Pollitical Corectness

[LovetoGiveRoses]

And yes, that used to be the accepted wisdom for centuries, until some researchers finally decided to actually question it. Evolutionary science has added a good biological basis for this not being the case as well, so if you go looking for studies I'd suggest looking in that field as well.

If you're arguing that women don't bond with infants during pregnancy, I'm going to laugh, and laugh, and laugh and laugh. LOL.

 

[crysede]

You argue that all "nurturing" preferences of women stem from societal pressure. I am pointing out that I think there may be more to it than that. You submitted the argument, all I need to do is cast some doubt on it. There is lots of doubt. Without that point, your whole argument becomse unsubstantiated and inconclusive.

No I don't - I have said over and over again that I am not claiming that science proves that women and men are equally nurturing - I'm saying that this is the most reasonable explanation.

Since your counter explanation is not reasonable, mine still stands as the most reasonable to accept. That's how things generally work in the world - there are few, if any, truths that we can know - so in order to get anywhere we look at the evidence, advance theories, and accept the one that is the most reasonable.

 

[crysede]

If you're arguing that women don't bond with infants during pregnancy, I'm going to laugh, and laugh, and laugh and laugh. LOL.

I'm arguing that many women do not, and that even if bonding occurs, it does not begin and end during pregnancy, nor is it some exclusive ability of women's.

*shugs* You can laugh if you want (just maybe it would be best not do it to the face of the women who have talked about their lack of bonding until after their child was born), but people laughed when someone said the earth was round too - so it's not a very convincing rebuttal.

 

[Ishmael]

Ishmael - Romans non-racist?! Let's not pretend that all races were equally "equal" in the eyes of Rome - every Roman knew that those Germanic barbarians were essentially filthy animals human form, and they were quite open in asserting this fact. That was no better than we Europeans claiming that blacks are animals.Most is nearly all, and yes you can but they will be older studies, or the work a few (meaning a very, very few old-school phycologists, whose work has been rather well discredited).

Hmmmmmmmmm, where did I say they weren't racist?

Further, to describe someone as an animal is not quite the same as believing they are of animal origin. Is it? The term is still used today and is applied to people that are not culturally acceptable to the people using the term. When applied to an entire group, it is racist. But it is a far cry from the notion that they truly are of animal origin. That would have had a profound effect on the acceptable dietary standards of the day, wouldn't it? (H. G. Wells nailed that one pretty well in "The Time Machine".)

The Roman's applied that term to more than the Germanic tribes. They weren't all that enthused with the Carthaginians either.

Ishmael

 

[crysede]

You argue that all "nurturing" preferences of women stem from societal pressure.

Oh, and I also said that it is most likely that the desire to nurture - found in the vast majority of human beings - is most likely inherent in our humanity.

 

[Ishmael]

Which is why I support society holding both parties equally responsible rather than holding neither party responsible, or only one responsible.

And while there is a trend towards breast feeding, the trend is to continue it for only 1-2 months, not exactly great reason to argue for women being primarily responsible for the full 16 years of childhood.

The 16 year thing is a realtively new phenomena in society. Up until post WWII the male children spent most of their time with the father after the age of 6 or so. They still do in primarily agrarian settings. The change can be mostly blamed on the trend towards urbanization and the distances that are now commuted by all workers and has little or nothing to do with 'female oppression'. This same trend acts against the mother that chooses to work as well. Most fathers still do spend as much time as possible with their children and especially the male children.

Now if you really wanted to make a truly substantive change in society, you should force the father to raise the daughters and the mothers to raise the sons. You would see a profound change. What the nature of that change would be is open to question as far as being a benefit to society.

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

No I don't - I have said over and over again that I am not claiming that science proves that women and men are equally nurturing - I'm saying that this is the most reasonable explanation.

Since your counter explanation is not reasonable, mine still stands as the most reasonable to accept. That's how things generally work in the world - there are few, if any, truths that we can know - so in order to get anywhere we look at the evidence, advance theories, and accept the one that is the most reasonable.

I didn't provide a counter argument. All I did was discredit your position. I don't need to provide a counter argument.

