quote:Ontario’s top court has legalized brothels and will allow prostitutes to have security and other staff that is specifically aimed at protecting prostitutes.
In a landmark decision Monday, the court said that prostitution is extremely dangerous work where inherent risks are multiplied by laws preventing prostitutes from working together under one roof or hiring security staff.
Commencing next year, a five-judge panel said unanimously, prostitutes in any part of the province can work legally in brothels that will be operated like ordinary businesses.
As of April 25, they can engage bodyguards or security staff.
That court approved same-sex marriage in 2003, two years before nationwide legalisation. Obviously, this will probably have a rockier path federally this time, but maybe this will follow too.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
They say "trade' but they always end up wanting money.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Canadian law in this area certainly needs to be cleaned up; as the article points out, it's counterproductive to have legal prostitution while making it illegal for a prostitute to conduct their affairs in a safe manner. It seems to me that it should be the one or the other: illegal, or legal and regulated in ways that maximize the safety of the workers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, this ought to make those weekends where 19 year olds from boarder states head to Canada to get drunk all the more interesting.
You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: They say "trade' but they always end up wanting money.
I've heard some of the ones here in Oakland will take certain trade goods in lieu of cash payment.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute.
What the hell? Where did you come up with that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, this ought to make those weekends where 19 year olds from boarder states head to Canada to get drunk all the more interesting.
You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.
Believing that traditional values are of worth does not mean one also believes everything everyone was doing in the past was better morally speaking.
Most people when they talk about traditional values are focusing on ideals espoused by their forefathers, or in some cases societal norms from the past. It doesn't mean that if one points out the Puritans were right to eschew adultery, that they must also believe we should burn witches, or even that we ought to force adulterers to wear scarlet letters.
I am fine with the philosophy that when you try to make prostitution illegal, you drive it underground and it becomes unsafe without actually curbing it in any noticeable way. I also understand why many believe (including myself) that sex should as a general rule be indulge in only within the confines of marriage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute.
What the hell? Where did you come up with that?
It was a random factoid in one of the history books I read earlier this semester on the American family.
Edit to add: Check out The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz. If you wait until tomorrow, I'll try to either find the page number or the citation she used for the fact.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What the hell? Where did you come up with that?
It's amusing that you default to the notion it's nonsense. From Lyrhawn, known for his flights of historical fancy and make-believe, of course. Why? If true, would it put a ding in your notions of the good old days?
In any event, I'm curious as all get out about the idea, but if true it wouldn't surprise me. Humans I generally think have wanted sex about as much in one period of history as another, but until recently this was only considered anything other than gross sin for men, but not women-and often for men too, of course. But men could have (as far as society was concerned) consequence-free sex, so long as it was kept private. Couldn't say the same for women. Even when they desired sex as much as men (which I daresay was often enough), they couldn't have their cake without very publicly needing to eat it, too, to mangle the saying.
That's all conjecture of course, but it feels pretty sound, and the notion Lyrhawn expressed isn't so shocking once you think about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, this ought to make those weekends where 19 year olds from boarder states head to Canada to get drunk all the more interesting.
You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.
Believing that traditional values are of worth does not mean one also believes everything everyone was doing in the past was better morally speaking.
Most people when they talk about traditional values are focusing on ideals espoused by their forefathers, or in some cases societal norms from the past. It doesn't mean that if one points out the Puritans were right to eschew adultery, that they must also believe we should burn witches, or even that we ought to force adulterers to wear scarlet letters.
No they aren't. They just think they are. Any real historical investigation of this mythical past would show that most of what "family values" people claim to want by pointing to the past never actually existed in the past. And often times it was only for a fleeting moment before another era of family values swept in to overtake it.
For example, teenage pregnancy rates are lower now than they've almost ever been. Lower than in both colonial times and the much touted 1950s. The past that these people are referring to is a constructed idea, along the lines of American Exceptionalism or the White Man's Burden of something that doesn't exist, but a lot of people want to believe we can "get back to," because that sounds easier than confronting the truth.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I remember my grandmother laughing about the look on one of her friends' faces when, in response to the friend talking about wanton kids are these days, she said "Well Edith*, how is what they do any different than what you and Bill Russell* used to do in his Model T?"
*I have no idea what the real names of the people involved were.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
My favorite anecdote about my grandmother and family values is that I once asked her why she had married my grandfather so young (she was a teenager) and after knowing him for a very short period of time.
"Well, dear, I wanted to have sex. And that was what you did first, back then."
It seems to have worked out for my grandparents, but I can't help but picture how my life would have gone if I had married my teenage boyfriend after a couple months of dating--and be very glad I had other options. (My grandmother's sister also married as a teen--flippant comments from my grandmother aside, part of the reason they were in such a hurry to get married was that my great-grandmother was poor and single and could not easily support them--and it did not work out nearly so happily for her.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, this ought to make those weekends where 19 year olds from boarder states head to Canada to get drunk all the more interesting.
You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.
Believing that traditional values are of worth does not mean one also believes everything everyone was doing in the past was better morally speaking.
Most people when they talk about traditional values are focusing on ideals espoused by their forefathers, or in some cases societal norms from the past. It doesn't mean that if one points out the Puritans were right to eschew adultery, that they must also believe we should burn witches, or even that we ought to force adulterers to wear scarlet letters.
