OT: How much baggage will you accept?

[CA renter]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]O.k. Good argument on the family staying together. Well put together.

I agree about the appearance of dog piling but CaRentter is debating pretty badly too. Has yet to admit where she has been wrong anywhere. And she has been plenty, maybe you could call it hyperbole but she is completely sincere in her claims that sociology proves men are worse than women and that other crap. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know.[/quote]

Please clearly point out where I am wrong. Please explain — very clearly, and without utter nonsense like “you’re being whiny,” which proves nothing — which points I am missing. And please do not do what UCGal did, where she claimed that I said something that was neither stated nor implied.

As for the notion that “men are worse than women,” I’ve never said that; what I have said is that men have oppressed women throughout history…which is why, IMHO, “women’s work” doesn’t carry the same status as “men’s work,” and why people insist (even to this day!) that it has little/no value, either monetary value, or value to their families or society. If you have some evidence to share with us that shows otherwise, I’d love to see it.[/quote]

I have showed you how male privilege and power isn’t, I have shown you how what you call abandonment is expulsion. All your errors of perception and wrong conclusions are where your “oppression” comes from. Men and women built culture together with the animal differences we have. We either grow together or we don’t grow together, but holistically speaking there is no catching up to do.

You lie about what you want to see. That gets old.[/quote]

1. Where? Please show us how men have not owned and oppressed women throughout history. Please explain how the division of labor and gender roles that are based on a patriarchal system of values don’t affect the way we value a person’s contributions to society.

2. As for that expulsion thing…I had mentioned that my DH and his mother were abandoned (he left when she was pregnant). By coincidence, I happened to know my DH’s biological father, and since my MIL was such a b-word to me in the beginning of our marriage, I thought it would be helpful to inquire about the “real” reason for the abandonment. Surely, it must have been my MIL who didn’t want to “share” her son with the father, right? Guess what? He couldn’t even come up with any reason, whatsoever. He essentially said, “I honestly can’t think of anything that [my MIL] did to cause me to leave.” Just one anecdote, but this was a college professor, not some bum off the street. I think you give the SOBs who abandon their families too much credit.

3. Please show me an example of my “errors of perception” and “wrong conclusions.” BACK IT UP with some kind of evidence. It can be historical, logical, statistical, etc. Just bring SOMETHING to the table here other than personal attacks and childish antics.

4. Women have had almost no say in defining our culture. The only way a woman could have any influence, historically, was if she had the ear of a more powerful man. Our laws, religions, social norms, etc. were all created by men for men. Even the way our economy works was/is designed in a way that favors men over women, as “men’s work” can be monetized, but “women’s work” cannot, at least not in a politically correct way, as seen in this thread. For much of human history, almost all caretaking was done by women, and they were expected to do it for “free,” out of the kindness of their hearts — nurses, teachers, mothers…have all been expected to do their work for non-monetary remuneration (you know, the joy of caring for others), and even after we finally managed to pay them for their work, they are paid relatively little when compared to males in positions that have similar educational requirements and responsibility levels. And is there any job dominated by men where the workers are as maligned and picked apart, personally, as teachers are?

5. Where have I lied? Quote me telling a single lie.

[NotCranky]

My bad, when you say you want to see something or hear something I assume it means you want to apply some amount of wisdom to it and maybe assimilate something new. When you consistently don’t, I think you lied. Definitely my bad.

[CA renter]

[quote=Blogstar]My bad, when you say you want to see something or hear something I assume it means you want to apply some amount of wisdom to it and maybe assimilate something new. When you consistently don’t, I think you lied. Definitely my bad.[/quote]

There you go again…

Evidence, Russ! How about some logic? Wisdom, perhaps? Is there anything useful that you can contribute, or is it always going to be one personal attack after another, while never really addressing the topic?

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]My bad, when you say you want to see something or hear something I assume it means you want to apply some amount of wisdom to it and maybe assimilate something new. When you consistently don’t, I think you lied. Definitely my bad.[/quote]

There you go again…

Evidence, Russ! How about some logic? Wisdom, perhaps? Is there anything useful that you can contribute, or is it always going to be one personal attack after another, while never really addressing the topic?[/quote]

Time to back off that wild animal trapped in a corner…
Goodnight.

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]
Maybe there are ways that there is less imitation and no big problems moving on if we change the predispostion to negativity about anything but a nuclear monogamous household and don’t teach our kids it.