It's not the most reasonable explanation because: 1) women choose that role (of primary caregiver) in the majority of cases (not all, a majority). The fact that some choose not to doesn't refute the position that most still do. It's like saying that some men are over 7' tall, therefore all men must be over 7' tall.

Without that premise, your whole position falls apart.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Since the Roman's had a legacy as a Republic, many voices were heard, similar to our society. Some were racist and some weren't.

Evidence that they weren't entirely racist is that they took talent wherever they could find it and raised it up. Spain was conquered early in the ascendancy of Rome, 2-3rd century BC and many enslaved. However, in the middle part of the empire, a Spaniard becomes Emporer, I believe it was Trajan, though I don't recall exactly.

In the early empire, only Romans were citizens. In later years, 'citizenship' was offered to others from the Italian penninsula and even to other countries.

It changes and is difficult to categorize with a simple statement.

 

[crysede]

Hmmmmmmmmm, where did I say they weren't racist?

Any person could be a slave in Roman times. There are instances, many in fact, where free men and women sold themselves into slavery as a means of achieving an advantageous position. The Roman's did not discriminate by gender, religion, or ethnicity.

When one thinks of slavery one naturally thinks of field hands and house servants, and this was part of the Roman use of slaves too to be sure. But most Romans set their slaves up in business. Think of it as an early form of the Corporation where the slave holder was the CEO and the slaves were the managers on the scene. They operated more or less independently and were only responsible to keep accurate books and pay the slave owner his share. Generally upon the death of the slave holder, these men and women were emancipated and given the business that they had run as a bequeathment. This is the business model of the Roman's and the means by which they not only increased their own wealth, but that of the Empire as well.

To me, this looked like you were claiming that all slaves - regardless of "gender, religion, or ethnicity" - were treated in this egalitarian fashion.

Further, to describe someone as an animal is not quite the same as believing they are of animal origin. Is it? The term is still used today and is applied to people that are not culturally acceptable to the people using the term. When applied to an entire group, it is racist. But it is a far cry from the notion that they truly are of animal origin. That would have had a profound effect on the acceptable dietary standards of the day, wouldn't it? (H. G. Wells nailed that one pretty well in "The Time Machine".)

I think there could be a strong case made for asserting that the line between calling someone an animal and believing they are animal, rather than human, in nature has not always been very clear. I'd have to go back and refresh my memory to be certain, but it seems to me that the Roman scholars, and the modern (19th and 20th century) day proponents of racial-eugenics, did believe that some races either were animal in nature, or were at least mostly animal (more animal than human) in nature.

The lack of cannibalism is a good potential refutation - but it was sometimes the case that these races were hunted for sport, like game, so there might be room to challenge the position that they were not actually treated like animals.

On a side note, I think that Wells' example of the consumption of the consuming class was delightfully poetic justice - not to mention showing brilliant foresight since we have essentially become race of mindless consumers: lazily wandering around in our styes and gobbling up what ever crap is handed to us without questioning what it is, who it's from, or why we should eat it.

 

[crysede]

I didn't provide a counter argument. All I did was discredit your position. I don't need to provide a counter argument.

It's not the most reasonable explanation because: 1) women choose that role (of primary caregiver) in the majority of cases (not all, a majority). The fact that some choose not to doesn't refute the position that most still do. It's like saying that some men are over 7' tall, therefore all men must be over 7' tall.

Without that premise, your whole position falls apart.

I never made the claim that ALL women do - that would be silly, clearly some women do not (refer back to my statements about privilege, and my statements to Ishmael regarding why I do not use the universal quantifier). My position is that assuming social pressure continues to play a large role is the most reasonable - and at the moment it is not even weakened by your claim, let alone fallen apart.

Your 'discrediting' was to say that the majority of women would make this choice even in the absence of the social pressure (which you have agreed is present). This claim does not weaken my argument unless you can provide some explanation of why social pressure used to pressure women, but has suddenly ceased to do so. If you cannot then your claim is inherently contradictory and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. The amount of effect your claim has on my argument, is determined by how strong an argument you can make for the soundness and validity of your claim.

