Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've got a man to take care of me: my dad.
When it comes to a marital partner, however, I prefer one who's more of an equal.
Maybe women who seek "daddy figures" to marry don't have awesome dads like mine, who love them unconditionally and are always ready, willing, able, and happy to help them in an emergency, no questions asked.
I truly hope you're under 18 years old otherwise what you said is very inappropriate. Seriously. I will have much more respect for someone who depends on their marital partners than you, who rely on your parent to take care of you. All 18+ people should be taking care of their parents, not depend on them.
Rubik's Cube - There's a lot of food for thought in your post. I have no comment, as yet, but I just wanted to say that it's an interesting perspective and very well expressed. Thank you for sharing.
I don't know what it's like to be supported by a man. It's never happened. Maybe I would like it but I don't know for sure. I know it would be nice to not have to be concerned about money but I don't think I'm even fully aware of what you give up to get that freedom. I do know there's always a price to pay.
Totally crazy since after taking care of 2 men (older) that I married, I suppose I "DREAM" of some wonderful man to take me away and take care of me..................However, I'm not enough of a Barbie to allow it. Damn! Fantasies can exist though..........
Maybe in the broad spectrum of reality???? I guess I just want someone to pull the same amount of weight I do. Therefore, I don't think I ask for a lot.
But, I DO wonder why my few female friends that are total ******* end up with wonderful "yes honey" men that work their asses off, tell the wife not to work, buy them everything and the wife is a total ***** that refuses to have sex with him. While I always worked my ass off, paid for everything, was denied sex and the guy took and took. It seems the ******* get the guys that treat them like queens. I would like to try being a "queen" once. Maybe it comes with becoming a spineless namby pamby...(or pouty little girl) and that is why I've never met this person? Maybe opposites attract and that is all................
I disagree. An argument from nature is a logical fallacy. The most obvious reason for this is that the definition of what's "natural" is excessively vague. In terms of strategy, it's not that different from an argument based on religion: in the latter situation, people quote the Bible selectively; with arguments based on nature, people cull only certain things from nature while completely ignoring others. Even distinguishing between "natural" and "artificial" is a complete waste of time, because it's simply not a given. To Rubic's Cube, "natural" is whatever the status quo was in 1950's America; as far as I see it, however, it's natural for human beings to have complex and changing societies, as well as to alter both their environment and their survival strategies. To Rubic's Cube, it's "natural" for women to be housewives even when they are both utterly overqualified for that role and interested in other things; to me, it's natural for people to follow their calling and to take advantage of expanding opportunities. To Rubic's Cube, humans should "naturally" emulate certain animals that seem to behave in patriarchal ways; to me, there is no convincing reason why humans should emulate animals at all (we are our own species, thankyouverymuch), and in any event, there are plenty of other species which don't follow the "men go to work and women stay home with the young" model. To Rubic's Cube, women fall into two categories: the "natural" ones who just want to push out babies and fold laundry, and the mutants who want to study and work; whereas the way I see it, human nature is complex and varied, and it's perfectly possible to have both parental instincts and interests outside of reproduction, nor does one have to be sacrificed for the other.
The blunderbuss "argument" is full of amusing tidbits. The one that struck me was about the tragedy of having a female child (oh, the horror!) who will have to marry the son of a butcher instead of the son of a wealthy scientist. Preliminarily, as anyone who has ever been in the academia will tell you, brains do not necessarily equal money. Nobel Prize-winning scientists make a lot less money than Wall Street businessmen; most scientists aren't "wealthy" by any stretch of imagination. Second, the claim that wealthy people look for good birthing hips and overall good health when they search for wives is completely discredited by history -- and specifically, the poor genetic health of the European royalty and aristocracy. To the extent that marriages are ever pragmatic, money marries money -- not "genes". With that in mind, that unfortunate female child has a better chance of marrying "the son of a wealthy scientist" if her female ancestors work, in order to increase the wealth of the family.
And finally, there is the blissful ignorance of the fact that human nature (!) makes most people focus on short-term goals -- "short-term", meaning, limited by their lifetime. I am not going to worry about what my descendants will be doing 10 generations hence, whether they will marry wealthy scientists or be stuck with butchers (oh, the horror! again!). I am going to live my life in a way that I find fulfilling and beneficial to those who are important to me -- and hope they do the same. I don't think that makes me a freak or even unusual. An unbiased observation of human behavior shows that while the human sex drive is very strong, our brains aren't zombified by the "need" to have babies -- or else, there is no way to explain all those birth control pill and condom sales.