No they aren't. They just think they are. Any real historical investigation of this mythical past would show that most of what "family values" people claim to want by pointing to the past never actually existed in the past. And often times it was only for a fleeting moment before another era of family values swept in to overtake it.
For example, teenage pregnancy rates are lower now than they've almost ever been. Lower than in both colonial times and the much touted 1950s. The past that these people are referring to is a constructed idea, along the lines of American Exceptionalism or the White Man's Burden of something that doesn't exist, but a lot of people want to believe we can "get back to," because that sounds easier than confronting the truth.
You don't have to persuade me that history is actually much more diverse than people expect, or that there are plenty of myths people eat along with their historical facts.
You are right many people do want to get society back to conception they have of it, because it was manageable for them. But it's ludicrous (and I'm not saying you were making this point) to suggest that whenever people want to turn back a developing trend that it's either impossible because developments are irreversible, or that the future is a march ever towards progress. So, there being nothing for us in the past, it would be unethical to try.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No they aren't. They just think they are. Any real historical investigation of this mythical past would show that most of what "family values" people claim to want by pointing to the past never actually existed in the past. And often times it was only for a fleeting moment before another era of family values swept in to overtake it.
It's anecdotal so take it for what it's worth, but I can't remember how many times when someone begins to talk about how the world is getting worse, or things were better then, so on and so forth-things that smack of 'the good old days', in other words-so often the person longing for that doesn't have a clear, accurate idea of what they're wishing for (they simply imagine things that aren't true), or the things they're wishing for are actually kind of bad, but haven't been thought through.
Dig a little deeper, and often you'll find or at least I have that, for example, admiring remarks about our culture in the 1950s will have thinly veiled remarks about how women used to raise the kids full time, for example. Or we weren't so politically correct. Or we didn't have all these angry feminists and environmentalists. Or people didn't care about race so much. Or people respected America back then. So on and so forth.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: "Well, dear, I wanted to have sex. And that was what you did first, back then."
Heh. Not in my family. We have a proud tradition of knocked up brides that goes back generations. Interestingly, though, once they did marry they tended to stay very happily married.
Blackblade, an almost inevitable element of "traditional family values" is a devaluation of women.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Blackblade, an almost inevitable element of "traditional family values" is a devaluation of women.
I wouldn't say that's the intent very often at all, some thought longing for a time when women weren't so uppity. It is, however, necessarily a component of what is actually being said, since you can't wish for the good old days without it, since that's the way things were.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's just another one of those things people say without really thinking it all the way through.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: "Well, dear, I wanted to have sex. And that was what you did first, back then."
Heh. Not in my family. We have a proud tradition of knocked up brides that goes back generations. Interestingly, though, once they did marry they tended to stay very happily married.
Blackblade, an almost inevitable element of "traditional family values" is a devaluation of women.
Again, you seem to be stating that for a person to think a certain thing was better in the past, we have to also subscribe to everything else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not really. Just the related things. The "family values" agenda generally means fewer rights for women. A desire to go "back" to when women had fewer options and rights.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Again, you seem to be stating that for a person to think a certain thing was better in the past, we have to also subscribe to everything else.
Well, to be fair you (appear to be) stating that when a person talks about how things were better in the past, they usually mean only that specific thing, and only those good things that it entails. That certainly hasn't been my experience.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Full auto firearms where legal for private civilian use/ownership until 1934.
Just saying.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: Sure, there are people who mean "Lets lock up women in the kitchen" when they use the phrase "family values". That's certainly how my grandmother means it. But I'm not willing to concede the phrase "family values" to those people, (no offense Gran, you're splendid in many other ways) just as I'm sure you wouldn't concede "Christian" to white supremacists.
Rakeesh: I take it on a case by case basis. The original contention I had is that when anybody says "I miss the good old days, where we had 'values' " that that means the person believes everything about the past was better, and everything now sucks. Even if they are basing it on an idealistic and somewhat inaccurate memory, that's still what they are talking about.
If I say, "Things were better when I was a boy, we spent more time outside than kids do these days." The correct response isn't, "Yeah well parents weren't putting their kids in seatbelts, cars were death traps!" or "Yeah well when you were a boy, gay men were being told they couldn't play with "girls toys" and having heterosexuality/gender roles crammed down their throat. It was hell for them!"
A man talking about families being more in harmony, is not tacitly condoning relationships where the women silently suffered at home unfulfilled, and the man was boss. Some are, but if you lump everybody together and respond to the soupy mess the people who don't mean those things don't feel taken seriously, and the person scorning them just sounds like a jerk.
The fact is our society *is* changing, and definitely not always for the good. The past rightly should be understood in the best context we can give it, but if we just keep convoluting the discussion with what sucks with the past, when we are trying to identify what was better in the past, then we are doomed to repeat the past in the future because forgetting the good things, is just as bad as ignoring the bad.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, whether we want them to be or not, phrases like "family values" are already pretty well co-opted. And all of those things have repercussions. For example, kids could play outside because there were generally adults "around" who the kids could go to if something happened. Those adults who were around were usually moms without jobs outside the homes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:A man talking about families being more in harmony, is not tacitly condoning relationships where the women silently suffered at home unfulfilled, and the man was boss. Some are, but if you lump everybody together and respond to the soupy mess the people who don't mean those things don't feel taken seriously, and the person scorning them just sounds like a jerk.