To insist other wise to suggest that the claim that the people choosing to work today would nearly all continue to do so if they were not receiving any compensation, and then to claim that this refuted the position that the compensation you give employees influences whether they want to work for you, without providing any proof, nor any explanation of why compensation has always played a role before, but suddenly doesn't matter now.

 

[crysede]

The 16 year thing is a realtively new phenomena in society. Up until post WWII the male children spent most of their time with the father after the age of 6 or so. They still do in primarily agrarian settings.

This was true of all children in our society - they either worked in the family business, were apprenticed, or became indentured servants. On farms in this country the boys didn't go off with the father on their own, the entire family generally worked the land out of necessity. Childhood effectively ended when you became old enough to work (generally 8-9 rather than 6 I think, wasn't it?), you were then expected to take on responsibility and become productive members of society. This doesn't explain why women were assumed to be the only one's responsible for the care of the offspring while they were still children needing care.

Since breast feeding was deemed only to be acceptable for 6 months at most (and women who could afford to were socially pressured not to breast feed, but rather to send the child to live with a wet nurse until it was weaned), breast feeding still seems a rather unconvincing argument for why women supposedly have more of a bond with their children than men do.

The change can be mostly blamed on the trend towards urbanization and the distances that are now commuted by all workers and has little or nothing to do with 'female oppression'. This same trend acts against the mother that chooses to work as well. Most fathers still do spend as much time as possible with their children and especially the male children.

The father's I interact with on a regular basis seem to enjoy being with their daughters just as much as with their sons. And yes, fathers do like spending time with their children, this is what I've been saying - in general mothers and fathers both like being with their children because wanting to nurture children is generally part of human nature.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I never made the claim that ALL women do - that would be silly, clearly some women do not (refer back to my statements about privilege, and my statements to Ishmael regarding why I do not use the universal quantifier). My position is that assuming social pressure continues to play a large role is the most reasonable - and at the moment it is not even weakened by your claim, let alone fallen apart.

Your 'discrediting' was to say that the majority of women would make this choice even in the absence of the social pressure (which you have agreed is present). This claim does not weaken my argument unless you can provide some explanation of why social pressure used to pressure women, but has suddenly ceased to do so. If you cannot then your claim is inherently contradictory and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. The amount of effect your claim has on my argument, is determined by how strong an argument you can make for the soundness and validity of your claim.

I'm saying that the "social pressure" that you refer to (for women to have children and to be the primary caregiver for young children) may not be some sort of 'invented social pressure'. I agree there's pressure, not necessarily "social" only though. You seem to think this is an "invented" pressure is similar to a prefered fashion in clothing (albeit a longstanding fashion LOL) than some sort of a natural phenomena and that somehow it's "unfair" to women. You believe it's artificial, that is not necessarily "natural". I believe that it's largely a natural phenomena that women take a primary role in childbearing and early child caregiving. I don't need to further define "natural phenomena" even though you insist that I should..I'm not making the premise or conclusion, you are, all I need to do is refute your point. All I have to do to discredit your point is to show that a preponderance of women (not all) choose to become mothers and primary caregivers for young children (whether they choose a career outside of work or not). My position has common sense on it's side, yours doesn't.

I give evidence that: 1) most women choose that role even though they have other choices (a natural phenomena) and 2) most women retain that role even if they are also working outside the home. The "bonding" argument, that women "bond" while they're pregnant is in support of #1 above. The fact that in some cases men become the primary caregiver and that some women prefer not to doesn't change the fact that most women choose to. I guess we can never get rid of the bell curve eh?

I don't think that it's ceased to so so at all. I think that women are taking on more responsibility now. Some enjoy it, others don't. I'm glad that women can find fulfillment in other ways, it enrichs our society.

Your only real supporting point is that some women don't cotton to being the primary caregivers for young children and that there doesn't seem to be any evidence against men taking this role. This is so weak a premise as to be laughable. While true in some cases, it is but a small set against a huge majority where women choose to be the primary caregiver.

To insist other wise to suggest that the claim that the people choosing to work today would nearly all continue to do so if they were not receiving any compensation, and then to claim that this refuted the position that the compensation you give employees influences whether they want to work for you, without providing any proof, nor any explanation of why compensation has always played a role before, but suddenly doesn't matter now.

