Good Manners

[teknight]

*relevant parts bold-ed for your convenience per your post on forum manners*

Personally, I believe hard work has a lot of value, be it physical labor or something that commands monetary rewards. If we base value solely on how much money a certain act brings we are missing all of the soft dollars that add in.

a) the forebears did the hard work 'cause they had no alternative
b) their hard work barely provided for them and their family's subsistence- they got very little for all the work they put in. They were lucky if that little output sustained them.

A good housekeeper does more than keep your place tidy. They keep you healthy. Think about all the dust mites and allergens that would build up if your place wasn't dusted properly. Let's say you do the "bare minimum", you don't move anything out of place, only clean around it. Think of all the mites that could fester themselves under your love seat. Sure you never see it, but you would notice eventually when you have more respiratory infections, which lead you to need medical attention, which costs that hard cash you seem to think is the only measure of value.

And what about cleaning the oven, is that a bare minimum? If not those drippings will attract bugs. Roaches can cause stomach ailments before you even know they are there. Which again means more trips to the doctor and more use of hard dollars.

So if you are speaking solely in hard dollars, you're missing the point of value. Value considers the soft dollars. Profit and loss considers soft dollars. A hard worker is valuable.

OK, so I was dismissive about house cleaning. But are you going to tell me that you need special training (beyond...maybe 30 minutes listening to directions and advice) to know what you have to do to clean a house? From mopping to getting rid of parasites. Do you really want to claim that?
Yes, what you do is important, but it can be done by most of humanity. Whereas only a few people can make computer software, or put together a car, or fix that car, or cure you of your disease, or entertain you for two hours straight, or whatev'. That's the point I'm making. The work is important and hard, but most people should be able to do it. That's what drives down its ultimate value. Nothing's missed anywhere be it soft or hard or crunchy dollars.

I didn't address the hard work part: You're right, a hard worker is better than a lazy worker. Absolutely. But what exactly is stopping one from working hard to clean a house- from floor to ceiling, kitchen to bathroom, roaches to dust mites?

ETA: to put an even finer point on it: housecleaning is unskilled labor. Now, before you bite my head off saying that it takes skill or whatever, all I'm saying is that it would take very little time to find someone to do the same job, train them to do it, and they might do it for less than you are willing to accept as a fair wage. That's all I'm saying. Yes, you've learned your tips and tricks and know what cleaning agent works best where, etc. But it'd take very little to get someone else to know all that stuff. Would they be as competent as you? I dunno. But why assume they'd suck?

 

[Tabea]

To keep the kids fed, clothed, and alive takes very little energy.

You haven't spent much time looking after babys or toddlers, have you?

It does actually take a surprising amount of energy to look after them all day.

I also think you underestimate the economic benefit of good parenting for a society. Children who have experienced decent parenting are generally more likely to get good jobs and thus to pay taxes instead of drawing benefits. They are also less likely to commit crimes.

 

[teknight]

You haven't spent much time looking after babys or toddlers, have you?

It does actually take a surprising amount of energy to look after them all day.

I also think you underestimate the economic benefit of good parenting for a society. Children who have experienced decent parenting are generally more likely to get good jobs and thus to pay taxes instead of drawing benefits. They are also less likely to commit crimes.

Gutten abend.
You've not read anything else of what I've been saying, have you? Great.
Look up above where I'm going back and forth with JM.

But I'll repeat myself, 'cause it is a BDSM board, and I am a masochist: all that attention makes one a good parent. However, kids will survive and grow with far worse parents than that. Yes, they shouldn't have to. It's horrible that any of them would have to, but, amazingly it happens.

And let me guess, you're a parent, who has a vested interest in their kids, right? Or an educator?

 

[the captians wench]

a) the forebears did the hard work 'cause they had no alternative
b) their hard work barely provided for them and their family's subsistence- they got very little for all the work they put in. They were lucky if that little output sustained them.


OK, so I was dismissive about house cleaning. But are you going to tell me that you need special training (beyond...maybe 30 minutes listening to directions and advice) to know what you have to do to clean a house? From mopping to getting rid of parasites. Do you really want to claim that?
Yes, what you do is important, but it can be done by most of humanity. Whereas only a few people can make computer software, or put together a car, or fix that car, or cure you of your disease, or entertain you for two hours straight, or whatev'. That's the point I'm making. The work is important and hard, but most people should be able to do it. That's what drives down its ultimate value. Nothing's missed anywhere be it soft or hard or crunchy dollars.

