Facing The Proverbial Music

[_Jersey Girl]

Loran,

I read much of the first post you made, but not all of it. I'd like to throw out a couple of questions to you and see what you have to say.

1. What is it that you think a child needs most during his/her early years?

2. What type of family situation do you think best meets the needs of the child in his/her early years?

3. If the ideal situation is unavailble to the child, how do you think the child's needs (based on your answer to #1) could best be met?

Let's start there...

Jersey Girl

[_guy sajer]

Thank you for the substantive response to the core issues raised by the post and its authors. Your presence as a "first responder" is appreciated, especially before Fort, Scratch, Sajer, Rollo, Shady, Harmony, and the rest of the gang get here and begin the derailing and subversion of a serious discussion.

Coggins defines "derailing and subversion of a serious discussion" as any argument that disagrees with him.

Personally, I am not a champion of women working, in the sense that I think "homemaking" is demeaning. I think homemaking is or can be enobling. And I do think children ought to assume top priority. So, to the extent parents can and want to have one remain home to care for the children, I'm all for it.

But I know that circumstances often are not as described above. I also have no problem with a woman who decides to work, for whatever reason. I know that I would not be happy being a full-time homemaker, so I can empathize with someone (male or female) who feels this way too. Life is complex, motivations are complex, and they are not reducible to the caricature Coggins wants to paint of all "feminists" who choose a career out of base, selfish, materialistic motives. That kind of sloppy thinking may fly on talk radio, but it does not reflect real life for countless millions who must make difficult choices in the fact of complex circumstances.

Coggins wants to paint all his "opponents" on this board as reactionary liberals, when the truth is, most here are fairly reflective, reasonable persons who are not slaves to ideology, with one notable exception. Coggins is the only slave to ideology I see on this board, so it is ironic that he is the one accusing others of being ideologues. (Ok, LVR can be a bit over the top at times, but I think he does it more tounge in cheek, whereas Coggins is 100% dead serious in his narrow-minded, ideological rants.)

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm not sure why you think this article presents a persuasive case as to how and why the Brethren's dictates vis-a-vis the nuclear family are scientifically sound... Basically, the article seems like a rambling diatribe against "equity Feminism," rather than a truly scientific argument in favor of the nuclear family as the "gold standard." Especially silly is Dr. Carlson weird railings against breastfeeding. Does he not know that the U.S. is among the worst countries in the world in terms of granting time off and pay to new mothers? Moreover, does he honestly think this is the fault of Feminists, rather than greedy Right-wing capitalists?

You really are amazing Scratch. Astounding. You claim to have read thoroughly texts which, upon rereading appear to have gone completely over your head. You use terms to patently do not understand (capitalist)

I would be interested in seeing you prove that I do not understand that term, Gomer.

and appear ignorant of data or evidence that is or has been common knowledge (the positive biological effects of breastfeeding).

That's not what I said, Loran. I said that Dr. Carlson's breastfeeding diatribe was misguided. He was critical of Feminism, making some peculiar argument about how "equity feminism" is to blame for a decline in breastfeeding. Well, U.S. policies on maternal leave are equally to blame, in my view. Do you not agree? Or do you think it is a-okay that the United States ranks in the very lowest percentile in terms of benefits given to working mothers?

Or (and here's the most likely scenario), do you think that women just plain should never work at all?

You're such a typical, formatted leftist, in fact, that one could fairly predict most of what your going to say in on any subject long before you say it. One long monotonal post sixties pop cultural ever circulating dose of Kultursmog.

This appears to be the only reply you ever have.

You know Loran, you seem pretty smart for a guy who is almost totally self-educated, and yet it is disheartening to see you constantly spouting the same refrain. You say that you are heading back to college soon. I can guarantee you that you are in for a rude awakening if you don't learn how to curtail your hot-headed, unceasing anger about Feminism/the Sixties/ the Seventies / liberalism, etc., etc.

[_guy sajer]

You know Loran, you seem pretty smart for a guy who is almost totally self-educated, and yet it is disheartening to see you constantly spouting the same refrain. You say that you are heading back to college soon. I can guarantee you that you are in for a rude awakening if you don't learn how to curtail your hot-headed, unceasing anger about Feminism/the Sixties/ the Seventies / liberalism, etc., etc.

