|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Henry_Cowell
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 3352
Location: Berkeley
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| rusmeister wrote: |
| Traditional family - father, mother, children, where possible surrounded by extended family. The obvious. The rule. Not the exceptions. The norm is indeed universal. |
No. Quite simply, it's not "the norm" and it's not universal. The "nuclear family" is only a very recent phenomenon across world populations, given the total length of time humans have been on this planet.
People on this thread have repeatedly told you this. But you don't believe it. Fair enough. But why not just say, "I believe that the father+mother+children nuclear family is the best possible family for humans"? Arguments that depend on history and religion will never get you as far as such a simple statement of your own belief. Because it is your own belief, it can never be denied by others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Henry_Cowell wrote: |
People on this thread have repeatedly told you this. |
'People' being you and f.m.s.ali. In any event, finding people who agree with you does not make your arguments more logically sound.
| Henry_Cowell wrote: |
No. Quite simply, it's not "the norm" and it's not universal. The "nuclear family" is only a very recent phenomenon across world populations, given the total length of time humans have been on this planet. |
The basic fallacy in this statement is that it depends on knowledge that we can't have. It may be true that recorded history is much shorter than the total history of humans, but we can't know how humans developed before recorded history, let alone make statements that the family is a recent phenomenon. That's an enormous anthropological assumption. My statement at least has the benefit of being backed up by how humans organize societies in recorded history, and it is eminently logical that they were doing the same things before recording history. If you're going to insist on this, then thread over, for it is as surely religious of a belief as you claim mine is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sallycat
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 303
Location: behind you. BOO!
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
justin -- i second claims that "partner" is regionally specific. in nz it is most often used in the way that you use it -- to denote something more serious and grown up than that which is implied by "girlfriend/boyfriend". incidentally (and i can't remember which poster brought this one up) the use of "girlfriend" to denote a platonic female friend of a female is also regionally specific: in nz "girlfriend" only means sexual/romantic partner.
| rusmeister wrote: |
The excitement of merely seeing an exposed ankle or leg has been crushed by 'Deep Throat'.
|
it intrigues me that you are still concerned about the negative effects of a movie that was released in 1972. on a more serious note, many of us are extremely happy in commited relationships with "partners" that we have no intention of marrying (and having really rather lovely sex with them, thanks for asking). i fail to see how i am making the world a less pleasant place by not getting married. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry_Cowell
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 3352
Location: Berkeley
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rusmeister wrote: |
| The basic fallacy in this statement is that it depends on knowledge that we can't have.... My statement at least has the benefit of being backed up by how humans organize societies in recorded history.... |
And knowledge that YOU don't have either -- about cultures and periods that you haven't studied or read about and about ideas of family outside your moral purview.
You have shown elsewhere that you are intolerant of values that don't match your "philosophy" and that you don't respect cultural diversity. So it is no surprise that you cannot recognize that family values are not universal across human populations. I'm perfectly happy to have you withdraw from the thread for such reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Henry_Cowell wrote: |
And knowledge that YOU don't have either -- about cultures and periods that you haven't studied or read about and about ideas of family outside your moral purview. |
Precisely - and I was making no claims about prehistory except that it is logical to assume that human behavior did not change with or due to the advent of recorded history. The burden is still on you to produce the societies that have gotten along successfully without the traditional concept of parents and children bound by some kind of vow or ceremony witnessed by society.
| Henry_Cowell wrote: |
You have shown elsewhere that you are intolerant of values that don't match your "philosophy" and that you don't respect cultural diversity. So it is no surprise that you cannot recognize that family values are not universal across human populations. I'm perfectly happy to have you withdraw from the thread for such reasons. |
I find, Henry, that there are some things one should not tolerate, such as people claiming that '2+2 does not equal four or that all mushrooms are non-poisonous, and that people who insist on such 'narrow' views are 'intolerant'. I would oppose a diversity of views that said 'the sky is green and not blue' and 'we don't need oxygen to live'. You seem to place a purely positive value on the words 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and it is ironic that you do not seem to tolerate my views or find room for them in your concept of diversity and of concern that you actually seem to be hostile to me on a personal level. I apologize if you have taken anything I said as an attack against you. I do recognize that it is easy to misunderstand others in electronic fora. (thus my extensive use of the word 'seem')
Hi, Sally! I had hoped it was obvious that I was referring to a much larger phenomenon (an out-in-the-open porno industry), of which that movie is merely representative. And I do not doubt that people find individual pleasure and perhaps happiness in non-married states. My original point was merely that the linguistic confusion has been initiated by the rejection of traditional marriage and families, which at least, it appears, is not being contested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chancellor
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 1337
Location: Ji'an, China - if you're willing to send me cigars, I accept donations :)
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Trullinger wrote: |
Is there a regional element in this, do you suppose? Americans from the east coast don't seem (in my limited experience) to assume "gay" for "partner," but midwesterners do...
"Significant other" is a term that I find a little funny. "Other" than what?
What other terms can we come up with for one's significant other?