I didn't address the hard work part: You're right, a hard worker is better than a lazy worker. Absolutely. But what exactly is stopping one from working hard to clean a house- from floor to ceiling, kitchen to bathroom, roaches to dust mites?

1) I'm not a housewife. Just so we're clear on that.

2) You would be very shocked to see how many people can't pass a basic sanitation station observation check after being trained for 30 minutes and watching a video on the subject matter. Granted that there are variations in keeping a house clean and sanitized and keeping a restauraunt clean and sanitized, but the later will effect more people so I think it's fair for me to use that as my basis. I also train a good deal of people on this process, so again, I think it's a good place to draw examples from. I can't tell you how many times I have to tell some one that they need new mop water because what they have is durty. And not just once, several times, to the same person.

3) By your logic anyone can be a doctor or computer programer. Hell how many people use basic HTML on a regular basis these days? All they need is training and if they are willing to aply themselves they can achieve these positions.

4) No, the "forebarers" did have a choice. You do it, or you die. You always have a choice. And you can always choose to half ass something as well. They worked hard and they survieved. That was worth every bit of the work. But this brings to my attention how you see what brings value. It seems to me that doing less physical labor is how you define bringing value to life. So being able to spend more time mucking about the computer makes you successful? An asset to society? I hope I'm wrong in this analyis, but that's the impression you're giving me. Less physical work= more valuable position and better way of life

 

[teknight]

3) By your logic anyone can be a doctor or computer programer. Hell how many people use basic HTML on a regular basis these days? All they need is training and if they are willing to aply themselves they can achieve these positions.

Well yeah. If they study the stuff, yes, they can be software neuro engineer particle physicists, for all I care. That ignores a bunch of personal traits, and what not, but, yeah, basically most people could be trained to do most jobs (given a great set of conditions, not met in today's society.)

4) No, the "forbearer" did have a choice. You do it, or you die. You always have a choice. And you can always choose to half ass something as well. They worked hard and they survieved. That was worth every bit of the work. But this brings to my attention how you see what brings value. It seems to me that doing less physical labor is how you define bringing value to life. So being able to spend more time mucking about the computer makes you successful? An asset to society? I hope I'm wrong in this analyis, but that's the impression you're giving me. Less physical work= more valuable position and better way of life

OK. Fair point. Why are cleaning staff paid so little and managers paid so much? Why isn't your average farmer a billionaire? Why is the flight crew paid more than the air hosts/hostesses? Can you explain that to me, since I'm wrong in pointing out economic facts.
Also, for what it's worth, their hard work didn't always guarantee survival. If the local lord decided to wage war in your village, or if last year's drought decided to continue into next year, then, all the hard work in the world wouldn't have helped you.
Have I been saying forebears all this time? Oops.

My point is not that the work is denigrating, but, it came in reply to a notion that modern women owe something to their predecesors...but I'd need to find the exact point that was made.

 

[eastern sun]

You weren't shouting. True. But are you going to tell me that all parents throughout history have had the ability and means to be as good as one can be in 2010? I'm just trying to tie it back to your previous post.
And I was reacting to a vague (and thus ominous to me) statement by ES: "Parents need a working knowledge of medicine, nutrition, education and psychology."
Again- throughout history, people have raised kids without a lick of medical knowledge, nutritional contents of foods and psychology. Let's argue that education is time period specific, so, that's a moot point. Regardless, these 4 quintessential parenting skills (much as they might be worthwhile today) haven't always been necessary (nor available) for kids to develop into adults, correct? That's what led to my further reductionist claims.

