I was just watching the Monty Python equivalent; "women, children, Red Indians, spacemen, and sort of idealized versions of the complete Renaissance man first!"
I didn't think it was funny the first time I saw it on PBS in the Seventies. I'm pretty sure the Pythons saw it as something so preposterous it would never happen in real life.
A lot of Python relies on the world being different. If in the 70s, a man dressed in a three-piece suit and a bowler hat suddenly started to silly walk it was immediately incongruous. In the new millennium his clothes need translation (they identify him as a certain economic status, possibly a banker) before the scene becomes funny. I do not remember where I heard it remarked---possibly here---that a man from 1800 would feel less culture-shocked to suddenly find himself in 1950, than would one from 1950 if he were to skip ahead only two or three decades. But even the Far Side has the one with the cook on the sinking ship ("is that right, the cook goes down with the ship?") while the captain sails away, that was funny because it was so in violation of the way men should act.
I guess this is a specifically men's thing to get upset about. Men who value courage like to think that in a bad situation they'd do the right thing (whether they will---sometimes one finds out, and sometimes he survives the learning). Cowards putting themselves first are several different kinds of loathsome. As for the captain, that's too many things wrong to even begin.
The Ministry of Silly Walks was funny precisely because it was bizarre. Although the bit about how last year, the government spent less on Silly Walks than on national defense wasn't all that outre'. That sort of joke is (wincingly) funny if you know (as I did) that the government in question spent less on national defense than it did on the tea lady every FY.
I guess you could say I have a restricted sense of humor. Which is why I love MPFC. (It's American "sitcoms" I can't tolerate.)
This illustrates best the difference of Western Monogamic and Eastern Polygamic cultures.
In Western cultures, monogamy is norm. That means reduced number of offspring, which enables the family to allocate more resources to its children and to raise and educate them as high as possible. Likewise, it enables the whole society to mobilize its resources. In such model, the women are the bottleneck of the reproduction, and as such appreciated extremely high. In distress, the men attempt to ensure the continuity of the family by saving the women and children first, as they are crucial for continuity of the family.
In Eastern cultures, polygamy is the norm in the upper echelons of the society, while the lower echelons of the society are left without spouses. This produces offspring in superfluous numbers, whereas downward social mobility, especially amongst boys, is the norm. It sees women and children as near-worthless commodity. The Eastern cultures produce quantity instead of quality and waste an awful amount of societal talent. In distress, the men attempt to first save themselves and leave the women and children behind, because they are seen as commodity and something which are easily replaced, and the men as the absolute heads of the family are seen as the bottleneck of the continuity of the family line.
6 comments:
I was just watching the Monty Python equivalent; "women, children, Red Indians, spacemen, and sort of idealized versions of the complete Renaissance man first!"
I didn't think it was funny the first time I saw it on PBS in the Seventies. I'm pretty sure the Pythons saw it as something so preposterous it would never happen in real life.
I'd say they were wrong.
cheers
eon
A lot of Python relies on the world being different. If in the 70s, a man dressed in a three-piece suit and a bowler hat suddenly started to silly walk it was immediately incongruous. In the new millennium his clothes need translation (they identify him as a certain economic status, possibly a banker) before the scene becomes funny. I do not remember where I heard it remarked---possibly here---that a man from 1800 would feel less culture-shocked to suddenly find himself in 1950, than would one from 1950 if he were to skip ahead only two or three decades. But even the Far Side has the one with the cook on the sinking ship ("is that right, the cook goes down with the ship?") while the captain sails away, that was funny because it was so in violation of the way men should act.
I guess this is a specifically men's thing to get upset about. Men who value courage like to think that in a bad situation they'd do the right thing (whether they will---sometimes one finds out, and sometimes he survives the learning). Cowards putting themselves first are several different kinds of loathsome. As for the captain, that's too many things wrong to even begin.
I could well imagine men in Islamic countries would behave exactly like that.
Sergej;
The Ministry of Silly Walks was funny precisely because it was bizarre. Although the bit about how last year, the government spent less on Silly Walks than on national defense wasn't all that outre'. That sort of joke is (wincingly) funny if you know (as I did) that the government in question spent less on national defense than it did on the tea lady every FY.
I guess you could say I have a restricted sense of humor. Which is why I love MPFC. (It's American "sitcoms" I can't tolerate.)
Ironmistress;
Too sad, and too true.
cheers to all
eon
This illustrates best the difference of Western Monogamic and Eastern Polygamic cultures.
In Western cultures, monogamy is norm. That means reduced number of offspring, which enables the family to allocate more resources to its children and to raise and educate them as high as possible. Likewise, it enables the whole society to mobilize its resources. In such model, the women are the bottleneck of the reproduction, and as such appreciated extremely high. In distress, the men attempt to ensure the continuity of the family by saving the women and children first, as they are crucial for continuity of the family.
In Eastern cultures, polygamy is the norm in the upper echelons of the society, while the lower echelons of the society are left without spouses. This produces offspring in superfluous numbers, whereas downward social mobility, especially amongst boys, is the norm. It sees women and children as near-worthless commodity. The Eastern cultures produce quantity instead of quality and waste an awful amount of societal talent. In distress, the men attempt to first save themselves and leave the women and children behind, because they are seen as commodity and something which are easily replaced, and the men as the absolute heads of the family are seen as the bottleneck of the continuity of the family line.
Being a naval officer (in reserves) myself, I have to utter an old Finnish proverb here:
"Everyone is a skipper when the weather is fair".
Post a Comment