I read an article in the Atlantic Monthly this month that made me think about legislation and morality. I am wary of legislating moral issues for several reasons. First, whose morality are we going to legislate and how are we going to choose it? Certain moral decisions, we have all admitted as part of the social contract, should be regulated. Non-government sanctioned killing is bad, for example. Many would argue the position that all killing is wrong- including executions, war related, and self defense but we choose the broader, lower standard. Other moral decisions are left for the individual to navigate for himself or herself: whether to appear on Girls Gone Wild videos, for example.
The question then becomes: Which moral decisions should be addressed by the Federal Government, Which should be addressed by the State Governments and which should be protected as belonging to the realm of the individual?
In Virginia recently, legislators decided to pass a law that you couldn't let your underwear show in public. In other words, instead of just shaking their fists at the kids for wearing their pants around their hips, these legislators are spending their time actually writing a law against it. Putting aside the difficulty in defining "underwear," (Is a bathingsuit worn as a bra underwear?)
I can just see the impetus:
"Daddy. I'd like you to meet Billy-Joe. He's here to take me to the movies. " The daughter says, and then, "Billy Joe, I'd like you to meet Senator Daddy."
Senator Daddy realizes his 16 year old daughter is wearing pants so low he can see her underwear. "Young lady you will not leave the house dressed like that!" He bellows. Her mom intervenes telling Senator Daddy that "its how all the kids dress these days." He then notices Billy Joe, who is a white suburban kid, wearing his pants 20 sizes too big, his plaid boxers sticking out of his FUBU shirt. Senator Daddy is trying to figure out the relationship between FUBU and FUBAR, which he remembers from his days in Vietnam, and is not succeeding. He is, however, convinced that Billy Joe's T-Shirt must say something dirty.
He is outraged that young people are dressing like this.
He has somehow conveniently forgotten his own father's apploplexy over his allowing his sideburns to come below his ears. He has forgotten Bell Bottoms. Leisure suits so tight you knew immediately: Boxers, briefs or commando. Mini dresses. Pierced ears. Rock-and-Roll.
In the 1920's it was rolled socks, flappers outfits, women cutting their hair. It was, Gasp! Allowing your calves to show in public!
In my teen years it was ripped, bleached jeans. Lots of holes in your ears. Leg warmers. And Stirrup pants. I remember MadDog running around singing "8, 8 I forget what 8 was for...." Making fun of the Violent Femmes.
Today its stupid looking pants, pierced everything and thongs. Hip-Hop. Texting.
I'm absolutely positive the next generation will come up with something completely bizarre they do to piss off the older generation.
This is part of- oh, lets go out on a limb, This IS what makes America great. We allow people to behave like complete idiots so long as their behavior does not infringe on our rights. There is room here for people who do not behave like you or look like you.
If you're offended by that moron's clothing- then don't look at it. Don't hire them. Shun them. Don't allow your child out of the house dressed like that. Employ any one of the many social corrective measures available to you. Beyond that- it is his or her choice. Because you know what's going to happen? I do. One of these days Billy Joe is going to need a job and he's going to put on those tan trousers his mom bought for him and he's going to put on a shirt and a tie and get a job.
Of course, he's probably going to leave the tongue ring in... Just like the women of my generation refused to put on panty hose and, eventually, some part of what was socially provocative will become the norm. Shoot, 75 years ago the fact that I'm wearing a pants suit and being a lawyer would have been unthinkable, as would my lack of foundation garments.
I think this is what bothers and worries these would be social archecticts- that change is really synonymous with "sliding ever closer to the abyss of the lowest common denominator." In other words, their position is that if we don't stigmatize young women having children out of wedlock, then more people will have children out of wedlock, and having children out of wedlock is something we should be working against and dressing like that is leading directly to having children out of wedlock and the whole structure of our society is going to crumble and be destroyed. This worry may or may not have substance- I argue instead it is not the realm of our Government to act
in loco parentas and correct its citizens when they make a poor decisions.
Legislation, either on the State or Federal level, is not the way to solve or address these issues. Community social pressures, education, and propaganda are the way to solve these issues.
Lets think for a minute how much social norms change-- and not necessarily for the worse- after all George Washington was a wig, high heel and manpris (Manpris= men's capris for you MadDog because I know you're going to ask me.) wearing, slave owning, hemp growing radical. Sure, he believed in universal suffrage- for all White Men that is.
There was no golden age of perfect morality. The 1950's were not perfect- women still got pregnant out of wedlock, there were still lots of homosexuals, and domestic violence was culturally accepted in many circles. Segregation blotted the South.
We need to get over being offended by what other people do or don't do. You need to get the plank out of your own eye before you concentrate on the splinter in your neighbor's eye. We have to remember that forcing people to act right has never worked and will never work. Society will never be perfect and young people will always come up with stupid clothing trends.
These laws, because they are poorly written and ill conceived, will become outmoded and archaic- much like the funny laws on the books now (Ones about when you can take a bath, stuff like that-- we've all seen them)-- and are a waste of the legislator's time and energy. In my mind it cheapens so much of what legislators do when they get caught up these silly little problems-- considering a bill to address identification and voting in the same session as a bill to stop underwear showing cheapens the work in my mind. Should segregation or say, economic redevelopment, for a current hot button civil rights topic, and visible underwear really be on the same level?
But, how the legislators spend their time and energy is anther rant for another day.