And her claim was ominous because, what constitutes "working knowledge"? Who decides? The parent? By mere virtue of being a parent? I'm putting words in her mouth, but, still such a vague statement still leaves room for a lot of interpretation. Granted, I'm not a parent, nor am I due to be one. As such, I've not looked up what resources are available, but pardon me if I'd chose to defer to specialists (much as they're fallible humans) on such topics as medicine and nutrition, and not assume that whatever I've cobbled together as "working knowledge" is adequate. (Ha. I probably sound like a nervous first time parent .)
I also happen to have a degree in Psych. It's only a Bachelor's, so it carries very little weight (I'm basically qualified to do jack in the field of psych, and I'll be the first to admit it), but saying that "parents have a working knowledge of psychology" is, frankly, insulting and mind-boggling. (I don't hold degrees in those other fields, or I'd probably feel as strongly.) The mere fact that, as a human being, you learn how to interact with kids, or, that as a human animal you know how to interact with your own young, and react to them, doesn't give you a working knowledge of anything.
Pardon me if going out and reading whatever's on the shelf at Borders or your local library doesn't automatically constitute good knowledge- regardless of how many PhDs the writer claims to have or what rank the book holds in Amazon's standings.
</rant>
Back to the point at hand (and pardon the repetition): all that "knowledge" and all these parenting skills one can acquire today may have been absent throughout most of human history- and yet kids still survived and grew and developed into "functional" adults- I use "" because what was considered normal 1000 years ago wouldn't fly today necessarily, so I'm just pointing out the disconnect-.

Should a good parent do their utmost? Totally. Is it absolutely necessary? I'd say history'd indicate otherwise.

You are failing to take into account the vast wealth of knowledge that isn't written down, but has been passed from family to family throughout the history of mankind, regarding the healing properties of herbs and food, and ways of making children conform and behave in ways suitable to the culture they are born into. Before I had children of my own, I didn't recognize the existence of this knowledge either.

Where does all our current knowledge come from? Do you think it exploded fully formed from the head of 20th Century Zeus?

You and I are part of a long stream of humanity that finds itself in this moment we are in. You cannot cut yourself off from the foundation of all that came before, and still have solid ground to stand on.

Children survived because their parents had knowledge and skills. To think otherwise is to belittle the profound efforts of humanity to raise its young, a task that takes many years longer than most species on the earth, and the subsequent impact that has had on the development of human culture.

 

[Cattypuss]

Um... am I missing something here or is the reason many people, even when being tested, don't clean a house or restaurant properly.....well, is it that it's boring, tedious, unskilled work and many people tend only to put real effort into things they find interesting and stimulating?

Take 10 randomly-chosen uneducated people and ask them to clean a restaurant to health inspectorate standards after a 30-min training video, and those who fail will do so through lack of motivation/enjoyment, NOT though inability to understand what needs doing.

Take 10 randomly-chosen uneducated people and ask them to diagnose and treat the people in a GP's waiting room, again after a 30-minute training video, and those who fail will do so through lack of knowledge. All the motivation and enjoyment in the world cannot magic medical knowledge and judgement into them.

While I disagree with some of what teknight has been saying I have to say that his assertion that "anyone can clean a house" (barring physical or mental disability) is correct. Anyone CAN clean a house. It's just that not everyone WANTS to.

 

[eastern sun]

Um... am I missing something here or is the reason many people, even when being tested, don't clean a house or restaurant properly.....well, is it that it's boring, tedious, unskilled work and many people tend only to put real effort into things they find interesting and stimulating?

Take 10 randomly-chosen uneducated people and ask them to clean a restaurant to health inspectorate standards after a 30-min training video, and those who fail will do so through lack of motivation/enjoyment, NOT though inability to understand what needs doing.

Take 10 randomly-chosen uneducated people and ask them to diagnose and treat the people in a GP's waiting room, again after a 30-minute training video, and those who fail will do so through lack of knowledge. All the motivation and enjoyment in the world cannot magic medical knowledge and judgement into them.

While I disagree with some of what teknight has been saying I have to say that his assertionthat "anyone can clean a house" (barring physical or mental disability) is correct. Anyone CAN clean a house. It's just that not everyone WANTS to.

And that . . . I'd like to suggest . . . is why we don't value it.

 

[Cattypuss]

And that . . . I'd like to suggest . . . is why we don't value it.

Yes - absolutely - agreed.

 

[Tabea]

Gutten abend.
You've not read anything else of what I've been saying, have you? Great.
Look up above where I'm going back and forth with JM.

But I'll repeat myself, 'cause it is a BDSM board, and I am a masochist: all that attention makes one a good parent. However, kids will survive and grow with far worse parents than that. Yes, they shouldn't have to. It's horrible that any of them would have to, but, amazingly it happens.

And let me guess, you're a parent, who has a vested interest in their kids, right? Or an educator?

Guten Abend!

You guessed wrong. I am neither. Did I guess right regarding your experience with small kids?