But families weren't more in harmony. That's a fantasy that is built at least in part on men being in a dominant position. It's another one of the "things were better when white adult males didn't have to care so much about other people's problems and the world was more explicitly set up to favor them."
Valuing harmonious families is, I think, a good thing. When people go beyond that to espouse a wish to return to the fantasy version they have of the past, it comes with the baggage associated with it. Because they were doing it wrong in the past. There wasn't more family harmony and to the extent that this appeared to be the case to white adult males, it was a consequence of white adult males dominating things.
So, to achieve actual family harmony, we specifically don't want to return to the past. Approaching the issue that way is counterproductive at best and an active attempt to link family harmony with white male dominance at worst.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Full auto firearms were legal for private civilian use/ownership until 1934.
Just saying.
Indeed, and until 1908 you could drive a car with no theoretical or practical testing to get your license, and indeed before 1903 there were no licenses. You have to wonder how all those centuries could go by before people realised the need.
Also, the first fully-automatic personal weapons (as opposed to crew-served machine guns) became practical in the Great War. Curious coincidence, that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:A man talking about families being more in harmony, is not tacitly condoning relationships where the women silently suffered at home unfulfilled, and the man was boss. Some are, but if you lump everybody together and respond to the soupy mess the people who don't mean those things don't feel taken seriously, and the person scorning them just sounds like a jerk.
But families weren't more in harmony. That's a fantasy that is built at least in part on men being in a dominant position.
That is certainly true in many, maybe even most instances. But my family certainly wasn't in harmony because my mother kept her peace while my father bossed her around. That isn't true as far as I can reasonably tell for any of my extended family, with the aforementioned exception of my grandmother and grandfather. It wasn't true of my friend's families by and large growing up. Again this is personal observation, I'm not going to act like there aren't myriad variables that affect that observation. But if we are going to observe the nuances that give the appearance of serenity when there really isn't any, we also have to observe the nuances that hid beneath the appearance of discord.
That's really the only point I'm trying to get across, as usually the conversation goes,
"I miss the time when people tried to work out their differences instead of going straight to divorce."
"Actually most of the time women faced shame and exile from the community if they got a divorce, and before that women couldn't even obtain a divorce without the husband's permission. Divorce rates were artificially low as a result of these unhealthy trends. Marriage being important was all a myth in the past!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I guess the beef I've got with what you're saying, BlackBlade, and I suspect others as well, is that while I don't doubt your words about your own family-and not just because I'm in no position to know one way or another-is that the first sentence in your typical conversation...
Well, it's just wrong. It's badly incomplete, in ways the following paragraph addresses. It cannot truthfully be said that in the good old days, people tried to work out their differences instead of going straight to divorce because not only is that not the way things are now, the reasons people didn't go straight to divorce were, as you say, as much attributable to social pressures as a higher willingness to compromise and respect one's spouse.
Your example about kids playing outside was rock solid, I like that one. Having thought about it carefully, I think it's probably true. Kids did used to spend more time outside being physically active and engaging in less passive entertainment. It's not something that needs further analysis, like gauging past willingness to compromise: they either did, or they didn't.
But what's wrong when if someone expresses a desire to return to an element of the past they clearly don't understand very well, with pointing that out to them? With saying, "Before you make that example your model for behavior, bear in mind that..."? Not claiming they're espousing a secret desire to thwart the sovereignty of women.
Now for more straightforward examples about things less murky and more clear cut, my personal patience is thin. Such as when someone talks about how we're too politically correct, and things were better when.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That is certainly true in many, maybe even most instances. But my family certainly wasn't in harmony because my mother kept her peace while my father bossed her around. That isn't true as far as I can reasonably tell for any of my extended family, with the aforementioned exception of my grandmother and grandfather. It wasn't true of my friend's families by and large growing up. Again this is personal observation, I'm not going to act like there aren't myriad variables that affect that observation. But if we are going to observe the nuances that give the appearance of serenity when there really isn't any, we also have to observe the nuances that hid beneath the appearance of discord.
I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that this sort of harmony is less prevalent now?
I don't think anyone is saying that everything in the past (or barely past, you grew up in the 80s/90s, right?) was all bad.
What I'm saying is that most of the "Things were better back in the day." that I've heard fall into mostly "Things were better when white adult men held an unquestioned dominant position in society." with a fair bit of "Here's a completely unrealistic fantasy I have about how the past was." and sometimes a side helping of nostalgia of the "The music kids listen today is crap. Not like in my day."
Are there things to be learned from the past? Definitely. But was it better? Perhaps in some areas, but as whole no freaking way.
By and large the problems that plague society today were present in the past, usually more so. And when they weren't, it is often because they were masked by other, more serious problems. So, in a very large number of cases where people (almost uniformly white men) present "things were better back then" in attempts to explain and address current day problems, it is at best counterproductive and often is part of a conscious agenda to get white men back into an even more dominant position.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:But what's wrong when if someone expresses a desire to return to an element of the past they clearly don't understand very well, with pointing that out to them? With saying, "Before you make that example your model for behavior, bear in mind that..."?
There's nothing wrong with it, except when it becomes a barrier for further discussion.
