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.
Actually, 'smug' fits you far, far better, along with a few other choice words, because I didn't make the kind of assumptions about your family life that you made about mine (Along with the simpering little emoticon, for good measure). You're the one who chose to cross the line by making that kind of insinuation about my family life.
Listen, cpg, over the year I've been on C-D, a man as devoted to his family and wife, as you appeared, is more likely to treasure their relationship with his wife. Speaking from the experience from meeting men like yourself - still rare though - they will concede to their wives more likely than their wives concede to them. Just the fact. If you got upset about my extrapolation, well, you probably read something more in it, than I intended. If you insist that your family is an absolute equal 50-50, well, you are the rarest of the rare then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
And, as far as fulfilling the dream is concerned, I'm absolutely certain that there are pretty much any number of other ways that the OP could fulfill her career aspirations without making these demands. It would be one thing if her boyfriend said, "Sure, do it." But he didn't. And steamrolling over him despite his objections would damage the relationship. This is the relationship forum, is it not?
I side with Redisca on this, and I guess there are going to be two opinions, -- not just one. Up to the OP to decide.
pursuing one's dreams -- when one has a dream to accomplish something for oneself -- that's selfish by definition. If i go read a book instead of cooking my son a 3-course lunch for tomorrow, i'm being selfish. If i hire a babysitter so i could go to the gym, i'm being selfish. The only way to be completely unselfish is to devote 100% of one's time and thoughts to child care. (even then, it's still selfish, but a. Will have another hissy fit if i take the discussion in that direction.)
Well, pursuing one's dreams is selfish by definition. The only way to be completely unselfish is to devote 100% of one's time and thoughts to child care.
You are not making a logical argument. "Pursuing one's dreams is selfish by definition", do you care to explain that? What definition are referencing where it says that pursuing ones dreams is selfish??? You must be reading a dictionary that is not in my local library.
Hypothetical: I have a child. I have a lifelong dream of becoming a writer so I write in my free time. I make money from my freelance work which goes towards the care of my child and maybe down the line I will land a book deal which will bring even more money in so I can save for my child's future. How is that selfish?
Second Hypothetical: Same situation as above, but in order to research one of my books I decide I need to travel to India for a year. The father of the child is not in agreement. On my own I decide I'm going to do it anyway and I trivialize the effects it will have on my child and the relationship with the father. Same dream (writing) but the approach someone takes is what decides whether they are acting selfishly or not.
If I go read a book instead of cooking my son a 3-course lunch for tomorrow, I'm being selfish. If I hire a babysitter so I could go to the gym, I'm being selfish. The only way to be completely unselfish is to devote 100% of one's time and thoughts to child care. (Even then, it's still selfish, but A. will have another hissy fit if I take the discussion in that direction.)
So according to your definition, the only way to be an unselfish parent is to be obese, uneducated, overly doting, a social loner and one dimensional. Hmmmm . A part of being a good parent is being well rounded. Which means setting a good example by reading, exercising, having interests, being creative, branching out, having friends, etc. According to you, someone taking a crap for a few minutes is being selfish because they could be staring at their child and telling them how wonderful they are .
You are not making a logical argument. "Pursuing one's dreams is selfish by definition", do you care to explain that? What definition are referencing where it says that pursuing ones dreams is selfish??? You must be reading a dictionary that is not in my local library.
Hypothetical: I have a child. I have a lifelong dream of becoming a writer so I write in my free time. I make money from my freelance work which goes towards the care of my child and maybe down the line I will land a book deal which will bring even more money in so I can save for my child's future. How is that selfish?
Second Hypothetical: Same situation as above, but in order to research one of my books I decide I need to travel to India for a year. The father of the child is not in agreement. On my own I decide I'm going to do it anyway and I trivialize the effects it will have on my child and the relationship with the father. Same dream (writing) but the approach someone takes is what decides whether they are acting selfishly or not.
Writing (in your native tongue) is not a pure example, neither. Let's say you decided to write in French, alongside with the French writers. Before you get to that skill muster, you would need to learn the language. The North American facilities would most likely not be enough to be a writer - a reader and talker, maybe. So now you can't make money in your free time, you need badly to immerse yourself into the French culture, and your partner is against you travelling abroad. What do you do now?
You are not making a logical argument. "Pursuing one's dreams is selfish by definition", do you care to explain that? What definition are referencing where it says that pursuing ones dreams is selfish??? You must be reading a dictionary that is not in my local library.
Merriam Webster defines "selfish" as arising out of a concern for one's self to the disregard of others. So any time you do something for yourself to the slightest detriment of others, you are being, technically, selfish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizCab44
Hypothetical: I have a child. I have a lifelong dream of becoming a writer so I write in my free time. I make money from my freelance work which goes towards the care of my child and maybe down the line I will land a book deal which will bring even more money in so I can save for my child's future. How is that selfish?
It's selfish because you could devote your free time to child care instead of writing. It's selfish because, as far as money is concerned, being a writer is not the most lucrative occupation one can have, so if you were concerned solely with your child's well-being you would pick something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizCab44
So according to your definition, the only way to be an unselfish parent is to be obese, uneducated, overly doting, a social loner and one dimensional. Hmmmm . A part of being a good parent is being well rounded. Which means setting a good example by reading, exercising, having interests, being creative, branching out, having friends, etc. According to you, someone taking a crap for a few minutes is being selfish because they could be staring at their child and telling them how wonderful they are
My definition of selfishness was designed to show that being selfish does not necessarily work to the long-term detriment of others. Don't you think that learning another language and having international experience makes one especially well-rounded and therefore a better parent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LizCab44
Second Hypothetical: Same situation as above, but in order to research one of my books I decide I need to travel to India for a year. The father of the child is not in agreement. On my own I decide I'm going to do it anyway and I trivialize the effects it will have on my child and the relationship with the father. Same dream (writing) but the approach someone takes is what decides whether they are acting selfishly or not.
