Evil Politicians! Film at 11!

[LBernier at tribune.com]

Heikki, I think your example, while illustrating some of the more selfish 
aspects of American individualism, vividly highlights Americans' sense of 
entitlement and expectation.  In Kramer, it has to do with love, and marriage, 
and whether there is fulfillment in restricting one's freedom for the greater 
community.  The moral of the film is that one's own "happiness" is more 
important than family, or community.  This is, in a nutshell, one of the moral 
problems we are facing in today's society.  At what point should your own needs 
by superceded by the needs of the many?  And, how does your expectation of 
happiness affect this formula as well?  "Do it if it feels good" is an attitude 
that in the long run is indirectly harmful, even if it is not directly harmful, 
because you end up with generations who are not willing to sacrifice anything at
all for someone else's benefit.

Applied to marriage, if one's expectation is to produce children, provide a 
stable environment in which they are raised with a mother and father, and 
perhaps also to enhance financial security by pooling resources, then one could 
expect to be reasonably happy.  If one also looks at that relationship as an 
end-all towards spiritual fulfillment - (I like to call this the "We're married 
and we're best friends" syndrome) then many, many times, one will be 
disappointed.  You only need to look at the divorce rate in this country to see 
evidence of that.  This is not to say that marriage is only drudgery, or that 
love is irrelevant, but you should never expect that one single person will 
provide for every emotional, intellectual and physical need for the rest of your
life.  This is why I have many friends (including you all, my electronic ones!) 
and why I'm grateful I have both parents and a brother.  I also have a wonderful
lover, who will likely be my husband and father to my children.  I think it 
would be a terrible burden on him if I truly felt that I needed no other.

Jean.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Evil Politicians! Film at 11!
Author:  hankhank at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu at Internet_tco
Date:    11/13/96 8:28 PM
     
     
Here's an example from someone who comes from one of the lagers in that 
Village called Scandinavia, an example that might shed light to the issue.
     
I once audited a lecture by an American guy who teaches English at one 
of Finland's universities. His students include American exchange students. 
I don't know how it happened, and I don't really want to know, but once he 
decided to show _Kramer vs. Kramer_ to a multinational class of his as a 
part of a course on American culture or something. Reading the students' 
analyses on the film was something of a shock to him, and he decided to 
repeat the course including the film on a yearly basis. What is more,
he decided to concentrate on the episode where Meryl Streep analyses
the reasons which made her leave her family. ("I had to leave everything 
to find myself", or something.)
     
It was the strongly differing attitudes between Finnish and American 
female students toward Mrs. Kramer that attracted his attention. Nearly 
all Finnish fem students - also those who regarded themselves as feminists 
or quite sympathetic to feminism - thought that it was wrong of her to do 
what she did. Whereas vast majority of American fem students thought that 
what she did was just what she had to do, and their sympathies were 
clearly on her side. (Most American males were, not unexpectedly, *not* on 
Mrs. Kramer's side. I don't know how many avant-gardists the teacher
has confronted, who have declined to say anything about the film.)
     
In Northern Europe women seem to think that if they wanted to improve 
their situation, they should carry it out in their own environment, 
through their Caressing Social Democratic Community. (Or, in other words, 
they cannot flee the community.) And to some extent they have succeeded. 
But on the basis of my experiences (and I know many women who think the 
same), this 'community' (it's not only the State) feels often quite
suppressing. American  masculinism is one thing (I stumble on it everywhere), 
as is the American brand of "individualism", but is there something to be 
learned from Americans? Do Americans know better what it is to live in the 
Zone? Because the world economy is getting so tough that Our Lovely
Social Democracy will not last long.
     
Heikki