Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[molly bloom]

Obi Gyn's gender roles- do they come with confetti, or dry rice?


Geez louise.

It's back to the 50s with Obi Gyn- the 1650s, that is.

[Arrian]

I have to admit I'm still curious as to what offended Ned about my post.

-Arrian

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Arrian
I have to admit I'm still curious as to what offended Ned about my post.

-Arrian

Me too.


Perhaps I'm being a particularly obtuse homo.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned,

Terribly sorry, old chap. Care to mention what offended you?

-Arrian

The way I read your post was that you were putting down women who were mothers and child rearers rather than career women.

Also, IMHO, while permitting women to have carreers or not, depending on their "wishes," one should not engineer society to make it impossible, due to financial pressures or the like, for women to stay home and raise their kids.

How many women work because the have to? I am willing to bet that it is a substantial minority if not a majority. The question is, why has this happened in our modern age when it largely did not happen in yesteryear.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
The way I read your post was that you were putting down women who were mothers and child rearers rather than career women.

He was doing no such thing, as he was quite obviously making fun of the sexist attitudes among men that women should be such. Nothing in his post denigrated women who would choose to do that of their own will. I don't see how anyone could get any other interpretation out of his post unless they were being deliberately obtuse or...living in the Nedaverse?

[mindseye]

Quick! Who said this in response to a question about gay marriage?

One of the most unpleasant aspects of this business is the extent of which private lives are intruded upon when these kinds of issues come up.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned

How many women work because the have to? I am willing to bet that it is a substantial minority if not a majority.

And I'm willing to bet it's roughly equal to or a little less than the percentage of men who work because they have to.

[Arrian]

Ned,

That's not at all what I said. And if that wasn't clear the first time around, I'll quote my follow-up post (which I think was in response to MrFun):

I think people do tend to crave defined roles. It's just that I think individuals should define their roles for themselves, and not have them thrust upon them by society at large (or worse yet, the gummint).

There are people who like the old "traditional" roles of stay-at-home-mom and working dad. Good for them. But I see no reason to push that as preferable to the inverse.

Clear now?

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Yeah -- when I read Arrian's post, I thought it was in response to mine.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


He was doing no such thing, as he was quite obviously making fun of the sexist attitudes among men that women should be such. Nothing in his post denigrated women who would choose to do that of their own will. I don't see how anyone could get any other interpretation out of his post unless they were being deliberately obtuse or...living in the Nedaverse?

Boris, that is why I said, "The way I read it."

Boris, I suggest you calm down just a bit. If you haven't noticed, I am largely, but not completely, on your side on these issues.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned,

That's not at all what I said. And if that wasn't clear the first time around, I'll quote my follow-up post (which I think was in response to MrFun):



Clear now?

-Arrian

Arrian, I totally agree that we all should have complete "freedom" to pursue life the way we want. Unfortunately, we all know the truth.

Just coming from my own family, my wife stayed at home and raised my daughter who now is in medical school. Good for both of them. But I can tell you that back in the '70s and '80s, there was a drumbeat of feminist thought that suggested that women who were stay-at-home housewives were somehow "betraying the cause." Housewives were indeed put down and it actually hurt people like my wife.

[Arrian]

Yes, I've heard my aunt (proud, happy, stay-at-home mom, though she does work from home part-time) complain similarly regarding the feminist push to get women into the workplace.

I have little love for the people who denigrated your wife for staying home, just as I have little love for those who beat the drum of "stay at home - it's your place" (thankfully, those ranks have thinned quite a bit). Let each individual decide their place.

So I think we agree, Ned.

-Arrian

[Elok]

Crap, I go away for two days and FlameFlash posts the Oxford English Dictionary...

Anyway, while much of what I said is just drunk talk ("sweet, beautiful drunk talk..."-Barney Gumble), I mean that regarding the actions of the government with the kind of austere reverence we give to religious ceremony is a mixed blessing at best. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" sounds great, but my experience on the internet and IRL has been that people are nucking futs. Democracy works by cancelling out the most insane fringe ideas of all parties to find a solution that mildly displeases everyone equally. Democratic government is ANTI-idealistic by its very nature, arising in its modern form in response to abuses of power by individuals who grew too strong.

But we treat it almost like a deity, rather than the plain regulatory system it is, like all government. Subject to change. We talk about the proud tradition of the Constitution, but the constitution originally provided for slaves as three-fifths of a person, their votes allotted to the guy who whipped them all day. And we say "yes, but we amended that out while still preserving the original spirit of the founders," but the world the Constitution was written in was undoubtedly a different one from today's, and with very different values. Try going back in time and asking Jefferson what he thought about gay rights, abortion, and gambling as a means of revenue.

I don't mean we should go back to what they thought then. But by "amendment" we essentially make the government whatever we bloody well please at the moment. It's not a religion, it's a system to keep track of stuff more efficiently and keep us in line. There is no eternal truth in government. It's about what works here and now. If you think the same of religion, fine, but that's not the whole point of it like it is with politics.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Elok
Crap, I go away for two days and FlameFlash posts the Oxford English Dictionary...

Guilty... hey, I just don't like double-posting.

Anyway, while much of what I said is just drunk talk ("sweet, beautiful drunk talk..."-Barney Gumble), I mean that regarding the actions of the government with the kind of austere reverence we give to religious ceremony is a mixed blessing at best. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" sounds great, but my experience on the internet and IRL has been that people are nucking futs. Democracy works by cancelling out the most insane fringe ideas of all parties to find a solution that mildly displeases everyone equally. Democratic government is ANTI-idealistic by its very nature, arising in its modern form in response to abuses of power by individuals who grew too strong.

Eh? What does this have to do about 'civil union' and 'marriages'?

But we treat it almost like a deity, rather than the plain regulatory system it is, like all government. Subject to change. We talk about the proud tradition of the Constitution, but the constitution originally provided for slaves as three-fifths of a person, their votes allotted to the guy who whipped them all day. And we say "yes, but we amended that out while still preserving the original spirit of the founders," but the world the Constitution was written in was undoubtedly a different one from today's, and with very different values. Try going back in time and asking Jefferson what he thought about gay rights, abortion, and gambling as a means of revenue.

The entire premise of going through and talking about 'founder's intentions' is exactly that... if the founders were here now, all grown up in today's age, how would they interpret and apply the Constitution? After all, searching a car after pulling a person over, the police simply have to arrest the driver or ask permission, yet does this go against search and seizures? The Supreme Court says it doesn't, but would they have? That's the entire gist of 'spirit of the Consitution,' would the Constitution, written today apply to certain modern day situations.

I don't mean we should go back to what they thought then. But by "amendment" we essentially make the government whatever we bloody well please at the moment. It's not a religion, it's a system to keep track of stuff more efficiently and keep us in line. There is no eternal truth in government. It's about what works here and now. If you think the same of religion, fine, but that's not the whole point of it like it is with politics.

Eh?

[Elok]

I am inclined to think that, had Thomas Jefferson grown up today, he would have watched a few hours of reality TV and then devised a system specifically designed to keep the common man from having a voice in government at all. You can think otherwise, but it's speculation either way, and we're basically putting words in the mouths of the "gods of democracy," so to speak.

And no, it has nothing to do with gay marriage. Rants are like that.