|
Grex > Agora46 > #135: What you always wanted to know about the USA and its citizens <-- For Non-US grexers | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 35 of 79:
| 
Aug 1 04:00 UTC 2003 |
Re #30: Yep.
Re #34: Yes, but in many cases it's better than the alternative. I'm not
speaking for your case specifically.
|
russ
|
|
response 36 of 79:
|
Aug 1 04:07 UTC 2003 |
Re #5: What's WRONG is defining the public face of the office of
POTUS as an explicitly Christian one. Government officials should
not act in any sectarian capacity while exercising their office.
Re #21: Sounds like the way officially Catholic countries handle it.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 37 of 79:
|
Aug 1 07:11 UTC 2003 |
resp:14 Well, basically why the *English* drove on the left was to
have your weapon on the ready for that pesky highwayman. We just
started driving on the right to spite them and be different, really.
We embraced Santa Claus because he wasn't that English Father
Christmas-- if I remember right, there was all sorts of things during
the 19th century that we did to distance ourselves from Britain.
|
jep
|
|
response 38 of 79:
|
Aug 1 13:52 UTC 2003 |
re resp:35: I wasn't speaking of my divorce, in particular, either,
though of course it has affected my perceptions of divorce. As a
general case, though, I bet we all know someone who has had 4 or more
marriages. I knew a guy in college who had had 5 stepdads before he
graduated from high school. He was fortunate in that his maternal
grandfather was a stable influence in his life. He certainly didn't
have any other male role models he could count on. I'm sure his mother
was unhappy with all of her various husbands, once she married them...
but at some point, this guy and his two sisters, the children, ought to
have received some consideration as well.
The American characteristic of driving on the right instead of the left
originated in the 18th century.
Santa Claus wasn't a big deal anywhere until the late 1800's in
America. I don't belive our mass giving of presents occurred until
after the Great Depression.
|
janc
|
|
response 39 of 79:
|
Aug 1 14:38 UTC 2003 |
I think the modern image of Santa Claus (jolly fat guy with reindeer) was
created first from nearly whole cloth by the author of "The Night Before
Christmas" and popularized via a series of ads for Coca Cola. Web
searching...yup...http://www.the-north-pole.com/history/ says Thomas Nast
did a lot to develop the character too, and Rudolf was invented for Montgomery
Ward advertisements. The night before Christmas was 1823, and the Coca Cola
ads were 1931. Santa is a pretty modern creation though bits of the legend
have ancient roots.
|
sj2
|
|
response 40 of 79:
|
Aug 1 20:26 UTC 2003 |
Thanks!!
What myths/images/impressions created by Hollywood movies, usually,
would you like to dispel about the US?
|
cross
|
|
response 41 of 79:
|
Aug 2 03:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 42 of 79:
|
Aug 2 03:51 UTC 2003 |
In real life America, there are toddlers.
As a parent of a toddler, I'm struck by the fact that the only movie that
contains a toddler in a significant roles is "Monsters, Inc" where they
computer generated the toddler. Apparantly getting a toddler into a movie
is harder than an alien, a talking pig, or a dinosaur.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 43 of 79:
|
Aug 2 04:10 UTC 2003 |
indubitably.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 44 of 79:
|
Aug 2 04:11 UTC 2003 |
resp:41 Indeed, many of us have traveled to other countries: and many
of us even appreciate the mix of culture here in our own backyard.
|
sj2
|
|
response 45 of 79:
|
Aug 2 05:26 UTC 2003 |
Regarding the divorce thing. Do you think that the relative ease of
getting out of a marriage makes people less adjusting to each other?
Or tend to hit the eject button sooner than required?
Why do porn stars never take off their footwear in movies (if you ever
noticed)? ;-)
Do people regularly leave their parents after teenage and see them
after 5-10 years? Are parents usually left in old-age homes?
How important are relatives to a US family?
How common is sex at say, 13 or 14 years of age? Is it acceptable to
parents there usually?
Can you really tell whether a kid is a gay when he/she is 13-14?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 46 of 79:
|
Aug 2 06:43 UTC 2003 |
I'd guess dissertations have been written on the first question, and
every one comes to a different conclusion.
I'd say that relatives are important, but a significant portion of the
population is sufficiently mobile that relaties aren't around.
Moving out as a teenager, after high school, is not unusual, but not seeing
parents for several years _is_ unusual. Well, not maintaining contact
is unusual; the aforementioned mobility can interfere with physical visits.
|
scg
|
|
response 47 of 79:
|
Aug 2 07:00 UTC 2003 |
There's very little I could tell you about porn, but even if I knew a lot more
about porn than I do, I imagine it wouldn't be the footwear that I would have
been paying attention to. ;)
I'm not sure what you mean about seeing parents "after 5-10 years." A lot
of people move out of their parents' houses when done with high school, or
soon thereafter, in order to go to college or otherwise live their own lives
once they're old enough to not need to be taken care of on a daily basis.
On the other hand, a lot of Americans make it well into their 20s (or
occasionally longer) living with their parents, either out of being happy with
the arrangement, or inertia, or inability to afford housing of their own.
As for the "see them after 5-10 years" part, when I lived in the same city
as my parents I used to see them at least once a week, and often more. Now
that I live a few thousand miles away from them, I still see them several
times a year and talk to them on the phone at least once a week. I don't
think that's atypical.