I was not referring to perfect parenting. Just the basic tasks take a lot of energy. I've worked as an au pair and I was surprised how draining it was just to feed and dress two toddlers, to make sure they didn't injure themselves or each other, didn't destroy anything, to look after them when they were ill and keep everything clean at the same time.

In former times parents did spend less time with their kids but they had more of them and the older ones spent a lot of time looking after their siblings. The children were also more likely to die.

 

[teknight]

You are failing to take into account the vast wealth of knowledge that isn't written down, but has been passed from family to family throughout the history of mankind, regarding the healing properties of herbs and food, and ways of making children conform and behave in ways suitable to the culture they are born into. Before I had children of my own, I didn't recognize the existence of this knowledge either.

Where does all our current knowledge come from? Do you think it exploded fully formed from the head of 20th Century Zeus?

You're absolutely right. That treasure trove of knowledge does exist, but it doesn't constitute medicine, nutrition nor psychology. Those are fields or science- they're based on a lot of hard core thinking and research. Hear-say is just hear-say, regardless of how steeped in tradition it is. And why is tradition good? Is it its traditional-ness? 'cause, then why don't we practice medieval medicine and rub toads on sores? I'm using a very biased argument to make a point, but my point remains valid. Not all knowledge is equal, even if applying does seem to work out in a select few cases.

 

[teknight]

While I disagree with some of what teknight has been saying I have to say that his assertion that "anyone can clean a house" (barring physical or mental disability) is correct. Anyone CAN clean a house. It's just that not everyone WANTS to.

I can't please everyone?! Damn it. But thank you for an eloquent point, and, at least on this aspect, thank you for understanding what I said, and not assuming more.

Guten Abend!

You guessed wrong. I am neither. Did I guess right regarding your experience with small kids?

I was not referring to perfect parenting. Just the basic tasks take a lot of energy. I've worked as an au pair and I was surprised how draining it was just to feed and dress two toddlers, to make sure they didn't injure themselves or each other, didn't destroy anything, to look after them when they were ill and keep everything clean at the same time.

In former times parents did spend less time with their kids but they had more of them and the older ones spent a lot of time looking after their siblings. The children were also more likely to die.

You sort of are, since you're an au pair, but, touche, I didn't say "Au pair" as an answer choice.
But, let me ask you this: is your patience with the kids superhuman? Did you have to train long and hard to become a good au pair? Is it something that an average man or woman couldn't possibly ever do, this au pairing job?

As for your question- sorry for not answering: no kid experience whatsoever- this will be the point people will harp on, mark my words.

 

[teknight]

Children survived because their parents had knowledge and skills. To think otherwise is to belittle the profound efforts of humanity to raise its young, a task that takes many years longer than most species on the earth, and the subsequent impact that has had on the development of human culture.

Let me put this as subtly as possible: you're wrong. For most of history, people have screwed which has resulted in kids some of the time (sometimes in death for the woman and the unborn baby, unfortunately). Of those kids that were born, a whole host died very young for a ton of reasons, but, primarily 'cause their parents' knowledge wasn't worth crap in terms of medicine. So what did people do, in order to guarantee that at least some kids would survive? They tried to have as many kids as possible- or fucked as often as possible, resulting in a lot of kids (take that any way you will).

Taaa-daaa. Pardon my being so crass, but that's the miracle of humanity's care for children. There have been no profound efforts to do anything. Nowadays modern parents choose to focus and fawn on a small number of kids (for the most part) because they know those kids will survive.

 

[Mohousewife]

I think telling her what she's gonna eat without asking would be bad mannered regardless of a vanilla first date or D/s first date.

Given the example you did, he asked her what looked good and then ordered for her. I don't see anything wrong with that and I think it would fall into an anticipated range of acceptable or even welcomed behavior.

Perhaps the reverse is equally true regarding the manners of the submissive in this situation. Would it be a sign of good manners for her to appreciate that he asked what she liked and then defer to him to order for her?

I agree...I don't see anything wrong with what the man did. I would find it appealing that he ordered for me, and he had very good manners.

 

[teknight]

I agree...I don't see anything wrong with what the man did. I would find it appealing that he ordered for me, and he had very good manners.

The funny thing is that manners are supposed to be universal. Otherwise, you can't apply them, and it's part of the fun of what makes a foreign culture so shocking- you don't know their manners.
Given this assumed universality, then why can't everyone on this thread agree?
Obviously, there exists no good universal code book on this stuff, and I'll point again to a need (maybe not in this thread) to define a new set of "manners/polite behavior."

