half their background? Are bisexual people expected to deny half their sexuality? Will non-binary people be expected to choose between just cisgender & transgender and that's it?

Looking out a tiny bit wider: Will hetero/cis allies be welcome at LGBT events? Then we have the worlds of work & school: If this new round of segregation plays out, will we end up seeing official policies where companies & schools/universities will only take on people of minority group XYZ? So in that type of system, one example would be an HBC/U will not allow someone who's not black to enroll. This type of segregation may be a bit different than what was the case pre-1960s USA in that it will be enforced by each minority group on their own, but it would still be segregation overall.

I was taught in school & raised to think of our fellow humans in a sort of universalist way. Critics sometimes use the word colourblind depending on context. It seems we as a country (the US for me anyway) are now far away from that line of thinking. The days of inclusiveness seem to be coming to a rapid end, if not have already ended thanks to COVID accelerating the general pattern that was on its way.