Look, there are definitely concepts that are historical myths. "What the founding fathers intended" for example. Or, "Obama's Apology Tour". They are fabricated because one can use them as convenient stepping stones in a discussion. They are neat packaged falsehood that make discussing deeper inaccuracies easier. Or your example about people being too politically correct. I believe in being accurate, but I have little patience with people who'd (and I mean this when it's 100% accurate) would rather discuss semantics and get into contentious arguments rather than actually discuss a topic like racism. Or when somebody is trying to discuss racism, instead of being patiently discussed with, the person ridicules them or treats them scornfully because they aren't up on the current terminology. That doesn't mean you don't tell a racist off when they hide behind their neighbors from Jamaica (sorry couldn't resist), and in the same breath keep talking about how African Americans are disproportionately represented in the prison populace, so maybe it's something to do with genetics.
It just gets old (and I say this as a history lover) when all we do is talk context, and don't talk concepts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:"Actually most of the time women faced shame and exile from the community if they got a divorce, and before that women couldn't even obtain a divorce without the husband's permission. Divorce rates were artificially low as a result of these unhealthy trends. Marriage being important was all a myth in the past!"
That sounds about right as a slice of the marriage situation in the past. I'd also add to it that marriage rates were artificially high. Lots of people were in marriages they wouldn't have chosen if not for societal pressures.
We also need to keep in mind just how fluid the American family is. It changes every couple decades. So when we say "good old days," what are we referring to? Colonial times? Victorian? Progressive era? the 40s-60s?
These times they are a changin. Each of these periods, with some overlap, had distinctive role changes for men, women, and children as far as social pressure, employment, education, etc. This lack of specificity is tricky, because a lot of people like to look to the past and cherry pick data. They might like the role of women in colonial times (arguably better in a lot of ways than it was in the 50s), or the role of men in the 60s, or the role of children in the 20s. But none of those things ever co-existed in history. History is a package deal, especially when we're discussing families and gender roles.
I think, like Rakeesh, that most people who say historical sentences that start with "I wish _______ was more like it used to be," are simply speaking either out of a lack of information, or aren't really thinking through the full weight of what they're suggesting. Maybe they do just want to cherry pick some aspects of history, but they need to be more specific, and they need to realize the pitfalls of that kind of thinking. In other words, they just really need to know what they are talking about. They also need to realize that personal anecdotes do not a historical trend make (this isn't a shot at you BB). History of the Family is a pretty big historical genre. We've been looking at this stuff for decades (though I'd argue it didn't really get good until the last 20 years) and we have a good idea on what period trends look like.
Things change whenever a new study comes out, but for the most part, the scholarship is driving at making children and women look even MORE put depressed and oppressed than we thought before. And even men. Male-studies is sort of a new field of scholarship. We tend to look at history and say "Um, isn't ALL of this male history?" But this obscures a lot of the reality of what it meant to by an American man in the home sphere, because for so long we assumed men were lords of the castle and obviously happy, but come to find that a lot of what is causing a generation shift in male culture in America today was forces at play throughout history, the stresses of having a family, being in loveless marriages, disconnected from children, and having to worry about family finances. A lot of this is coming out now, and we're realizing more and more that Leave it to Beaver is more and more of an idyllic myth.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, if you want a textbook example of the kind of thing I am talking about, check the Marriage Thread at Sake.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Lyr & Rakeesh:
As a disclaimer, I don't actually think the iconic 50's idea of family structure is a good thing regardless.
However, speaking broadly, it is possible to identify positive ideas from traditions that also include bad ideas, and specifically want to cut out those positive ideas and apply them and them alone.
Heck, it's even possible to do this when the tradition in question is a post-hoc fictitious tradition that we are ascribing to the past. The ideas, whether they were truly implemented in the past or not, are still real ideas, so they can be assessed and criticized and, if deemed valuable, implemented today.
So, the part of wistfully looking back on the good old days that includes identifying good parts of traditions (even traditions we've constructed and only think existed) is, in my opinion, perfectly worthwhile.
Again, in the case of 50's marriage/family structure, even our constructed fiction of how that functioned is, I think, not terribly valuable or worthy of emulation. That tradition doesn't include a lot of valuable ideas, that I can see.
But the principle BlackBlade is applying seems sound, to me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heck, lamenting about "the good ol' days" is a tradition in and of itself.
If you can not apply rose colored filters to your past a little bit then it is quite possible it would make living in the current world all but unlivable. The real gift is that with the distance of time and perspective change we can really look back and see goodnesses we likely missed the first time around.
I think it likely better to look back with nostalgia and fondness then hatred and bitterness.
Of course the above is not wholly applicable to the discussion at hand, but having a fondness for false memories truly is a coping mechanism which can make life a little better if not taken to unhealthy extremes.
My point is this...not all "it was better then" is a bad thing...it isn't all white males yearning for the days when they had dominance over everyone else or some barely concealed longing to enslave others into unfair class/gender roles. Sometimes it's just wishing for a simpler time within the wisher's life, a time when things were not so shaded in grey and the world made sense, even if it only seemed that way at the time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, if you want a textbook example of the kind of thing I am talking about, check the Marriage Thread at Sake.
We don't disagree on what that guy is saying being odious and disgusting. I don't agree that I should let him describe his work as "family values" work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Heck, it's even possible to do this when the tradition in question is a post-hoc fictitious tradition that we are ascribing to the past. The ideas, whether they were truly implemented in the past or not, are still real ideas, so they can be assessed and criticized and, if deemed valuable, implemented today.
