Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:02:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, pechter@lakewood.com, softweyr@xmission.com, freebsd-chat@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <199707231702.KAA00258@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <199707231617.BAA09910@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jul 24, 97 01:47:38 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Smith wrote: > > 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. > > > > okay, substitute different term for "nuclear family". > > This is symptomatic of the problem I am referring to. The term is > irrelevant (other than that "nuclear family" originally referred to a > family which considered itself/was an emotionally supportive and > aware gouping); the _need_ for a single term which describes something > that is considered the "ideal", let alone the belief in a single ideal > that is suitable for all situations is part of the _problem_. > > If you believe that there can only be _one_ solution, and you have > a name for what the solution is, you are blind to alternatives. > > This closed-mindedness is intellectual death. It serves the goals of > politicians and the people that benefit from manipulating the masses > very well; if all you do is react without thinking, you can be > trivially controller. whoa, mike! please read what i have written and dont load me down with a load of material i have have not advocated. "nuclear family" was not meant to create a thread of its own. you want to use "an emotionally supportive and aware gouping"? fine, given my typing skills i'll use AESAAW. in speaking from experience, i spoke of a single type of AESAAW because it is the only one that i know first hand. the AESAAW i spoke of originally had two adult members in the house with the children---genders were not specified. mix and match to taste. you want three adults, cool...there have been a number of societies with more then two adults in the AESAAW. dont load me down with the prejudicies (sp?) of others. > > > > Structure is irrelevant, other than that under extreme circumstances > > > it can limit content. > > > > i am not sure what you are calling "Structure" and what you are > > calling "Content". some structures make certain activities easier > > while making others more difficult. > > Yes, that's what I just said. Note however that I took particular > pain to imply that structure constrains, not dictates, content. > > > they is value in a structure > > that makes "doing the right thing" easier. > > Aha. And because there is only one "right", you only need one > "structure". Very good. "the right thing" is to raise the children to be a credit to their family and society. if we cant agree on that, i'll drop out of the conversation. > > > > 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. > > > > i dont think its "to the exclusion", but rather the "career", > > the source of income is the first priority...then the relationships. > > that is a blight upon the land, or at least a pox upon the houses. > > This is likewise a product of the memes popular in modern > western-style society. It's a goal set well suited to reducing the > population to a state of mind where they can be easily manipulated and > repressed. > > The "nuclear family" concept is not a solution to this set of problems > either. It is a functional structure which suits some individuals and > relationships over certain periods of their existence, certainly, but it > is not a panacea. > > It is quite possible to mix career aspirations with parenting; in > fact, many of the most signal parents I know are serious career > professionals. This isn't uncommon either, if you spend some time > with your head in the available literature. 8) did i hear you say it was easier? it is possible to write fortran to do string processing, i would not advocate it to someone. my father was raised in a single parent home from the age of 11. my grandfather was killed in a car accident. he is a fine person, a credit to his family and society. growing up in a single parent household was harder. let's not pretend otherwise. possible, but harder. > > > > > 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. > > > > its not mythical, it was the rule in the neighborhood i grew up in. > > The "back in the 50's and 60's everything was right in the family > world" line _is_ a myth. It is a call to the current parenting > generation's early childhood, and that of their parents; a direct > accusation that the current crop of parents are getting it all wrong > where their seniors were just perfect. who said "everything was right"? can we limit this to a single issue? > > Bollocks. You want to talk about orpahanges? Children abandoned at > birth because their parents weren't married? Backyard abortions? > Broken homes? Domestic violence in all directions as the norm? The > 50's and 60's are great periods for this sort of research. you forgot racism and anti-semitism. on the other hand, we might mention inner city poverty rates have risen (there once was a thriving black commerical district in washington dc, it was burned out in '68 and has never bee rebuilt.) drug traffic (always been some, the number of murders due to the drug trade is higher) school violence (no metal detectors when i went to school) teen pregency rate (did we make love less? did we know more about birth control? could we not have been doing it right?) i'm sure that other can add to the list. > > The fact of the matter is that whilst the emphasis these days is > different, the situation in many cases these days is _better_ than it > ever has been. What wasn't prevalent in the last baby boom was > saturation media hype, and the gross distortion of reality that > accompanies the profit motive. 8) > > > when i fell out of tree and broke my arm, a parent was available > > to take me to the hospital. many, not all, "nannies" dont have > > driver's licenses or their own automobiles. many dont have powers > > of attorney to sign the required forms at the hospital. > the fall, no. the parent being availble, yes. > And you think this is more or less common that it was? > > > as a child, while walking my dog, the animal bolted after a squirrel > > that was behind me. i fell head-first onto the pavement unconscious. > > the neighbors closed the street to traffic and alerted my parents. > > where it not for the neighbors, i may have lain there till i woke > > up or someone came along in a car (and stopped in time, or not.) > > Likewise. > > > in a neighborhood of "latch-key kids" who will perform these two > > functions? > > Who makes them "latch-key" kids? Who isn't there? Don't mistake me > for disputing that care is necessary. But a single parent, or a dyke > couple, or for that matter any guardian is capable of providing and > participating in the sort of care that's involved here. It doesn't > matter what the _structure_ of the parenting environment is, it's the > _content_. i dont care if there are 1,2,3...n adults of whatever gender. that's not my business, that is their personal matter. > > > > 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) > > > > ;) i can live with kids, its much easier on my wife and i that > > we get to live without them once in a while too. > > It has to be said that kids are an all-or-nothing prospect. Wanting > them "just sometimes" is a great excuse to suggest that your friends > have them. of course, its all-or-nothing. who suggested otherwise? does that mean that i cant have another couples children stay over one night so the parents can have some time off? seems very reasonable to me. > > Personally, I prefer kittens. do you have children? my feelings about the abortion/contraception issue is "if you are not in the game, you cant make the rules." same with regard to discussing how to raise children. if you dont know first hand the demands of raising children, then let me bow out of this conversation and concede to you. if such is the case, we dont have enough shared experience to continue this. jmb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707231702.KAA00258>