Not if he goes to BYU, Bob Jones, or Liberty University. He'll fit right in (except that the latter two probably won't like a Mormon in their midst too much).

[_Gazelam]

except that the latter two probably won't like a Mormon in their midst too much.

We eat all the ice cream. It helps us repress more damageing urges.

[_Mister Scratch]

You know Loran, you seem pretty smart for a guy who is almost totally self-educated, and yet it is disheartening to see you constantly spouting the same refrain. You say that you are heading back to college soon. I can guarantee you that you are in for a rude awakening if you don't learn how to curtail your hot-headed, unceasing anger about Feminism/the Sixties/ the Seventies / liberalism, etc., etc.

Not if he goes to BYU, Bob Jones, or Liberty University. He'll fit right in (except that the latter two probably won't like a Mormon in their midst too much).

Well, he lives in Los Angeles (If I recall correctly) and has a bed-ridden wife. I would imagine that that limits his options somewhat.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins defines "derailing and subversion of a serious discussion" as any argument that disagrees with him.

No, actually, that definition is reserved for certain people who are incapable or unwilling to actually "argue" in a serious philosophical sense, at all.

Personally, I am not a champion of women working, in the sense that I think "homemaking" is demeaning. I think homemaking is or can be enobling. And I do think children ought to assume top priority. So, to the extent parents can and want to have one remain home to care for the children, I'm all for it.

Good.


But I know that circumstances often are not as described above. I also have no problem with a woman who decides to work, for whatever reason. I know that I would not be happy being a full-time homemaker, so I can empathize with someone (male or female) who feels this way too. Life is complex, motivations are complex, and they are not reducible to the caricature Coggins wants to paint of all "feminists" who choose a career out of base, selfish, materialistic motives. That kind of sloppy thinking may fly on talk radio, but it does not reflect real life for countless millions who must make difficult choices in the fact of complex circumstances.

I've always said "radical" feminists, and when I say "feminists" in a generic sence, I still mean "radical" feminists. The leftists.


Coggins wants to paint all his "opponents" on this board as reactionary liberals, when the truth is, most here are fairly reflective, reasonable persons who are not slaves to ideology, with one notable exception. Coggins is the only slave to ideology I see on this board, so it is ironic that he is the one accusing others of being ideologues. (Ok, LVR can be a bit over the top at times, but I think he does it more tounge in cheek, whereas Coggins is 100% dead serious in his narrow-minded, ideological rants.)


I know very well who are the leftist ideologues and who are reasonable liberals. That isn't all that difficult to figure out after a sufficient number of postings and discussions. I am the antithesis of an ideologue, one of the reasons for that being that Conservatism, as Russel Kirk said is "the antithesis of ideology".

I'm a political philosopher, not an ideologue, and you wouldn't know the difference Guy, if it reared up and farted on your Bippy.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

I would be interested in seeing you prove that I do not understand that term, Gomer.

Fine, but first you'll have to define it.

"and appear ignorant of data or evidence that is or has been common knowledge (the positive biological effects of breastfeeding)."

That's not what I said, Loran. I said that Dr. Carlson's breastfeeding diatribe was misguided. He was critical of Feminism, making some peculiar argument about how "equity feminism" is to blame for a decline in breastfeeding. Well, U.S. policies on maternal leave are equally to blame, in my view. Do you not agree? Or do you think it is a-okay that the United States ranks in the very lowest percentile in terms of benefits given to working mothers?

First you would have to provide a compelling argument that being the very lowest in such an area, depending upon what is meant by "benefits to working mothers" is either important or relevant. What is the meaning of "benefits"? and can such be constitutionally justified?

Or (and here's the most likely scenario), do you think that women just plain should never work at all?

I don't think working outside the home, while raising children, is the optimum situation, either for the children of for the spouses.

You know Loran, you seem pretty smart for a guy who is almost totally self-educated, and yet it is disheartening to see you constantly spouting the same refrain. You say that you are heading back to college soon. I can guarantee you that you are in for a rude awakening if you don't learn how to curtail your hot-headed, unceasing anger about Feminism/the Sixties/ the Seventies / liberalism, etc., etc.