And of course, there is absolutely no evidence -- none whatsoever -- that educated and working mothers have more problematic children than those who just devote themselves to domesticity full time.
I saw another comment by that poster, to the effect what a terrible tragedy it is for a woman to be over the age of 25. I have to say -- so long as we are on the topic of "survival strategies" -- that if any woman considers marrying a man who adheres to such ideas, it is especially important for her to remain economically self-sufficient. She should realistically ponder what her life with a man like that will be like as soon as she turns 26 -- and especially after her uterine "usefulness" is all used up.
Ahh, Redisca's post caused me to back read. If the SAHM/D/P for the nuclear family is a nature argument, then I don't understand how nature only surfaced for a few decades. The rest of human history entails backbreaking work for all (including the children) in/out/around the home. Lets not use tvland as a history source. As far as wealthy scientists go...LOL!...surely, you're not a scientist. Scientists that become wealthy go into business. OTOH, I don't see why the little girl needs to worry about marrying a butcher or a scientist when she could just pick up either vocation if she wants.
I disagree. An argument from nature is a logical fallacy. The most obvious reason for this is that the definition of what's "natural" is excessively vague. In terms of strategy, it's not that different from an argument based on religion: in the latter situation, people quote the Bible selectively; with arguments based on nature, people cull only certain things from nature while completely ignoring others. Even distinguishing between "natural" and "artificial" is a complete waste of time, because it's simply not a given. To Rubic's Cube, "natural" is whatever the status quo was in 1950's America; as far as I see it, however, it's natural for human beings to have complex and changing societies, as well as to alter both their environment and their survival strategies. To Rubic's Cube, it's "natural" for women to be housewives even when they are both utterly overqualified for that role and interested in other things; to me, it's natural for people to follow their calling and to take advantage of expanding opportunities. To Rubic's Cube, humans should "naturally" emulate certain animals that seem to behave in patriarchal ways; to me, there is no convincing reason why humans should emulate animals at all (we are our own species, thankyouverymuch), and in any event, there are plenty of other species which don't follow the "men go to work and women stay home with the young" model. To Rubic's Cube, women fall into two categories: the "natural" ones who just want to push out babies and fold laundry, and the mutants who want to study and work; whereas the way I see it, human nature is complex and varied, and it's perfectly possible to have both parental instincts and interests outside of reproduction, nor does one have to be sacrificed for the other.
The blunderbuss "argument" is full of amusing tidbits. The one that struck me was about the tragedy of having a female child (oh, the horror!) who will have to marry the son of a butcher instead of the son of a wealthy scientist. Preliminarily, as anyone who has ever been in the academia will tell you, brains do not necessarily equal money. Nobel Prize-winning scientists make a lot less money than Wall Street businessmen; most scientists aren't "wealthy" by any stretch of imagination. Second, the claim that wealthy people look for good birthing hips and overall good health when they search for wives is completely discredited by history -- and specifically, the poor genetic health of the European royalty and aristocracy. To the extent that marriages are ever pragmatic, money marries money -- not "genes". With that in mind, that unfortunate female child has a better chance of marrying "the son of a wealthy scientist" if her female ancestors work, in order to increase the wealth of the family.
And finally, there is the blissful ignorance of the fact that human nature (!) makes most people focus on short-term goals -- "short-term", meaning, limited by their lifetime. I am not going to worry about what my descendants will be doing 10 generations hence, whether they will marry wealthy scientists or be stuck with butchers (oh, the horror! again!). I am going to live my life in a way that I find fulfilling and beneficial to those who are important to me -- and hope they do the same. I don't think that makes me a freak or even unusual. An unbiased observation of human behavior shows that while the human sex drive is very strong, our brains aren't zombified by the "need" to have babies -- or else, there is no way to explain all those birth control pill and condom sales.
And of course, there is absolutely no evidence -- none whatsoever -- that educated and working mothers have more problematic children than those who just devote themselves to domesticity full time.
I saw another comment by that poster, to the effect what a terrible tragedy it is for a woman to be over the age of 25. I have to say -- so long as we are on the topic of "survival strategies" -- that if any woman considers marrying a man who adheres to such ideas, it is especially important for her to remain economically self-sufficient. She should realistically ponder what her life with a man like that will be like as soon as she turns 26 -- and especially after her uterine "usefulness" is all used up.