What does working with no pay have to do with anything? Who wants to work without pay?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

This was true of all children in our society - they either worked in the family business, were apprenticed, or became indentured servants. On farms in this country the boys didn't go off with the father on their own, the entire family generally worked the land out of necessity. Childhood effectively ended when you became old enough to work (generally 8-9 rather than 6 I think, wasn't it?), you were then expected to take on responsibility and become productive members of society. This doesn't explain why women were assumed to be the only one's responsible for the care of the offspring while they were still children needing care.

Since breast feeding was deemed only to be acceptable for 6 months at most (and women who could afford to were socially pressured not to breast feed, but rather to send the child to live with a wet nurse until it was weaned), breast feeding still seems a rather unconvincing argument for why women supposedly have more of a bond with their children than men do.The father's I interact with on a regular basis seem to enjoy being with their daughters just as much as with their sons. And yes, fathers do like spending time with their children, this is what I've been saying - in general mothers and fathers both like being with their children because wanting to nurture children is generally part of human nature.

Well, I still don't see many men providing breastfeeding services, there seems to be some sort of biological reason against it. I don't see many families where men are the primary caregiver (even amongst families with working mothers). Yes, fathers like spending time with their children and nurturing them, but that doesn't prove or support the point that mothers don't usually choose to be the primary caregivers. It seems the onus is on you to prove that this isn't a natural phenomena.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I never made the claim that ALL women do - that would be silly, clearly some women do not (refer back to my statements about privilege, and my statements to Ishmael regarding why I do not use the universal quantifier). My position is that assuming social pressure continues to play a large role is the most reasonable - and at the moment it is not even weakened by your claim, let alone fallen apart.

What does priviledge have to do with this situation? The discussion of women, pregnancy and early child caregiving isn't a class discussion.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

From the other direction...

You claim that 50-50 sharing between men and women for early childcare would be "fair".

I say that you could scream from the mountaintop all you want, and you'd just get blue in the face..or maybe red.

I can just see a government agent outside the hospital giving out cards..a pink card and the mother gets to go home with the baby and the father goes back to work..get a blue card and the father goes home with the baby and the mother goes back to work. There's nothing but "social pressures" causing the difference right? Why wouldn't this work?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Your example of the mother and the daughter PhD graduate is very interesting. It's too bad the mother said that she'd have preferred a grandchild than a PhD and if I'd been in the same situation as the mother I'd have done differently. However, it's very descriptive of the choices that people make. Now, the PhD graduate can still have a career and a family. But, yes, parents do expect her to have a family if she can and I don't think it's unfair.

Women are "in charge of" reproduction. Period. Even the courts agree.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I'm arguing that many women do not, and that even if bonding occurs, it does not begin and end during pregnancy, nor is it some exclusive ability of women's.

I'm still laughing. I can get pregnant?

I never said it was an "exclusive" ability of women. In fact, most fathers I know are very avid participants in their children's upbringing and are nurturing. That doesn't change the fact that every family that I know of where the mother is still part of the picture, the mother is the primary caregiver for young children.

Since your point is so far off from what I'd call "common experience", please cite your "scientific" evidence that seems so counter to common sense.

*shugs* You can laugh if you want (just maybe it would be best not do it to the face of the women who have talked about their lack of bonding until after their child was born), but people laughed when someone said the earth was round too - so it's not a very convincing rebuttal.

I've seen evidence that the world is round. It fits into a knowledge structure that makes for common sense also (moon phases, tides, eclipse prediction etc). However, I've seen nothing in your position that includes any evidence or that makes sense in light of common experience.

Provide some evidence. Even if you could provide some results based on some qualititative study, I'd have to question the methodology and how they measured "bonding" with a woman and a fetus. My experience, (I'd venture to say a fairly common experience) is watching women come home from the hospital hugging their babies tight. Do they hug their babies tight because of "societal pressure" tells them to since, you argue, they haven't "bonded" with the baby yet?

And, as far as the flat/round thing, I can see for myself that pregnant women are round.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Your example of the mother and the daughter PhD graduate is very interesting. It's too bad the mother said that she'd have preferred a grandchild than a PhD and if I'd been in the same situation as the mother I'd have done differently. However, it's very descriptive of the choices that people make. Now, the PhD graduate can still have a career and a family. But, yes, parents do expect her to have a family if she can and I don't think it's unfair.