[/quote]


Quite interesting how this comment verily assumes a higher education establishment dominated by...leftist ideologues who would be very put out by any untoward propositions regarding their cherished shibboleths. How nice to know that at University, certain subjects, such as Feminism, the Sixties, The Seventies, and the Left are not to be broached in any way that could be interpreted as criticism or dissent for fear of offending the tribal spirits.

[_Coggins7]

Well, he lives in Los Angeles (If I recall correctly) and has a bed-ridden wife. I would imagine that that limits his options somewhat.

Actually, I live in rural South Carolina. I was born and raised in Washington State, and lived for some time in San Diego. I have never lived in L.A.

[_Mister Scratch]

I would be interested in seeing you prove that I do not understand that term, Gomer.

Fine, but first you'll have to define it.

Nice try, but *you* are the one making the accusation here, Brother Loran. So, let's see YOU define it and apply your purportedly superior definition to my purported lack of understanding. Good luck with that one.

That's not what I said, Loran. I said that Dr. Carlson's breastfeeding diatribe was misguided. He was critical of Feminism, making some peculiar argument about how "equity feminism" is to blame for a decline in breastfeeding. Well, U.S. policies on maternal leave are equally to blame, in my view. Do you not agree? Or do you think it is a-okay that the United States ranks in the very lowest percentile in terms of benefits given to working mothers?

First you would have to provide a compelling argument that being the very lowest in such an area, depending upon what is meant by "benefits to working mothers" is either important or relevant.

That's easy. Woman who are not given "benefits"---and by "benefits" I mean paid leave off from work; I believe that Sweden (just to offer an example of a "high end" country) offers 60 weeks of paid leave, at something like 80% pay for new mothers---are put in a very difficult spot vis-a-vis breastfeeding. A woman who works has to make a tough decision: she can totally ditch her career, thus sacrificing money and other opportunities which would otherwise benefit her new baby; or, she can go back to work as soon as possible, which would still hinder breastfeeding, because what is she supposed to do? Feed the newborn right there in the office? (And what if she works in a place like McDonald's? You think upper management would approve of her breastfeeding right there in the restaurant?) Is she supposed to go into the restroom? Also, as you no doubt know, young infants usually need to be fed every two hours. When is the woman supposed to find time to do this?

I suppose you could counterargue that woman should just stay home and forego the extra money. But, this would be harmful to the children. As much as you tend to claim that mothers not being home is bad for kids, the studies actually show that lower socioeconomic status that far, far more harmful to children. (A silly part of your argument is the fact that it tends to overlook the time kids spend at school---time during which women could easily be making a good living.) I should add that by "harm", I am referring to the standard measuring stick that family sociologists use, which is educational attainment. Kids whose mothers have less education, and kids who come from poorer families, tend to do worse education-wise.

What is the meaning of "benefits"? and can such be constitutionally justified?

"Constitutionally justified"? How is this relevant? I thought we were talking about what's best for kids?

Or (and here's the most likely scenario), do you think that women just plain should never work at all?

I don't think working outside the home, while raising children, is the optimum situation, either for the children of for the spouses.

Well, hopefully the lower income won't be detrimental to the kids. The statistics suggest that it will be, unfortunately.

You know Loran, you seem pretty smart for a guy who is almost totally self-educated, and yet it is disheartening to see you constantly spouting the same refrain. You say that you are heading back to college soon. I can guarantee you that you are in for a rude awakening if you don't learn how to curtail your hot-headed, unceasing anger about Feminism/the Sixties/ the Seventies / liberalism, etc., etc.

Quite interesting how this comment verily assumes a higher education establishment dominated by...leftist ideologues who would be very put out by any untoward propositions regarding their cherished shibboleths. [/quote]

Yes. I think that *anyone* would be annoyed with "untoward propositions." You just seem totally oblivious to the sort of tact and mutual respect that goes into academic dialog.

How nice to know that at University, certain subjects, such as Feminism, the Sixties, The Seventies, and the Left are not to be broached in any way that could be interpreted as criticism or dissent for fear of offending the tribal spirits.

Of course they can be "broached" and criticized. I have got my fair share of gripes about those decades, too, Loran. But I am not about to accept the extremist and ridiculous position that these things are somehow the end of all civilization, anymore than you are willing to accept hardcore claims about the LDS Church, such as that it's a cult. The notion of balance and fairmindedness that gets taught to college freshmen seems always to escape you, I'm afraid.