Like you said we are wired differently than we think does what we are doing really respect that or are we respecting current family dynamic religion and happier if we do because we are stupid. I know I am can’t handle anything different either but admit it could be stupidity at play too.[/quote]
wel, yeah…

but im talking more about just living in the world the way it is…not the way it could be…[/quote]

In my opinion, the crux of the problem is this: We are not wired to live in a nuclear family. We are wired to live in tribes. Tribes where the whole tribe helps watch over our kids after they reach a certain age. Today’s family arrangements (and the similar arrangements in most cultures since civilization began) are not really compatible with our wiring.

We can’t go back to living in tribes. So what do we do? I don’t think there’s a good answer. There might be a better answer. (Better than the one we have now, but still not good.) And in order to find a better answer, we’d need to first be honest with ourselves about who we are. About how humans are wired. With religion in the way, it would be pretty difficult for any such understanding to get any traction. To become widespread. Religious people only want to hear about how god made us. They don’t want to hear that we evolved in bands and tribes and therefore we’re not wired to live in their god’s preferred arrangements.

Of course, religion isn’t the only problem. I think that any large-scale, thoughtful, cooperative, realistic, non-judgmental reconsideration of the basic family unit is beyond the ability of such a combative species, with or without religion.

In the meantime, the best we can do is try to figure out how to best live in the world as it is, not the world as it should be, (as scaredy said), while being honest about our wiring (as Russ said).

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=zk][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]
Maybe there are ways that there is less imitation and no big problems moving on if we change the predispostion to negativity about anything but a nuclear monogamous household and don’t teach our kids it.

Like you said we are wired differently than we think does what we are doing really respect that or are we respecting current family dynamic religion and happier if we do because we are stupid. I know I am can’t handle anything different either but admit it could be stupidity at play too.[/quote]
wel, yeah…

but im talking more about just living in the world the way it is…not the way it could be…[/quote]

In my opinion, the crux of the problem is this: We are not wired to live in a nuclear family. We are wired to live in tribes. Tribes where the whole tribe helps watch over our kids after they reach a certain age. Today’s family arrangements (and the similar arrangements in most cultures since civilization began) are not really compatible with our wiring.

We can’t go back to living in tribes. So what do we do? I don’t think there’s a good answer. There might be a better answer. (Better than the one we have now, but still not good.) And in order to find a better answer, we’d need to first be honest with ourselves about who we are. About how humans are wired. With religion in the way, it would be pretty difficult for any such understanding to get any traction. To become widespread. Religious people only want to hear about how god made us. They don’t want to hear that we evolved in bands and tribes and therefore we’re not wired to live in their god’s preferred arrangements.

Of course, religion isn’t the only problem. I think that any large-scale, thoughtful, cooperative, realistic, non-judgmental reconsideration of the basic family unit is beyond the ability of such a combative species, with or without religion.

In the meantime, the best we can do is try to figure out how to best live in the world as it is, not the world as it should be, (as scaredy said), while being honest about our wiring (as Russ said).[/quote]

but be careful, because excessive honest regarding wiring can lead to a shortcircuit…

[scaredyclassic]

facebook is a uniquely bad platform for having any kind fo discussion that is serious or controversial.

but piggington is not poser dialectics. i think people ar esincere here…

kev, be strong…

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]My bad, when you say you want to see something or hear something I assume it means you want to apply some amount of wisdom to it and maybe assimilate something new. When you consistently don’t, I think you lied. Definitely my bad.[/quote]

in trial advocacy class at law school, we learn never to call a police officer a liar (or any other witness either) unless it is absolutely, unequivovally the case that the jury knows for certain they are intentionally not tellign the truth, with t he sole purpose to deceive.

and even then, it is alsways better to find a way not to call someone a liar, and let the jury draw its own conclusion, even when the evidnece seems to support no other inference but the telling of a lie.

we need permission from the jury to do so, because the word itself is so inflammatory and distasteful. it is ok to claim that what they are saying is not the truth, and perhaps even that the officer knew at the time she said it that she was not telling the truth, or was misguided, or misled, but the four letter word liar, this word must be kept under lock and key, and sonly very very rarely deployed, for it is the nuclear weapon of trial…and people dont like the offhand deployment of our nuclear arsenal.

we like to assume our fellow citizens are acting in good faith, and have not come to intentionally lie. its difficult to get anywhere when we call one another liars, because it is fighting words.

it never impresses the ultimate factfinder because it is up to the factfinder to determine the credibility of witnesses,a dn it is always betetr to give the reasons leading up to the conclusion that one is a liar, rather than the bold conclusory statement that one is a liar.

that way, the factfinder has the facts at hand to draw the conclusion himself…and that, that is far more powerful in terms of persuasive argument.