Herein lies the problem with basing your argument on selfishness: I mean, since we decided to put the immigration issue aside, the father's lack of desire to accompany the mother due to his own inconvenience is also selfish, don't you think? So as often happens in relationships, you have the selfishness of one person running up against the selfishness of the other. Who should give in? Should that person give in every time, or should they take turns being unselfish? Whose turn is it this time? How do we know? Is it only one parent who is expected to be unselfish?
I suspect that the expectation of unselfishness and self-sacrifice weighs more heavily on women and mothers than on men and fathers. I mean, if the OP was a man, saying he was a young, unmarried father, that he had a unique opportunity to study abroad and his girlfriend was frustrating it with her reluctance to accompany him -- I think the responses here would have been a bit different. Otherwise, how to explain all those diplomats and specialists who work abroad, overwhelmingly men, whose wives turn their whole lives upside down for them?
Writing (in your native tongue) is not a pure example, neither. Let's say you decided to write in French, alongside with the French writers. Before you get to that skill muster, you would need to learn the language. The North American facilities would most likely not be enough to be a writer - a reader and talker, maybe. So now you can't make money in your free time, you need badly to immerse yourself into the French culture, and your partner is against you travelling abroad. What do you do now?
The rationalization that the only way to learn French is to travel to France is very weak. Many people travel to other countries and never intuitively pick up the language. My Spanish teacher claimed she knew Spanish very well after being in Mexico for 3 years, but she was a poor speaker at best. Why she was allowed to teach Spanish, is beyond me!
You can learn a language without being immersed in the culture. That is a fact and I won't even try to debate you on that point. Sure, some people are able to travel for lengths of time to other countries and become immersed in the culture. But other people, such as the OP, are not in that position.
The rationalization that the only way to learn French is to travel to France is very weak. Many people travel to other countries and never intuitively pick up the language. My Spanish teacher claimed she knew Spanish very well after being in Mexico for 3 years, but she was a poor speaker at best. Why she was allowed to teach Spanish, is beyond me!
You can learn a language without being immersed in the culture. That is a fact and I won't even try to debate you on that point. Sure, some people are able to travel for lengths of time to other countries and become immersed in the culture. But other people, such as the OP, are not in that position.
You are trying to substitute something that would be of essence to you (the ability to write) with something less important (the ability to research a book). No research, not a big problem, since you still can write about something else. And I take that the OP's need for learning the language is more of providing means for her profession, not just a detour she could do without.
Maybe this thread will let you understand how important "immersion" is to learning a language, let alone becoming a writer?
(By the way, have you noticed how little foreign nationals participate in C-D? And if they do, how poor is their skill in expressing complicated thoughts? I certainly would function on their level had I not been immersed for 14 years here. Still, I wouldn't dare to author in English.)
Listen, cpg, over the year I've been on C-D, a man as devoted to his family and wife, as you appeared, is more likely to treasure their relationship with his wife. Speaking from the experience from meeting men like yourself - still rare though - they will concede to their wives more likely than their wives concede to them. Just the fact. If you got upset about my extrapolation, well, you probably read something more in it, than I intended. If you insist that your family is an absolute equal 50-50, well, you are the rarest of the rare then.
Oh, don't be disingenuous. Not much room for interpretation in your crack.
Merriam Webster defines "selfish" as arising out of a concern for one's self to the disregard of others. So any time you do something for yourself to the slightest detriment of others, you are being, technically, selfish.
There are different types of outcomes in decision making. One is, everybody gains. The other, one person gains the other loses. Lastly, everybody loses. If you make a decision that is MUTUALLY beneficial (meaning it benefits you and another person such as a child) than it is not selfish. But if you make a decision that is exclusively beneficial to you, than that is selfish.
Ex: A mother works to provide for herself and her family. Her family is benefiting from her income - more than if she stayed home and they were on welfare. Everyone is benefiting from her decision, so no, it is not selfish.
Quote:
It's selfish because you could devote your free time to child care instead of writing. It's selfish because, as far as money is concerned, being a writer is not the most lucrative occupation one can have, so if you were concerned solely with your child's well-being you would pick something else.
If you looked closely at my first example, you will see that I wrote writing in free time. Some people knit in their free time, others garden, writers write. Of course you would have to have another source of income if you were not already established, that is common sense.
Quote:
My definition of selfishness was designed to show that being selfish does not necessarily work to the long-term detriment of others. Don't you think that learning another language and having international experience makes one especially well-rounded and therefore a better parent?
I whole heartedly agree that she should travel and educate herself. I never said she shouldn't. But she has to balance that with her responsibilities. I think it would be more reasonable to travel for a couple of months - which is what I advised earlier.
Quote:
Who should give in? Should that person give in every time, or should they take turns being unselfish? Whose turn is it this time? How do we know? Is it only one parent who is expected to be unselfish?
I suspect that the expectation of unselfishness and self-sacrifice weighs more heavily on women and mothers than on men and fathers.
I think the ideal outcome would be a compromise. Maybe the child can stay with the father for a few months and she can travel abroad. Or maybe they can plan a trip together when he is able to leave the country. When there is more than one person involved, there has to be compromises in order for anything to work.
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.
. A part of being a good parent is being well rounded. Which means setting a good example by reading, exercising, having interests, being creative, branching out, having friends, etc. According to you, someone taking a crap for a few minutes is being selfish because they could be staring at their child and telling them how wonderful they are 
. 
.