 

[where]

wow.

So an officer comes up to me see...and she asks....did you see what happened here?

I said no, I think it was a myth....no I mean a chia-pet.

She looks around at all the peices of the bodies strown around the place and looks back at me....and points her stick at my chest.

A chia-pet did this?!

No, no, I corrected myself I mean a chimera...yeah that's it.

Have you been drinking?

No.

Well what do you think happened here? She asked.

I told her, you know how fucked up it is when a bunch of rednecks decide to take a fag out and beat the shit out of them because they can't tolerate them?

Yeah, but what's that got to do with this?

You know how fucked up it is when men get paid more for the same job that women do?

Damn straight I do!

Well I think, with a reverse kind of redneck mentality, a bunch of fags and women just kicked the holy shit out of anyone who had any kind of affiniation for traditional roles. I think they humillated them for their sexual preferences and how they would like them to be in society, then they just started beating on them.

A reverse kind of redneck what? Sir, Are you sure you haven't been drinking?

No maam.

Ok, then what happened next?

One of the seriously bad ass bitches came over to me and said, if anyone asks, nothing happened here, you didn't see nothin. Its all just a myth, got it? Then she told me she would like to have dinner with me sometime.

What did you say?

I said um....I don't eat dinner anymore cause its too dangerous of a sport.

your cute little ad hom was amusing, all the more so because you completely failed to actually offer any supporting evidence that boys are becoming feminised or that the bizarre etiquette that osg seems to think is in some form vanilla in origins.

less funny is your use of the word 'fag'. I wondered if you were being ironic, but it just came over as homophobic.

let me be clear. I don't give a fuck about how people conduct their private lives. if they want to call themselves 'slaves' and have a broom surgically attached to their aresehole and have their master's name branded on their forehead, fine. But when someone makes a statement, especially a contentious statement, then I have a right to challenge them ad I would expect them to back it up with some kind of evidence.

Imagine if I said in a post "all guys who call themselves doms are basically abusive and sexually inadequate bullies". I would be crucified on here and after all the slagging off, one or two people might ask me to support my claims. and quite rightly so. If you are going to make contentious or dubious statements you should be able to back them up.

Not speaking for Rosco, just myself, I see three traditionally feminine ways in which boys (in the US, in general) are now being raised.

1 - Sedentary lifestyle.

2 - Avoidance of physical risk.

3 - Reduced expectation of assuming full responsibility for a family's well-being on becoming an adult.

I don't think that makes our society androgynous. But I do think it would be foolish to presume that such changes aren't having a marked effect on our society.

Thank you. I think all of those things actually apply to women as well. I don't think there is an absolute male/female binary around active/passive, risk taking and responsibility. As a society in the west we are ALL becoming sedentary. it's the nature of how work has gone from manufacturing to being a service industry. I don't agree that we are more risk averse. We place an emphasis on health and safety cause you know, breathing in asbestos dust is bad but then now we have high risk sports instead and please don't tell me american youth doesn't go out and consider that it's not been a good saturday night if they haven't had a scrap at chucking out time.

I'll go with avoidance of responsibility, but again, I don't think it's gendered. As you say there are changes on society and the the shift from having a job for life and fairly static social mobility to a fluctuating form of employment as well as the way the family has become more prone to breakdown means that family life has changed, but I dispute that women were ever in any meaningful numbers exclusively homemakers. There was a brief period between the 1950s and 60s when some working class and many middle class women stayed home whilst the husband worked, but outside of those periods most working class women did a full day in the factory/fields and then came home to tend the house. Kids were cared for by grandparents. Willmott and Young identified this in the 1940s and 50s and predicted the 'type 4' family which seems to be the ideal that so many in this thread are yearning for.

Old code: Male always gives up his seat on a bus to a female.

New code: Healthy, strong person gives up his/her seat on a bus to anyone demonstrably less so.

heh, that made me smile. I think the new code is better, but it amused me that the last time I was on the tube (subway to you yanks), I was offered a seat by an emo youth

I'm getting the impression that many people seem to think that human rights is a zero sum game. When women gain more privilege and status in society, that that somehow by its very occurrence reduces the amount of privilege and status of men.

Am I reading this viewpoint correctly?

ding ding! give that man a cigar!