Well, sure, good ideas should be considered regardless of their source. But not spoken in favor of as though they actually worked in a setting when they, y'know, didn't exactly. They shouldn't be given credibility akin to 'We used to do this, but have since drifted away from it. We did it before, so we should do it again.' No. That makes it sound easier and more credible than it actually is on its own merits.
----------
quote:Sometimes it's just wishing for a simpler time within the wisher's life, a time when things were not so shaded in grey and the world made sense, even if it only seemed that way at the time.
I'm not sure why an incorrect belief that the world made sense when it actually didn't, is something to be desired-it means you were making (general 'you') bad assumptions about the world around you, and probably bad decisions stemming from it, however comfortable you felt at the time.
What it's not is ill-willed, but that's not the same thing as being a good thing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm more speaking to the intent behind "good ol' days" sentiment then to any judgement call about the content of said statements.
I agree with Dan about judging ideas on their own merit, and I agree with you about the false representation associated with linking ideas with bogus past results.
I also agree with BB that the phrase "family values" shouldn't be associated the nut jobs who are pushing some deplorable agenda.
I'm all around agreeable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, if you want a textbook example of the kind of thing I am talking about, check the Marriage Thread at Sake.
It's your fault I ended up reading that pissfest, haha
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Heck, it's even possible to do this when the tradition in question is a post-hoc fictitious tradition that we are ascribing to the past. The ideas, whether they were truly implemented in the past or not, are still real ideas, so they can be assessed and criticized and, if deemed valuable, implemented today.
Well, sure, good ideas should be considered regardless of their source. But not spoken in favor of as though they actually worked in a setting when they, y'know, didn't exactly. They shouldn't be given credibility akin to 'We used to do this, but have since drifted away from it. We did it before, so we should do it again.' No. That makes it sound easier and more credible than it actually is on its own merits.
Yep, no arguments here.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, if you want a textbook example of the kind of thing I am talking about, check the Marriage Thread at Sake.
It's your fault I ended up reading that pissfest, haha
Me too. Kinda wish I hadn't.
Also not sure how it related to the conversation here. Must be missing something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. Sorry about that. I posted before it became all about how we all need to express our opinions in Dag approved ways or he gets pissy and the everyone defends him. (Why I no longer post there, BTW.)
quote: Wisconsin Lawmaker Says Women Should Stay in Abusive Marriages
In Wisconsin -- yes, the same state where lawmakers have introduced a bill penalizing single mothers for being unmarried -- a Republican state representative has come out against divorce for any reason -- even domestic abuse.
Instead of leaving an abusive situation, women should try to remember the things they love about their husbands, Representative Don Pridemore said. "If they can re-find those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help," he told a local news station.
Pridemore -- who, coincidentally, is a co-sponsor of Republican state Senator Glenn Grothman's "being single causes child abuse" bill as well as a controversial voter ID bill that was ruled unconstitutional earlier this week -- also said that while he thinks women are capable of caring for a family "in certain situations," fathers are the only ones who provide structure and discipline. If they don't grow up with married biological parents, Pridemore says, "kids tend to go astray."
Grothman, for his part, continues to defend his controversial bill. Now, though, not only is single parenthood a factor in child abuse, women in particular are to blame for it.
"There's been a huge change over the last 30 years, and a lot of that change has been the choice of the women," Grothman said.
I should have just posted this here but was being lazy and assumed that BB had read it there.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I posted before it became all about how we all need to express our opinions in Dag approved ways or he gets pissy and the everyone defends him. (Why I no longer post there, BTW.)
Wow. That's quite the summary.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Especially when you note that 'defend' apparently means 'most people say he's equally at fault'. Sheesh. (And no, I'd rather not that discussion happen here too, but I'm not a fan of such blatant one-off editorializing either.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Since I don't actually have to conform to your approved manner of expression either. You are both free to provide your own characterization.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: I actually had read the link before you posted, but thanks for thinking of me when you pointed it out. I would have wanted to read it had I missed it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No problem. I agree that folks like that shouldn't get to define "family values" but that ship may have sailed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I also agree with BB that the phrase "family values" shouldn't be associated the nut jobs who are pushing some deplorable agenda.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with that. Especially with how they have been and are being used, I think these sort of umbrella shortcut terms should generally be avoided by people looking for a respectful consideration of the issues.
"Family values" is very vague phrase. I see it used mostly for either attacking a politician for not supporting family values or for saying that another (often pretty questionable) one is pro-family values.
It strikes me very much like "pro-American". I consider myself very attached to my country, but a lot of the stuff that is often lumped into "pro-American" offends me and often specifically offends my sense of patriotism. On the opposite side, I haven't seen a use of "anti-American" in reference to domestic issues to be anything but extremely stupid. People - with some extreme exceptions - in this country don't hate the country and want the terrorists to win. If you actually believe that, I don't believe that you are competent to make decisions that will affect me.
Likewise, very few people are anti-"family values". They may be against things like banning gays from marrying or the idea that men are the unquestioned head of the family or that interracial marriage is an abomination. And people will use this to try to evoke a similar emotional reaction to people being "anti-American". It's a popular technique to short-circuit a reasonable consideration of the issues.