I'd like to pretend I'm adding that strictly for effect, but the honest truth is your reply had me cackling like an old man for about a half dozen different reasons.
The first of which is the intellectually dishonest fashion in which you responded to my post. The nuanced, but deliberate manner in which you constantly misrepresent my position is quite entertaining for someone who has an eye for such things. Actually, scratch that. The wheels fell off with that last quibble about something I posted in a different thread. To qualify such a blatant lie as a simple misrepresentation of my position would be a gross understatement, and to top it off, you managed to present it with all the grace and subtlety of a pitbull on steroids.
When you're trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat, make sure the rabbit isn't hopping around on stage before the show begins. Illusions tend to lose their mystique when such mishaps occur. The audience is not impressed. Sloppy, sloppy stuff, redisca.
With that said, I wish I could chalk it up to simple incompetence, but it's quite obvious you're arguing in bad faith. Therefore, I will not entertain the notion of a serious debate with you. Nevertheless, I'd like to give myself a pat on the back for eliciting such a distinctly lawyer-y response on your part. Then again, I tend to forget that many of these Jan Levinson types don't leave their work at the office when they go home at night, so maybe it wasn't such an achievement afterall.
Onwards, I find it quite ironic that you would open your response by accusing me of a logical fallacy, and then go on and write a huge opening paragraph absolutely chockful of strawmen arguments. Your last gem of a paragraph alone arguably qualifies for about a dozen of them. But I'll do you one better. Given that my initial post dealt primarily with the cause and effect of a certain set of behaviors within the framework of natural selection, NOT the desirability of natural things from a moral standpoint (unless you start grasping for straws by arguing that I tacitly acknowledge that my view of the optimal environment for children represents such a platform, which to be quite honest, I think would be a good place for us to start as a society, but I'll say no more, I wouldn't want to contradict a lawyer armed with wikipedia), your accusation is shaky at best. Furthermore, even if we operate under the assumption that your accusation is sound, you are still guilty, via your accusation and your subsequent conclusion that I am wrong because of it, of committing a fallacist's fallacy, because nature's questionable relevance as what is or isn't desirable doesn't in this case actually disprove anything else I said. Wrap your head around that one, champ.
Maybe I should have been more clear. Then again, I didn't think I'd encounter anyone quite this anal retentive. I have to admit though that I'm impressed that you have the audacity to open such a can of worms. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you would like your own posts to be subject to this sort of meticulous dissection in the future.
Better start reviewing your notes, because you're off to a bad start.
(I'll bet anyone a Coke that redisca calls for a truce before the weekend is over )
Moving forward, the butcher/scientist argument was nothing more than a metaphor for the impact of certain lifestyle choices on one's eligibility to breed with the best possible mate. A subtle play on the style gwynedd (whose prose I greatly admire) typically employs to get his point across. I'll be the first to admit I can't pull it off as well as he can.
Not everybody gets to be an (female) astronaut. Not everybody gets to marry prince char...Err, I mean the prom queen (wouldn't want to offend your precious sensibilities again). There are reasons for that. That's all the meaning you were supposed to extrapolate from that analogy. I'm sorely disappointed that flew so high over your head. Even more disappointed it led you on such an impotent, irrelevant tangent.
Instead of hearing you dig for obscur leaps in logic where there are none, I would be interested on hearing your views on the impact of genetics on one's worth in the sexual marketplace. You seem to come just short of saying that they're of no consequence, without actually coming out and saying it.
(Next she'll probably tell me that there is no such thing as a universally attractive woman, and that she's correct because people who lived in the 14th century didn't know their ass from their elbow )
Lastly, even though it was never the primary point of contention as you erroneously suggested, given that it has apparently been established that it is illogical to suggest that the system that best serves to propagate the species and find the most desirable mate (not to mention, placate our nearly insatiable sex drive) is a desirable state, I would be curious to hear your take on what is desirable and applicable to the majority of the population.
Last edited by Rubik's Cube; 07-23-2010 at 11:00 AM..