[scaredyclassic]

Tribes.

http://Www.bodytribe.com

Physical culture group in Sacramento that acts as a tribal community.

I want to spend some time there

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=FlyerInHi]scaredyclassic, I like your writing. Is discrete sex outside of marriage ok?[/quote]

Thnx for compliment. I’m better at oral argument than writing.[/quote]

I love your style and I find your arguments very persuasive.

When I’m ready, I will marry a wife from a good stable family, unblemished by divorce. I will be steadfastly loyal.

Even if, some day, my heart is not in it anymore, I will somehow sacrifice and make it work for the sake of the kids. I’ll be old anyway so it’ll be OK. It’s not like the alternatives are much better anyway.

[UCGal]

[quote=CA renter]
And please do not do what UCGal did, where she claimed that I said something that was neither stated nor implied.
[/quote]

I quoted you directly, previously, showing you directly compared a nanny working 40 hours a week to a SAHP working 24×7 – and pointed out the comparison was invalid because the working parent does the labor for free (like a SAHP) for the rest of the week outside the nanny’s hours.

That and your rants about feminism that seem so far off track to what mainstream feminism is. You’ve chosen some fringe folks to rant about – even though they aren’t representative, they’re fringe.

Here are some quotes of yours that I have issue with. I agree we’re probably talking past each other.

[quote=CA renter]
How much would you have to pay for someone to be there for your children 24/7? How much to make all the appointments and shuttle people to these appointments and manage all the follow-up? How much to manage a family’s finances — including bill paying, negotiating contracts and doing due diligence on service providers, doing investment research and allocating financial resources? How about a family’s financial/legal business like estate planning, insurance, home purchases, etc…especially if that tends to be managed by one spouse? [/quote]

My issue here is that many households with 2 working parents manage to do many of these tasks without paying outside people. You are comparing what you do 24×7 to what many working parents cram into the remaining 128 hours of the week that they aren’t at work. I’m not saying it doesn’t have value. But it’s unpaid work in the vast majority of households – whether the parents work or not. And outside that 40 hours of work time, parents are with their kids. (16×5 + 24×2).

I went back and re-read your response – and you clearly miss my point.

[quote=CA renter]
I think that people aren’t getting what I’ve posted for some reason. I never said that a SAHP’s work should be valued more than the same work done by someone who works for wages. The point is that if the SAHP isn’t doing these things, then somebody else is. The cost of these things should be ascribed to the value of what a SAHP does. If the parents are both working outside of the home and both sharing these duties, it doesn’t change a thing. This work still has the same value.[/quote]
To the bolded – most of these things (perhaps outside of 40 hours of childcare) are done by working parents in the remaining 128 hours of the week. The tasks still get done. Usually unpaid. By someone who already spent the day working for wages.

My point is: For most households these are unpaid, do it yourself tasks. Sure – you CAN pay to have someone manage your money, run your kids to soccer on the weekends, run the family…. But most of us either can’t afford to pay outside people, or choose not to spend our money that way. You don’t get to count the value as both unpaid earned income and also as saved money. Some families choose to pay for these tasks other choose to do them themselves to save the money.

I am currently not working outside the house and have an 11 year old and 13 year old. I have made the choice to not work outside the home right now – because we were fortunate enough to be able to afford to have this option. It is a CHOICE. It is not one that I get paid for nor do I expect income, imputed or virtual. In fact, it had tangible negative impact on our income stream. (obviously.)

I am mostly doing the same tasks I did prior to retiring – just less time crunched to do it. My house might be a little cleaner, though. I don’t really see that I am owed money or that my “value contributed to the household” went up. My amount of sleep went up because I’m no longer juggling as much… I can pace out the tasks of cleaning/yardwork/estate planning/negotiating contracts/child-rearing/coaching robotics teams/baking bread from scratch/investing/travel planning/meal prep. But I was doing all of that prior to retiring – and working a 32 hour work week.

Obviously you add value to your household with everything you do. That’s why you made the choices you did. Hopefully Mr. CAR isn’t one of the cads you describe who doesn’t appreciate what you do.