I do also think that there are people who don't put as high a value on things related to the family as I do. For example, I think Dan Quayle was pretty much right in his Murphy Brown criticism. But I still think it is much better to discuss those specific issues - perhaps while bringing in the wider context - instead of, as seems the common reaction, to resort to talking about bumper-sticker "family values".
This fits into the original concern here too. I'm a big believer in the idea that if we're going to talk about something, let's talk about it. I don't like it when people take potentially admirable things and group them into emotion-provoking umbrellas that obscure them, being it a myth of the past or "family values", especially there's plenty of room under those umbrellas for some pretty awful stuff.
---
For myself, I think the people who are pushing what I consider deplorable agendas and using shameful tactics currently own the phrase "family values". It's sort of like the general rule that it is pretty safe to assume that any conservative activist organizations with "Family" in the name are liars and bigots. And I say, let them have it. It's really not a good thing to talk about things that way anyway and it's nice to have an easy indication of the character of the people in a conversation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm trying to remember when anyone said you had to conform to an approved manner of expression and...*checks*...yup, I'm utterly certain nobody said or suggested that. You took a shot at someone and got called on it. That's all that happened. You can climb down off that cross anytime.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QUOTE] For example, I think Dan Quayle was pretty much right in his Murphy Brown criticism.
Really? You think getting pregnant during a reconciliation with one's ex-husband and considering and then rejecting abortion when he decides he doesn't want to get back together after all equates to "deciding to have a child out of wedlock and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice'"?
I think he used a show he'd never actually seen (which he admitted later) as a throw-away line negative example and got rightfully called on it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, but I think the deliberate representation of single parenthood as just another valid lifestyle choice, which (edit2: if I am not mistaken, and it is quite possible that I am) was done several times on the show, is a very poor one to send.
---
edit: Although, to be honest, I think I was 14 when that all happened, so maybe my recollection is faulty.
If so, I apologize, but I stand by the underlying point that single parenthood is generally not a choice that is equivalent to a committed (I would prefer married) couple raising a child.
[ March 30, 2012, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I also agree with the underlying point. The example, however was not valid.
Edit: I think your recollection may have been colored after the fact by Quayle's characterization of it.
[ March 30, 2012, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, but I think the deliberate representation of single parenthood as just another valid lifestyle choice, which (edit2: if I am not mistaken, and it is quite possible that I am) was done several times on the show
That was Quayle's interpretation, and not mine. I love that show, and watched it again all the way to the end of the DVDs currently available not that long ago, and it's really not accurate.
Murphy agonized over the choices involved, repeatedly. She talked about the downsides of single parenting more than once. Quayle's claims made it absolutely clear he had never watched the show.
As far as single parenting v. parenting by a married couple, I think there are ideals and reality. In reality, many single parents are far preferable than many married couples. However, the ideal married couple is better than the ideal single parent. But that just means single parenting isn't an ideal, and most people (including most single parents) would probably agree with that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, but I think the deliberate representation of single parenthood as just another valid lifestyle choice, which (edit2: if I am not mistaken, and it is quite possible that I am) was done several times on the show, is a very poor one to send.
There's a difference between validating a single parent and validating "single parenthood" as a "lifestyle choice." The problem obviously comes in when one wishes to denigrate the choice being made, and yet not denigrate the individual who has, in the fullness time, within their own lives and their own personal circumstances, chosen to live a certain way, for reasons you are not likely to be able to quantify or reduce or examine as being either valid or invalid.
Thus is *always* the problem with making any kind of pronouncements about the way that people live, or choose to live- especially when it is difficult or impossible to demonstrate with consistent reasoning why those particular choices one may have made in the past were "wrong."
Because, doubt not: you cannot say (and actually mean), that it is a bad thing to call single parenthood a valid lifestyle choice *without* tacitly passing judgement on people who have made exactly that choice, and whose particular choices you *cannot* invalidate. You want your cake, and you want to eat it too. You want to say that people shouldn't validate something, even though you are unable to produce a reasonable justification for actively *invalidating* it. Does this remind you of any other patterns of prejudice that go on in most societies?
What this argumentative problem should tell you is this: you are not in a place to make such judgements. You think you are, but in fact, you have no grounding beyond your say-so; and the fact that many other people say similar things. We run into more problems than we do solutions when we start talking about what we should and shouldn't encourage, when we don't start with a concrete reason why something is harmful, beyond the fact that it is not, according to our own values, ideal.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
My next question is this: If 2 Parents are superior to 1 and Single Motherhood is so bad, what do we do with single parents?
Do we take away their children and give them to state run/church run institutions?
Abortion?
Just treat them their whole life as dangerous and second rate bastard children?
Give up on them?
Or do we do everything in society's power to make sure the children reach their potentials. Making the parent live in shame can only hurt that plan.
Yeah, the single mother shouldn't have had sex out of wedlock. One universal law--people have sex out of wedlock. No matter what law, punishment, or code you enforce, you can not stop that.
Accidents happen.
But the single mother is willing to work past the accident. The single father is way to often not. Shall we brand the fathers?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: when we don't start with a concrete reason why something is harmful, beyond the fact that it is not, according to our own values, ideal.