Women are "in charge of" reproduction. Period. Even the courts agree.

Is it "unfair" that society wishes children from those who are "in charge" of it?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Let's start with the Roman's

Any person could be a slave in Roman times. There are instances, many in fact, where free men and women sold themselves into slavery as a means of achieving an advantageous position. The Roman's did not discriminate by gender, religion, or ethnicity.

When one thinks of slavery one naturally thinks of field hands and house servants, and this was part of the Roman use of slaves too to be sure. But most Romans set their slaves up in business. Think of it as an early form of the Corporation where the slave holder was the CEO and the slaves were the managers on the scene. They operated more or less independently and were only responsible to keep accurate books and pay the slave owner his share. Generally upon the death of the slave holder, these men and women were emancipated and given the business that they had run as a bequeathment. This is the business model of the Roman's and the means by which they not only increased their own wealth, but that of the Empire as well.

Slaves were discriminated against in Roman society because, well because they were property. Not citizens. They had no rights to speak of beyond the good intentions of the owner. However the Roman's were very socially concious of the role of their slaves in society and actively castigated any slave owner that was abusive or otherwise practiced ill treatment of his/her slaves. And as social status was paramount to the Roman of that day, these castigations were very effective.

A great deal of this practice was carried over into the way that many of the landed gentry dealt with their slave in the America's. After all, many of these men and women were students of the classical literature forms and were quite familiar with Roman and Greek ways.

The misguided portion of the attitude towards slaves in the America's had to do with perceptions of the black race. It was believed that they were particularly suited for repititious labor in hot climates. Hence their primary use was in the cultivation of such crops as rice, sugar cane, and cotton. Cotton and sugar cane being the primary 'cash' crops of the America's. The greatest error of belief being that the black man was not thought capable of activities beyond that for which they were used.

I do not excuse these beliefs, but that is the prevailing attitude of the times. By most ALL of the European peoples.

There is some bodies of works out there that postulate the position that the Africans were not considered 'human' in the fullest sense of the word. Nothing could be further from the truth. The basic tenets of Christianity dictated that all men were men, ie. 'human'. That belief was also part of pagan Roman society. But that did not alter the fact that they were also property. They had no political rights anymore than one would allow a house, or a horse to vote or otherwise have a say in the community.

Ishmael

PS. there are more references to be quoted here than you can shake a stick at.

LOL I can't believe you did it! Amazing...

Do you realize that, once again, you argued against your own position? Now you're saying that not only the slavery in Roman times but also in Colonial Americas were primarily economically driven! And if you know them to be unfair, unjust and oppressive, you can't expect anyone to take your claim that discriminating against women even if it is a sound business, it's an acceptable practice!

 

[Ishmael]

LOL I can't believe you did it! Amazing...

Do you realize that, once again, you argued against your own position? Now you're saying that not only the slavery in Roman times but also in Colonial Americas were primarily economically driven! And if you know them to be unfair, unjust and oppressive, you can't expect anyone to take your claim that discriminating against women even if it is a sound business, it's an acceptable practice!

Really, just where was that?

Colonial slavery was not so much economically driven as driven by a belief system that was flawed. Given the daily wages of the period it would have been far more economical to have hired help on the various plantations than to burden yourself with slaves that had to be housed, fed, and clothed. If it weren't for the value of the crops it would have made no sense at all. And as a matter of fact, it didn't. After the Germans bred the sugar beet, sugar cane as a crop (especially with the shipping involved) lost so much value that slavery collapsed in the Caribean Islands. One of the reasons that the British and Dutch were the first to 'outlaw' slavery as a practice. Slavery just couldn't compete with free men producing the same crop.

Cotton continued to hold value for quite some time mostly due to the type of climate required for it's growth.

So, of course there were economics involved. But just as the Soviets found out with their 'collective' farming experiments. (The farmers working the land weren't all that far removed from slaves.) Forced labor in agriculture is unable to compete with free men sorking their own land.

