Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:47:38 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG (Jonathan M. Bresler) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, pechter@lakewood.com, softweyr@xmission.com, freebsd-chat@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <199707231617.BAA09910@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <199707231556.IAA26405@hub.freebsd.org> from "Jonathan M. Bresler" at "Jul 23, 97 08:56:28 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. > > 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. > > 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 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) > > > 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. 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. 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. 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_. > > 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. Personally, I prefer kittens. -- ]] 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?199707231617.BAA09910>