Whereas I do not side with redisca in some cases, I am with her in this one. Anytime I see "Mother Nature" used in a argument I reach for the bug repellent. There is no Person behind Nature. There is no goal or underlying plan. Life exists to continue itself simply because it had worked as a strategy for perpetuation. In nature there are many examples of species ending up extinct due to errors of becoming too rigid in diets or reproductive strategies. Too often those that argue from a naturalistic standpoint have a warped view about what nature really is. Nature has no goal, nature has no reason, nature is just a convenient word humans have came up with to describe things that exist outside themselves. Unfortunately we have a bad habit of attaching human attributes to things not human.
Now to the argument for the best practice of child rearing to perpetuate the human species? Some things are fairly apparent. A child needs two parents, male and female. A child needs a nurturing environment. A child needs a proper role in the success of the Family. If a child has no structure it will likely grow up lacking Socialization skills. The danger of a two parent working household is this can leave the child to fend for itself and quite often to not have any demands to be a proper contributing member of the family unit. Children are not little adults, they need to be nurtured and taught to be properly functioning reasoning people. Society, in order to exist, needs to impose its values on children so they will follow them once they are adults.
Added thought: Human beings are highly resourceful and can overcome disadvantages in upbringing or lack of having everything perfect. Single parents can and do raise well adjusted children. I expect most of these (single parent) will seek to have the influence of the other gender in their child's life whether from a Grandparent or some other method if the other parent is not available. Also, even with the best of raising, there are some people that will still not turn out all right due to extraneous factors.
Last edited by MattB4; 07-23-2010 at 11:28 AM..
Reason: Thoughts
Whereas I do not side with redisca in some cases, I am with her in this one. Anytime I see "Mother Nature" used in a argument I reach for the bug repellent. There is no Person behind Nature. There is no goal or underlying plan. Life exists to continue itself simply because it had worked as a strategy for perpetuation. In nature there are many examples of species ending up extinct due to errors of becoming too rigid in diets or reproductive strategies. Too often those that argue from a naturalistic standpoint have a warped view about what nature really is. Nature has no goal, nature has no reason, nature is just a convenient word humans have came up with to describe things that exist outside themselves. Unfortunately we have a bad habit of attaching human attributes to things not human.
Now to the argument for the best practice of child rearing to perpetuate the human species? Some things are fairly apparent. A child needs two parents, male and female. A child needs a nurturing environment. A child needs a proper role in the success of the Family. If a child has no structure it will likely grow up lacking Socialization skills. The danger of a two parent working household is this can leave the child to fend for itself and quite often to not have any demands to be a proper contributing member of the family unit. Children are not little adults, they need to be nurtured and taught to be properly functioning reasoning people. Society, in order to exist, needs to impose its values on children so they will follow them once they are adults.
Added thought: Human beings are highly resourceful and can overcome disadvantages in upbringing or lack of having everything perfect. Single parents can and do raise well adjusted children. I expect most of these (single parent) will seek to have the influence of the other gender in their child's life whether from a Grandparent or some other method if the other parent is not available. Also, even with the best of raising, there are some people that will still not turn out all right due to extraneous factors.
That's all well and good and I agree, but once again the issue of contention is not the merits of "nature" as a desirable state. Moreover, while it's true that "nature" is neither definable nor should it be used as the de facto measuring stick, to deny that a number of themes are recurring when it comes to human happiness (in other words, that a number of innate traits are common in most humans) is neither useful nor progressive. I chose to group these traits under the word "nature". If "nature" is too loaded a term for you, you can substitute it with "what typically makes most humans feel all giddy inside".
In other words, I simply warn against the perils of pursuing a career as a young woman. It does not lead to happiness, and it invariably leads to a greater part of your child's wellbeing being left up to chance, as you noted yourself.
What's the male equivalent of a career woman on the sexual marketplace? A man who wears nail polish? I think I'm at least in the right ballpark.
If this is desirable for you, then by all means, proceed.
...
What's the male equivalent of a career woman on the sexual marketplace? A man who wears nail polish? I think I'm at least in the right ballpark.
If this is desirable for you, then by all means, proceed.
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. If it is a sideways notion that men that do not live to your gender standards might be gay or effeminate, I wonder why you would make it. First off, I am neither gay or effeminate.
Though it is good you acknowledge that argument from some supposed nature plan is fallacious. Actually, in my view of things, there is too many people on the Planet right now and I believe Sterilization of the inferior ones should commence as soon as practical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
)