I think there's plenty of evidence that, all other things being equal, two parent families are better for kids by a number of measurements. The problem is that all other things are rarely equal and most parents, single and partnered, are doing the best they can with what life throws at them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I think there's plenty of evidence that, all other things being equal, two parent families are better for kids by a number of measurements. The problem is that all other things are rarely equal and most parents, single and partnered, are doing the best they can with what life throws at them.
Not just is all else rarely equal, but the things that have been found in studies to help single parents parent better, such as involving additional adults more than normal as role models, are pretty much necessarily not equal.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: when we don't start with a concrete reason why something is harmful, beyond the fact that it is not, according to our own values, ideal.
I think there's plenty of evidence that, all other things being equal, two parent families are better for kids by a number of measurements. The problem is that all other things are rarely equal and most parents, single and partnered, are doing the best they can with what life throws at them.
I saw that same argument used against gay marriage. When they couldn't prove, in court, that gay parents were less effective at raising children than straight parents, the angle changed to "all things being equal." But family systems are not constructed on an "everything equal" basis. It's not stoichiometry. So, as you concede, the argument about an "everything being equal," basis is not valid.
quote: Not just is all else rarely equal, but the things that have been found in studies to help single parents parent better, such as involving additional adults more than normal as role models, are pretty much necessarily not equal.
MY contention is only that the blanket argument against "validating" single parenthood is invalid. There are single parents. It is not the business of society, in my opinion, to rule this out as a valid choice. To encourage stable multi-parent families is one thing, and it is separate from how you deal with the fact that there *will* be single parents, and those single parents will have to be as effective as they can be.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
How on earth am I "conceding" anything? I agree with you -- that was pretty much the point I was making in first place.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You presented a counter argument (that you didn't claim to agree with), following by a conceding point. What's the problem here? I know what your position is.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It didn't come across that way to me, but I may have misinterpreted. If so, I apologize.
My point earlier, though, is that there are measurable advantages of two-parent families (much more so than in the same-sex vs opposite sex parent debate) that don't come down to "values." Two parent families tend to be financially better off. There's a better chance that at least one parent will be able to take off work on any given day to stay home with a sick kid. No, that doesn't mean the way to improve the situation is to denigrate single parents, but it isn't fair to say that the only reason people have for thinking two-parent families are an advantage is that they better match a traditional values ideal. If there are ways to encourage parents to stick together -- in addition to, not at the expense of supporting single parents -- I think there is a valid societal interest there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
People have myriad reasons for thinking a two parent family has advantages. But the reasoning behind a tacit denigration of single parenthood is based on ideals, I think, and not the advantages of the traditional family. Else, you focus on promoting stable families, you don't ( not you, specifically), focus on making sure people *don't* validate single-parenthood. The active exlusion of alternative arrangements as non-valid is values based, and the values it is based on are necessarily subjective.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah. Sorry about that. I posted before it became all about how we all need to express our opinions in Dag approved ways or he gets pissy and the everyone defends him. (Why I no longer post there, BTW.)
It's truly a thing of unintending wonder, but it really doesn't look like he's being universally defended. Why, some people even seem aware of the actual dynamic!
That said, though.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: My next question is this: If 2 Parents are superior to 1 and Single Motherhood is so bad, what do we do with single parents?
Do we take away their children and give them to state run/church run institutions?
Abortion?
Just treat them their whole life as dangerous and second rate bastard children?
Give up on them?
CONTROVERSY AHOY
From a practically utilitarian (and even somewhat empathetic and caring) standpoint, abortion does have its place in planning a family. This relates most to how people should be willing to understand and accept where they are in terms of being able to raise children in a healthy environment. So you already solve a lot of the issues by being sure that people clearly understand what parenthood entails, and to only be a parent when they feel that they are ready — and that this definition of readiness isn't some outdated quiverfull more reliant on someone's 'duty' to get married and have children.
Then, necessarily, pairing this with options people have for not having children when they don't want to. If you don't like abortion, then it's time to get behind the number one viable way to prevent most abortions: effective birth control availability and education. The promotion of culturally feminist attitudes. Real sex education. The removal of harmful old mores about responsibilities or obligations towards parenthood, or structural submission of women to men. The promotion of childrearing as a joint effort between mom and dad, or dad and dad or mom and mom, whether or not it has a marriage attached or the Seal of Abrahamic Religious Approval. A true understanding of what "I am ready to be a responsible parent" means.
Then that leaves the issue of what to do with single parents. The answer, as has been determined by many of our evil socialist neighbors, is financial and structural support for single moms, as well as better schools in general. Most of our problems relate to socioeconomic challenges and barriers more than anything else; you're better off being a child of a single parent from a rich family than a child of a united traditional family living around the poverty line. Most anything even slightly less pathetic than our current net can offer would provide huge benefits to working moms and dads everywhere; better education systems not tied to regional socioeconomics, anything. There's pretty hefty benefits, we 'mericans just don't like the implications of these systems in general, so we resist. We are in a fight with a few rotten infrastructures that we should not have put in this state to begin with, as well as some Old Guard mentalities which, in their earnest attempt to improve families and preserve cherished old family structures, are degrading the quality of children's upbringing in aggregate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Update:
quote:Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws
The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country’s major prostitution laws, saying that bans on street soliciting, brothels and people living off the avails of prostitution create severe dangers for vulnerable women and therefore violate Canadians’ basic values.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for a unanimous court, stressed that the ruling is not about whether prostitution should be legal or not, but about whether Parliament’s means of controlling it infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes.
