Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:00:49 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG (Jonathan M. Bresler) Cc: pechter@lakewood.com, softweyr@xmission.com, freebsd-chat@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <199707231530.BAA09715@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <199707231416.HAA19533@hub.freebsd.org> from "Jonathan M. Bresler" at "Jul 23, 97 07:16:39 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan M. Bresler stands accused of saying: > > once upon a time, their existed the "nuclear family" in a land called > america. the "nuclear family" consisted of one parent whose primary > duty was to produce an income that would house and feed the family. > the other parent's primary duty was to care for the children. It is fallacious to claim that this structure, which has stolen the term "nuclear family" from the actual meaning of the phrase, is inherently better (or worse, for that matter) than any other caring structure. What is significant is content. Structure is irrelevant, other than that under extreme circumstances it can limit content. Content in the context of the parenting process comes down to attitude. The attitude of parents in particular, and of the community at large. It's not whether you have a "nuclear" family, but whether the time and effort is put in on both sides of the equation. This involves both children and parents, and at the moment, the trend is for both parties to focus on themselves to the exclusion of their relationships. You can cast blame for the rise of selfishness anywhere you like; I make no pretension to knowing where this comes from. Make no mistake though, the "nuclear family" is a simplistic, glib "solution" tailored to a society that wants to believe that every problem has a simple answer. Preferably one that lends itself to easy repetition without actual brain activity. > then a blight came upon the land. ... This is very poetic, but historically naiive in the extreme. > liberal or conservative, many of us grew up in the 50's and 60's in > that style of "nuclear family". This is mythical. Many of us have grown up today in "nuclear" families. Many of our parents and ancestors did not. Trite or not, consider "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems". Spare a few seconds considering who benefits from your concern about the "nuclear" family. > anyone that does not occassionly long > for the days before children, when the world was only two people, > the sun always shone brightly upon the land?) Heh. The answer to this one is trivially simple. If you really value your independance; _don't_have_any_. There are bound to be plenty of induhviduals around who'll do it for you. 8) > > Hey Wes, give us Liberals a break. I must be from the old school. > > Shell set to nologin hell. What about a hand applied to the rear end. > > It isn't a Liberal versus conservative thing. It's an "I'm too busy > > with my pretentious lifestyle to parent" thing. Indeed; _having_ the kids is part of the pretension, _looking_after_ them is too much like hard work. Basically; please don't bombard us caring types with your lightly-browned echo-mode political dribble. If it's suitable for a ten-second sound bite, it hasn't even considered the problem. -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707231530.BAA09715>