A lot of people attempt to care for their elderly relatives themselves, and
a lot of people put their elderly relatives into facilities where they can
be cared for by professionals. I suspect both have their advantages and
disadvantages for those being cared for and their younger, healthier,
relatives. I don't know which is more common.
I don't think kids having sex at age 13 or 14 is all that common. At least
among kids I knew at that age, I think people were still trying to figure out
steps less than that. Among 15 and 16 year olds, my impression is it's a lot
less common than most 15 and 16 year olds tend to think it is. But maybe I'm
way off.
|
twenex
|
|
response 48 of 79:
|
Aug 2 10:01 UTC 2003 |
Re: 41.9: We (or rather, y'all) can take jokes and laugh at [y]ourselves when
[you] need to ? Define, "when we need to".
|
md
|
|
response 49 of 79:
|
Aug 2 14:06 UTC 2003 |
Re truth vs. movie myths:
New York City is neither a bright bustling joyful metropolis nor a
filthy greedy violent hell-hole. Also, the main thing that even the
most accurate movie depiction of midtown Manhattan can't tell you is:
what it smells like.
Most US drug-dealers, murderers, pimps and prostitutes are white.
Most Italian-Americans are not in the Mafia.
Most Jewish Americans are indistinguishable from most other Americans.
Rachael Leigh Cook wearing glasses wouldn't actually be considered
unattractive in the US, as she was in the movie "She's All That."
|
cross
|
|
response 50 of 79:
|
Aug 2 15:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 51 of 79:
|
Aug 2 15:35 UTC 2003 |
I do tend to agree with the theory that because divorce is so easy, it's
easier to hit the eject button, so to speak, when the marriage hits a rough
patch. You see so many people get married too young, barely out of their teens
because they think they're in love, and think that marriage is going to be
a bed of roses. At the first sign of the prickly patch, they think it'snot
working, and bail out. That's pretty sad but it happens. Sometimes you hit
a hard patch, you need to work it out. But by making divorce so readily
available, you're also breeding a bunch of people who think it's a good enough
solution to their problems.
I think the ease of divorce is also the reason that so many people get married
without really exploring the whole concept. Not saying everybody, but I'm
guessing a significant number. Geting married at an early age is all great
and stuff if you're willing to stick through the hard times. And when you're
19, you don't believe you could ever have a fight.
Divorce is one of those necessary evils. You do need it, for cases when it's
warranted. But it has the ability to be misused so easily.
|
jep
|
|
response 52 of 79:
|
Aug 2 16:53 UTC 2003 |
My brother lives in Tennessee and avoids contact with my parents other
than a visit or two per year. He doesn't contact me a lot, either.
However, my parents and I see each other about weekly. We live about
60 miles apart. We're in nearly daily contact via the Internet.
I believe both my parents, and I, would rather they lived in an
assisted-living center rather than have them move in with me. There'd
be no question, if there were ever a need, they could move in with me.
|
mary
|
|
response 53 of 79:
|
Aug 2 17:13 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 54 of 79:
|
Aug 2 17:36 UTC 2003 |
I'd rather see divorce be easier, not harder, maybe
having all marriage contracts be for a set number of
years, say five. The basic disolution contract could
be agreed to at the time of the marriage.
At the end of the five years the contract could be
renewed if both partners were in agreement. This would
keep everyone on their toes, looking for ways to
keep the relationship thriving, instead of one or
both partners feeling tenured, and complacent.
Would this result in more divorces? Most certainly.
Would more good marriages fail? Doubt it.
I wouldn't want to be in a marriage where I wasn't loved
and respected. Nor would I want to feel stuck with
a partner I didn't love or respect. Five years
seems about right to evaluate if the partnership is
working. Bad marriages happen. Be as gentle on yourself
and those in the fallout zone as you can be. Learn from your
mistakes. Avoid playing the victim and move on.
|
mary
|
|
response 55 of 79:
|
Aug 2 17:38 UTC 2003 |
Er, dissolution.
|
glenda
|
|
response 56 of 79:
|
Aug 2 18:04 UTC 2003 |
STeve and I have a contract marriage. We contracted for 300 years. It has
been a running joke throughout the 21 years we've been together. One of the
few things that made him smile right after the Drs confirmed that he had a
stroke was my leaning over and whispering in his ear that he just had to be
ok because he had 281 years left in the contract and I was holding him to it.
|
jep
|
|
response 57 of 79:
|
Aug 2 19:32 UTC 2003 |
re resp:54: It sounds great. Except that you can't conceive and raise
kids in 5 years.
|
keesan
|
|
response 58 of 79:
|
Aug 2 20:08 UTC 2003 |
I personally don't know of any divorces that occured due to wife abuse. Jim
was in an abusive marriage for ten years but stayed married because he wanted
to raise children. At the time divorced men lost their childen (every other
Thursday visits is not raising children) and also had to pay 1/4 to 1/3 of
their income to the person who stole their children.
Re visiting twice a year, that does not sound to me like jep's brother is
avoiding contact. I visited once a year at most but wrote frequently.
|
sj2
|
|
response 59 of 79:
|
Aug 2 20:24 UTC 2003 |
In India, physical abuse in a marriage would probably be as common as
it is in the US or anywhere else in the world. The reason for low
divorce rate is mostly social pressure, social stigma attached to
divorce and considerable difficulty in getting remarried.
An example is if you lookup matrimonial ads put up bu divorced Indians.
Nearly each one of them says "Innocent divorcee looking .....".
Innocent bcoz the society treats divorce as a fault of one/both the
partners.
Strange, but true!! Hehe.
|