...
The ruling is one of the most important since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982 and will alter a longstanding feature of the Canadian legal landscape, much like previous Charter rulings on gay marriage on abortion did. Laws against brothels and pimps go back to pre-Confederation days.
...
The court – with a majority of judges appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper – followed the line it established two years ago, when only two Harper appointees sat on the nine-member court, in unanimously ordering the federal government not to close down a Vancouver clinic at which people could inject illegal drugs under medical supervision.
The ruling does not necessarily mean open season for prostitution. The Conservative government could still craft new laws that make prostitution or related offences criminal activities. If prostitution becomes legalized, cities would be faced with the challenge of where to permit prostitution and – if they refuse to permit it at all, or try to confine it to out-of-the-way places – potential constitutional challenges of their own.
The unanimous ruling including conservative judges should be interesting reading and the government has a year to try to make new restrictions (that are constitutional) on the practice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Update:
quote:Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws
The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country’s major prostitution laws, saying that bans on street soliciting, brothels and people living off the avails of prostitution create severe dangers for vulnerable women and therefore violate Canadians’ basic values.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for a unanimous court, stressed that the ruling is not about whether prostitution should be legal or not, but about whether Parliament’s means of controlling it infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes.
...
The ruling is one of the most important since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982 and will alter a longstanding feature of the Canadian legal landscape, much like previous Charter rulings on gay marriage on abortion did. Laws against brothels and pimps go back to pre-Confederation days.
...
The court – with a majority of judges appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper – followed the line it established two years ago, when only two Harper appointees sat on the nine-member court, in unanimously ordering the federal government not to close down a Vancouver clinic at which people could inject illegal drugs under medical supervision.
The ruling does not necessarily mean open season for prostitution. The Conservative government could still craft new laws that make prostitution or related offences criminal activities. If prostitution becomes legalized, cities would be faced with the challenge of where to permit prostitution and – if they refuse to permit it at all, or try to confine it to out-of-the-way places – potential constitutional challenges of their own.
The unanimous ruling including conservative judges should be interesting reading and the government has a year to try to make new restrictions (that are constitutional) on the practice.
If you gave our Congress 1 year to craft such laws, you could expect prostitution to become legal all over the US.
Good for you guys though.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Another interesting tidbit is a study I heard referenced two days ago on a podcast (and I don't remember where the study came from, sorry I can't link it), which indicated that it is a generational trend for middle to late-aged people to idealize the past, and that they consistently idealize approximately 50 years earlier in history, regardless of which generation was studied.
In other words, people have nostalgic memories of their own childhoods, and assume that the world had that same safe, warm-fuzzy feeling in general as they did in their own experiences. Not to mention the biases in their memories about their own childhoods.
For example, my father idealized his childhood to us all of the time, yet the facts of his childhood (which I found out when I was older) were that he grew up with an extremely alcoholic mother who took the disease to her grave and was very controlling, alienated two of her other children, and disowned my father on her deathbed after he cared for her for years. My father still idealizes the 'good ole days' ad nauseum.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Yeah, it's pretty much people's childhoods.
One of the most immediate examples of that to me is listening to the album "That was the year that was" by Tom Lehrer, which covers news stories from 1965, about half of which are completely forgotten today. But an adult, listening to the news then must have thought the world was going mad.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm glad I had nothing to do with anything before the 1980's. And while the 1980's was my early childhood it didn't sound too hot either; 1982 was a hard year for my dad.
1990's seemed great! or at least a hell of a lot better for the financial reality of most folk today.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Agreed. I was born in 82, and I feel like by the time I was 4 was when things really started becoming awesome.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was born in 84.
Coming of age in the 90s makes the 10s seem like a giant pile of crap.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.
In countries where prostitution is still legal, this is still often the case. The sex trade has been around forever, and will never go away. The strikingly non-traditional social conservative movement has been a major experiment in fundamentally altering the way society has worked for thousands of years. And it's been a failure.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As a bit of a counterpoint, my mother and father were definitely not big fans of the racism and corruption in the British colonial government during their childhood. The religious discrimination was no fun either. Immigrating to Canada was slightly better, but the situation for Chinese people in Canada was still nowhere near as good as it is today.
On the other side of the family, they grew up during the Cultural Revolution, which they definitely didn't have fond memories of.
I also have a grandmother whose childhood memories were wrecked by the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong.
So I gotta say, screw 50 years ago. This, right now, is the ideal time.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Hmm, what an interesting topic. Too bad I'm forbidden from commenting in it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Which you are doing right now, so stop.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: As a bit of a counterpoint, my mother and father were definitely not big fans of the racism and corruption in the British colonial government during their childhood. The religious discrimination was no fun either. Immigrating to Canada was slightly better, but the situation for Chinese people in Canada was still nowhere near as good as it is today.
On the other side of the family, they grew up during the Cultural Revolution, which they definitely didn't have fond memories of.
I also have a grandmother whose childhood memories were wrecked by the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong.
So I gotta say, screw 50 years ago. This, right now, is the ideal time.
Yeah reminiscing about the Good Old Days is stupid, because the Good Old Days were much more exclusively privileged. A lot of us americans have the 1950's listed in their heads as a The Good Old Days which is asinine because it's a time which is exclusively good for white people.