Those doctors and engineers would have a lot less time for doctoring and engineering, if they had to raise their own children, prepare their own meals, and clean their own toilets.

Of course, absent a willing partner to provide those services, doctors and engineers pay for outside help. Then the economic value of the labor becomes readily apparent. It can actually be quantified, in real dollars and cents.

I know a couple of female doctors married to doctors and they still do the majority of the housework.

"3 - Reduced expectation of assuming full responsibility for a family's well-being on becoming an adult."

Old expectation = boy will grow up to marry someone whose wage earning capacity is much lower than his own, and he will work while she stays home (assuming he can afford it) during the entirety of their time together.

New expectation = boy will grow up to marry someone whose wage earning capacity may lower than, equal to, or in excess of, his own, and she may choose to work for a substantial part (or even the entirety) of their time together.

see, this bolded bit is problematic because it makes the assumption that women stop work when they marry. that is only true in a comparatively small number of cases and during a comparatively short period of time.

wow, "anyone" can clean a house, and most anyone could "look after" a child. wow.

yup. it's amaaaaazing! people the whole world over do it with zero training or guidance.

You haven't spent much time looking after babys or toddlers, have you?

It does actually take a surprising amount of energy to look after them all day.

I also think you underestimate the economic benefit of good parenting for a society. Children who have experienced decent parenting are generally more likely to get good jobs and thus to pay taxes instead of drawing benefits. They are also less likely to commit crimes.

as a stay at home mum for the the first 7 years of my kid's lives, I can say it isn't actually that hard. It can be boring and isolating at times and tough if they have health problems like one of mine did, but not that demanding.

but yeah, good parenting IS important and the more help and support that is available, the better. The problem is because it's devalued and 'natural' then it isn't rewarded or recognised until the damage has been done.

 

[teknight]

yup. it's amaaaaazing! people the whole world over do it with zero training or guidance.




as a stay at home mum for the the first 7 years of my kid's lives, I can say it isn't actually that hard. It can be boring and isolating at times and tough if they have health problems like one of mine did, but not that demanding.

but yeah, good parenting IS important and the more help and support that is available, the better. The problem is because it's devalued and 'natural' then it isn't rewarded or recognised until the damage has been done.

Are you just saying that so I can love you some more? 'cause it wasn't necessary, but it's cute.

 

[where]

1)

4) No, the "forebarers" did have a choice. You do it, or you die. You always have a choice.

that's not really a choice. or it is, but it's a negative choice, so technically not really a choice.

Are you just saying that so I can love you some more? 'cause it wasn't necessary, but it's cute.

I'm saying it because it's true, but feel free to send the love my way

 

[intothewoods]

your cute little ad hom was amusing, all the more so because you completely failed to actually offer any supporting evidence that boys are becoming feminised or that the bizarre etiquette that osg seems to think is in some form vanilla in origins.

less funny is your use of the word 'fag'. I wondered if you were being ironic, but it just came over as homophobic.

let me be clear. I don't give a fuck about how people conduct their private lives. if they want to call themselves 'slaves' and have a broom surgically attached to their aresehole and have their master's name branded on their forehead, fine. But when someone makes a statement, especially a contentious statement, then I have a right to challenge them ad I would expect them to back it up with some kind of evidence.

Imagine if I said in a post "all guys who call themselves doms are basically abusive and sexually inadequate bullies". I would be crucified on here and after all the slagging off, one or two people might ask me to support my claims. and quite rightly so. If you are going to make contentious or dubious statements you should be able to back them up.



Thank you. I think all of those things actually apply to women as well. I don't think there is an absolute male/female binary around active/passive, risk taking and responsibility. As a society in the west we are ALL becoming sedentary. it's the nature of how work has gone from manufacturing to being a service industry. I don't agree that we are more risk averse. We place an emphasis on health and safety cause you know, breathing in asbestos dust is bad but then now we have high risk sports instead and please don't tell me american youth doesn't go out and consider that it's not been a good saturday night if they haven't had a scrap at chucking out time.

I'll go with avoidance of responsibility, but again, I don't think it's gendered. As you say there are changes on society and the the shift from having a job for life and fairly static social mobility to a fluctuating form of employment as well as the way the family has become more prone to breakdown means that family life has changed, but I dispute that women were ever in any meaningful numbers exclusively homemakers. There was a brief period between the 1950s and 60s when some working class and many middle class women stayed home whilst the husband worked, but outside of those periods most working class women did a full day in the factory/fields and then came home to tend the house. Kids were cared for by grandparents. Willmott and Young identified this in the 1940s and 50s and predicted the 'type 4' family which seems to be the ideal that so many in this thread are yearning for.



heh, that made me smile. I think the new code is better, but it amused me that the last time I was on the tube (subway to you yanks), I was offered a seat by an emo youth



ding ding! give that man a cigar!



