A few years back, Tom Brokaw, the NBC anchor, wrote a book in which he called the survivors of the great American Depression and of World War II the “greatest generation.” That was a very generous comment by Tom Brokaw, which we may or may not have deserved. But nonetheless, that greatest generation is now well into its eighties. Having seen the great American Depression and World War II, I suspect that there are a few things left for those of us in that generation to be surprised about. There are few things left for us to consider as unseemly or vulgar, we’ve pretty much seen it all.
In my own case, the American Depression and the combat phases of World War II were so debilitating that I have yet to write about them. For me, there is no happiness in recalling the deprivations during the Depression or the wounds and deaths and suffering of the combat phases of World War II. I simply find it very difficult to think about those things and certainly to write about them.
So it would seem that those of us in the so-called greatest generation have been, in the New York phrase, “around the block a few times.” But in the past few weeks, I have heard advertisements and a newscast that cause me to believe that in my trips around the block I have not seen everything there is to observe.
Consider for example the extensive advertising that is taking place on television for erectile dysfunction or, as the television announcers like to refer to it, “E.D.” I suppose I ought to be flattered by the pharmaceutical companies bestowing my nickname on this medical condition. In point of fact, however, in barracks, tents, locker rooms, etc., the subject of erectile dysfunction is rarely if ever raised. For all intents and purposes among the “greatest generation”, E.D. is a non-starter. It is not discussed or dissected. It simply does not rise to a level of discussion among my generation.
One advertisement promises help lasting for “36 hours,” for “whenever the time is right.” Good gracious! Most of the greatest generation would instinctively know when the time is right. And they would also know that erectile dysfunction is not a subject for endless discussion. And so I come to the conclusion, “Are we prudes simply because we refuse to wallow in discussions of this medical condition?” My belief is that we are not prudes; we are simply above that level of discussion.
The other afternoon I was listening to a newscast on television that turned to a commercial which ended in the expression, “Have a happy period.” I was totally astounded to find that the television advertisement had to do with menstrual periods. If there was ever a subject completely forbidden among the greatest generation, it would be that one. Again I ask, “Are the greatest generation’s members prudes because they are reluctant or refuse to discuss that female condition.” Most of the men, as I recall it, are gentlemen who absolutely refuse to touch that subject and so my answer would be that the members of the greatest generation are not prudes but gentlemen.
And finally, I hear from television sources that Laura Bush, George’s wife, is taking off for Arab countries to inform them that breast cancer is deadly. Arab men have a different view of their women than the rest of us have. They regard their women as property. It is for this reason that they cloth them in burkas that reveal very little of the female figure or hair. I am at a loss to tell you why looking at a woman’s hair excites anyone. But apparently the Arabs are carried away by passions that they do not understand. But in any case, here we have the First Lady of the United States traveling six or seven thousand miles to tell the women of the Arab countries that they should have mammograms and examinations for breast cancer. I suspect that her entreaties will fall largely on deaf ears. In the first place, decisions in life in the Arab world are made by men, not by women. And secondly, there are few women, I suspect, that would tell their husbands that they are going to take off their clothes for a male doctor. Do not forget that the Arab society is one where they even deny that they have any homosexuality. The Arabs have a long way to go before they will become interested in a Christian woman coming from six or seven thousand miles away to lecture them on breast cancer.
Breast cancer is a horrid disease which we all deplore. But Mrs. Bush did not need to travel six or seven thousand miles to address the Arab women. If she would leave 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and walk a few blocks toward the RFK stadium, she would find black women by the thousands who are uninsured and who are unable to visit a doctor to check on the condition of their breasts. I suspect that the leading figures in the Arab cultural world are aware of the lack of insurance among poor women in the United States. They may extend typical Arab courtesy to Mrs. Bush when she shows up, but as soon as she leaves, things will return to their normal state of affairs. In the meantime, the Arab men who make the decisions will be asking, “Why did you come six or seven thousand miles when you could find all kinds of deplorable medical conditions within a few blocks of the White House?”
In the final analysis, if Mrs. Bush wishes to address the high incidence of deaths among Arab women from cancer of the breast, that is probably all to the good. I would simply comment that she could have accomplished the same purpose among the poor female population of Washington, D.C. or of Dallas, Texas, or any other city in this country. Aside from that, the members of the so-called greatest generation are stunned and surprised to see intimate personal medical conditions advertised on television. In our day, conditions such as erectile dysfunction were never discussed among polite society or even soldierly society. It is all well and good to know everything about those conditions, but my point is that open discussion rarely if ever took place.
So finally I would answer the basic question of whether or not the members of the greatest generation are prudes by saying absolutely not. But we are surprised, even dismayed, to find intimate medical conditions being advertised on television. Does our dismay make us prudes? I believe not.
E. E. CARR
October 28, 2007
Essay 267
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: Wel
In an essay called “CRI DE COEUR” written just two months after this one, Pop claims that all advertising these days is directed at 18-30 year olds, and that not very much advertising time is spent on his generation. However here he says that the amount of E.D. advertising is ‘extensive.’ To my knowledge, there are not a lot of 20-year-old guys coming down with E.D.
I’d also posit that there are probably still a good amount of advertisers who reach the elderly via TV, knowing that in many cases young people don’t watch traditional television at all. I have not had consistent access to a cable television in my residence since I left Austin for college, and I don’t think my issue is particularly unusual.