But you seem to fail to recognize that many families manage to accomplish most of the tasks you describe, in the hours outside of earning income. Yes – it adds stress to a household and exhaustion to the parents – but it gets done. Usually for no income… but in order to save money so that it can be spent on other things.

Again – You obviously add value to your family. But so do parents who juggle many of the same tasks while working.

[scaredyclassic]

I once at dinner asked everyone who was the STAR of the family. Who it all revolved around. The star of the show if we were a sutcom.

Everyone said themselves!

[scaredyclassic]

I’m stressed out some days. Time feels compressed at moments.

It used to be really bad.

[NotCranky]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]My bad, when you say you want to see something or hear something I assume it means you want to apply some amount of wisdom to it and maybe assimilate something new. When you consistently don’t, I think you lied. Definitely my bad.[/quote]

in trial advocacy class at law school, we learn never to call a police officer a liar (or any other witness either) unless it is absolutely, unequivovally the case that the jury knows for certain they are intentionally not tellign the truth, with t he sole purpose to deceive.

and even then, it is alsways better to find a way not to call someone a liar, and let the jury draw its own conclusion, even when the evidnece seems to support no other inference but the telling of a lie.

we need permission from the jury to do so, because the word itself is so inflammatory and distasteful. it is ok to claim that what they are saying is not the truth, and perhaps even that the officer knew at the time she said it that she was not telling the truth, or was misguided, or misled, but the four letter word liar, this word must be kept under lock and key, and sonly very very rarely deployed, for it is the nuclear weapon of trial…and people dont like the offhand deployment of our nuclear arsenal.

we like to assume our fellow citizens are acting in good faith, and have not come to intentionally lie. its difficult to get anywhere when we call one another liars, because it is fighting words.

it never impresses the ultimate factfinder because it is up to the factfinder to determine the credibility of witnesses,a dn it is always betetr to give the reasons leading up to the conclusion that one is a liar, rather than the bold conclusory statement that one is a liar.

that way, the factfinder has the facts at hand to draw the conclusion himself…and that, that is far more powerful in terms of persuasive argument.[/quote]

Yes, I blew it in that exact way.

What was that saying about not mistaking something else for Malice?

I do think letting things like Men are abandoners and other such claims fly is dangerous. That’t what dialectic is for( without the accusations of lying). Thinking of the Salem Witch trials, though I am not sure it fits. Seems like it does.

[NotCranky]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=zk][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]
Maybe there are ways that there is less imitation and no big problems moving on if we change the predispostion to negativity about anything but a nuclear monogamous household and don’t teach our kids it.

Like you said we are wired differently than we think does what we are doing really respect that or are we respecting current family dynamic religion and happier if we do because we are stupid. I know I am can’t handle anything different either but admit it could be stupidity at play too.[/quote]
wel, yeah…

but im talking more about just living in the world the way it is…not the way it could be…[/quote]

In my opinion, the crux of the problem is this: We are not wired to live in a nuclear family. We are wired to live in tribes. Tribes where the whole tribe helps watch over our kids after they reach a certain age. Today’s family arrangements (and the similar arrangements in most cultures since civilization began) are not really compatible with our wiring.

We can’t go back to living in tribes. So what do we do? I don’t think there’s a good answer. There might be a better answer. (Better than the one we have now, but still not good.) And in order to find a better answer, we’d need to first be honest with ourselves about who we are. About how humans are wired. With religion in the way, it would be pretty difficult for any such understanding to get any traction. To become widespread. Religious people only want to hear about how god made us. They don’t want to hear that we evolved in bands and tribes and therefore we’re not wired to live in their god’s preferred arrangements.

Of course, religion isn’t the only problem. I think that any large-scale, thoughtful, cooperative, realistic, non-judgmental reconsideration of the basic family unit is beyond the ability of such a combative species, with or without religion.

In the meantime, the best we can do is try to figure out how to best live in the world as it is, not the world as it should be, (as scaredy said), while being honest about our wiring (as Russ said).[/quote]

but be careful, because excessive honest regarding wiring can lead to a shortcircuit…[/quote]

It’s o.k to know as best you can his and her wiring, but tread very very lightly on the entrenched cultural paradigm of the day. For instance it seems to me that our society is designed to spread females out to the most males and to respect that. But that’s not how we are wired necessarily. I wouldn’t try to mess with it too much. Not sure if its good for genetic variation or if it waters down our species. It’s where we are at.

[Author]

Posts