If the colonial slave holders had of believed differently than they did, namely that only blacks were suitable for that type of work, there may have been a different history for the America's.

It still remains a fact that there is not one race or class of people that has NOT been subjected to slavery at one time or another. So using slavery as an argument FOR one group is specious at best in that all peoples can make a claim to having been subjected to slavery as part of their historical record.

However, that is still off point and has little to do with the discussion.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

To me, this looked like you were claiming that all slaves - regardless of "gender, religion, or ethnicity" - were treated in this egalitarian fashion.

There was no 'egalitarianism' to it. They were property, slaves. The educated ones were selected for special treatment. Further, the Roman slave holder did educate the children born to his/her slaves. For them it made perfect business sense to do so.

I think there could be a strong case made for asserting that the line between calling someone an animal and believing they are animal, rather than human, in nature has not always been very clear. I'd have to go back and refresh my memory to be certain, but it seems to me that the Roman scholars, and the modern (19th and 20th century) day proponents of racial-eugenics, did believe that some races either were animal in nature, or were at least mostly animal (more animal than human) in nature.

There are many 'scholars' and philosophers over the ages that have made such claims. That does not necessarily reflect the common thought. Certainly not with the Roman's. You might make a stronger case with the Greek's.

The lack of cannibalism is a good potential refutation - but it was sometimes the case that these races were hunted for sport, like game, so there might be room to challenge the position that they were not actually treated like animals.

That is a long stretch and you know it. "The Run" has been practiced by many cultures over the course of the centuries. In most instances it was a test, not all that different from the 'dunking stool'. And there have always been those of a particularly cruel nature that made sport of the practice. None of which is indicative of whether the 'prey' was thought to truly be an animal or not.

On a side note, I think that Wells' example of the consumption of the consuming class was delightfully poetic justice - not to mention showing brilliant foresight since we have essentially become race of mindless consumers: lazily wandering around in our styes and gobbling up what ever crap is handed to us without questioning what it is, who it's from, or why we should eat it.

Classic closed loop system. While you're certainly entitled to your position, I'm not that jaded and a hell of a lot more aware of what I consume. I think you may be surprised at how many truly are. The more urbanized are the least aware of the nature of what they consume.

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Veni, Vidi, Vici.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

LOL.

 

[Ishmael]

This was true of all children in our society - they either worked in the family business, were apprenticed, or became indentured servants. On farms in this country the boys didn't go off with the father on their own, the entire family generally worked the land out of necessity. Childhood effectively ended when you became old enough to work (generally 8-9 rather than 6 I think, wasn't it?),

<snip>

The father's I interact with on a regular basis seem to enjoy being with their daughters just as much as with their sons. And yes, fathers do like spending time with their children, this is what I've been saying - in general mothers and fathers both like being with their children because wanting to nurture children is generally part of human nature.

The children started hanging around their gender counterpart at a relatively early age. Actual work came later due to size, hand eye coordination, etc.

Now, in the US it has been shown that those children that are the product of a two parent household, a man and a wife, do substantially better during their growth period and in their life in general. That would indicate, to me at least, that the two parents do interact with their children and both provide components that seem to be lacking in each parent as an individual. Like everything else in life, there are exceptions. But the statistics are heavily stacked against a single parent house. That also tends to indicate to me that regardless of the individual roles played by the parents, that there is a common thread of 'family' that cannot be duplicated by other means. This would further indicate to me that the family is the core unit of a healthy society.

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

The children started hanging around their gender counterpart at a relatively early age. Actual work came later due to size, hand eye coordination, etc.

Now, in the US it has been shown that those children that are the product of a two parent household, a man and a wife, do substantially better during their growth period and in their life in general. That would indicate, to me at least, that the two parents do interact with their children and both provide components that seem to be lacking in each parent as an individual. Like everything else in life, there are exceptions. But the statistics are heavily stacked against a single parent house. That also tends to indicate to me that regardless of the individual roles played by the parents, that there is a common thread of 'family' that cannot be duplicated by other means. This would further indicate to me that the family is the core unit of a healthy society.

Ishmael

I would just add...there are a lot of very healthy and successful people that come from single parent homes also. There is much more risk in a single family home though (crime statistics, etc.).