I know a couple of female doctors married to doctors and they still do the majority of the housework.



see, this bolded bit is problematic because it makes the assumption that women stop work when they marry. that is only true in a comparatively small number of cases and during a comparatively short period of time.




yup. it's amaaaaazing! people the whole world over do it with zero training or guidance.




as a stay at home mum for the the first 7 years of my kid's lives, I can say it isn't actually that hard. It can be boring and isolating at times and tough if they have health problems like one of mine did, but not that demanding.

but yeah, good parenting IS important and the more help and support that is available, the better. The problem is because it's devalued and 'natural' then it isn't rewarded or recognised until the damage has been done.

I agree with most everything here but I no longer have any idea what we all were arguing about.

ETA - Well, depends on your definition of "demanding." But there are some moms out there who act like they are the fucking second coming of Jesus or something. There are always the extremes.

 

[Tabea]

I can't please everyone?! Damn it. But thank you for an eloquent point, and, at least on this aspect, thank you for understanding what I said, and not assuming more.

You sort of are, since you're an au pair, but, touche, I didn't say "Au pair" as an answer choice.
But, let me ask you this: is your patience with the kids superhuman? Did you have to train long and hard to become a good au pair? Is it something that an average man or woman couldn't possibly ever do, this au pairing job?

As for your question- sorry for not answering: no kid experience whatsoever- this will be the point people will harp on, mark my words.

I was an au pair six years ago, I don't think that means I am an educator.

I often felt that super human patience was needed. The kids were quite intelligent and thanks to great parenting they learned that they only had to cry long enough to get everything they wanted. It turns out kids can want a lot (different plate, toast cut differently, different juice ...). They cried all the time. Their mother always slept long, had emergency appointments at the nail studio and beauty parlor during my "free" time, remembered long standing dinner invitations when I was about to go out, seriously expected me to side with her during arguments with her husband and got me to do everything in the household she didn't want to do.

I do actually think that not everybody can work as an au pair. You couldn't, for example, as you need experience with kids to be hired. It's hard work, you often deal with spoilt children and have to please difficult parents who will take advantage of you, treat you badly and fire you on the spot if you complain. You are also expected to work at any time without any advance notice.

I don't want to harp on your lack of experience but it means that you can't understand how much energy is needed to provide the basics for a kid.

 

[teknight]

I'm saying it because it's true, but feel free to send the love my way

Love, love, love, love, love. Let me know if you need more!

I agree with most everything here but I no longer have any idea what we all were arguing about.

What good manners are and how they apply in a BDSM context.
Some are arguing that manners are dead and belong to a halcyon age....and everyone's nitpicking. Does that clarify things?

 

[teknight]

I don't want to harp on your lack of experience but it means that you can't understand how much energy is needed to provide the basics for a kid.

And yet we just had a mom say that it wasn't that difficult. Granted, it's three opinions, so, statistically insignificant, but it does go to make a point, doesn't it?

And I will harp on your limited experience, 'cause, why not?

 

[where]

And yet we just had a mom say that it wasn't that difficult. Granted, it's three opinions, so, statistically insignificant, but it does go to make a point, doesn't it?

And I will harp on your limited experience, 'cause, why not?

being an au pair is totally different to being a mum. to paraphrase, hell is other people's children.

 

[intothewoods]

Love, love, love, love, love. Let me know if you need more!

What good manners are and how they apply in a BDSM context.
Some are arguing that manners are dead and belong to a halcyon age....and everyone's nitpicking. Does that clarify things?

No, because I am distracted by this discussion about the value of good parenting.

 

[teknight]

No, because I am distracted by this discussion about the value of good parenting.

I think I was just called rude....on the internet. The nerve!

OK. Answer me this question: Why can't we all agree on what good manners are? And is there a need for a new code of manners?

ETA: Hmmm....did I start this thread-jack-train-wreck? I replied to ES, who was replying to my on topic(-ish) rant....
Damn it! I just called myself rude....for thinking!!