Best,
Justin |
I guess I'm close enough to the midwest (Western New York State) to where "partner" means a homosexual significant other (unless you're a lawyer, then it's being a member of a law firm partnership). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MELEE
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Posts: 2583
Location: The Mexican Hinterland
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To rusmeister and Henry_Cowell and others following the debate:
I'd like to recommend a book you should find interesting, it's called Our Babies, Our Selves: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Parent it surveys parenting through history and around the world across very different cultures, seeing what things are human "biological" aspects of parenting and what things are mearly reflections of cultural values.
It is a must for any bicultural couples considering becoming parents.
The author also has a follow up book called Kids: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Raise Young Children which I haven't had time to read, being a working mom of twins 
Last edited by MELEE on Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry_Cowell
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 3352
Location: Berkeley
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rusmeister wrote: |
| ... you do not seem to tolerate my views or find room for them in your concept of diversity and of concern that you actually seem to be hostile to me on a personal level.... |
Nope. You don't get it. You did not simply make statements as your "views." You went the extra step to call them universal. That's why I suggested that you preface such statements with "I believe that... " instead of "The universal human value/tradition..."
Simple, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmb
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 8397
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for all the congrats guys.
btw Is our marriage the first Daves marriage? We met on the Turkey forum so I guess I should be thanking Dave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hall
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Posts: 452
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmb wrote: |
Thanks for all the congrats guys.
btw Is our marriage the first Daves marriage? We met on the Turkey forum so I guess I should be thanking Dave. |
You should have invited Dave Sperling to be the best man! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hall
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Posts: 452
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rusmeister wrote: |
| All societies throughout history have been based on this basic understanding of family, from the ancient Jews and Greeks to our day. All have had some form of this commitment to family. No society has been successfully built or maintained on free-floating 'partnerships'. |
Compare what rusmeister has said here with the beginning of the wikipedia article on "family":
| Quote: |
A family consists of a domestic group of people (or a number of domestic groups), typically affiliated by birth or marriage, or by analogous or comparable relationships � including domestic partnership, cohabitation, adoption, surname and (in some cases) ownership (as occurred in the Roman Empire). A family could also be people being joined by love and/or promises of commitment
In many societies, family ties are only those recognized as such by law or a similar normative system. Although many people (including social scientists) have understood familial relationships in terms of "blood", many anthropologists have argued that one must understand the notion of "blood" metaphorically, and that many societies understand "family" through other concepts rather than through genetic distance.
Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State".
The term "family" as understood above, does not correspond to biblical and Mid-Eastern concepts of family. In those regions, both historically and presently, it is necessary to use �kinship� as the broad understanding of family. Then kinship is broken down into �tribe�, �clan� and �father's house�, the latter being a group that is both patrilineal and patrilocal. (The Anchor Bible Dictionary describes family according to kinship.) Father's house would be composed of blood and non-blood individuals. It would be greatly helpful to utilize the ancient kinship model to better understand family in Mid-Eastern and many African cultures. The politics of those regions would be more comprehensible to the Western mind if the kinship format was acknowledged. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry_Cowell
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 3352
Location: Berkeley
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, dear.
John Hall, you are invoking examples from a wide variety of cultures and societies. That is not allowed.
Foul! Foul!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merlin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 582
Location: Somewhere between Camelot and NeverNeverLand
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Call me silly, but I tend to look at the context before assigning a meaning to the word.
If it can't be intuited from the context then it's pretty much the speaker's responsibility to make their meaning clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Hall wrote: |
| rusmeister wrote: |
| All societies throughout history have been based on this basic understanding of family, from the ancient Jews and Greeks to our day. All have had some form of this commitment to family. No society has been successfully built or maintained on free-floating 'partnerships'. |
Compare what rusmeister has said here with the beginning of the wikipedia article on "family":
| Quote: |
A family consists of a domestic group of people (or a number of domestic groups), typically affiliated by birth or marriage, or by analogous or comparable relationships � including domestic partnership, cohabitation, adoption, surname and (in some cases) ownership (as occurred in the Roman Empire). A family could also be people being joined by love and/or promises of commitment
In many societies, family ties are only those recognized as such by law or a similar normative system. Although many people (including social scientists) have understood familial relationships in terms of "blood", many anthropologists have argued that one must understand the notion of "blood" metaphorically, and that many societies understand "family" through other concepts rather than through genetic distance.
Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State".
The term "family" as understood above, does not correspond to biblical and Mid-Eastern concepts of family. In those regions, both historically and presently, it is necessary to use �kinship� as the broad understanding of family. Then kinship is broken down into �tribe�, �clan� and �father's house�, the latter being a group that is both patrilineal and patrilocal. (The Anchor Bible Dictionary describes family according to kinship.) Father's house would be composed of blood and non-blood individuals. It would be greatly helpful to utilize the ancient kinship model to better understand family in Mid-Eastern and many African cultures. The politics of those regions would be more comprehensible to the Western mind if the kinship format was acknowledged. |
|
If Wikipedia is your final authority, you are on extremely shaky ground. It is a resource that can be edited by anyone of any opinions at all. I could go there and edit it to the traditional definition, rather than the modern non-definition and pseudo facts quoted there. Heck, maybe I will.
That still wouldn't make it authoritative.
Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for someone to show me all of the societies that have been successful without the traditional family.
Last edited by rusmeister on Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
denise
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 3419
Location: finally home-ish
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmb wrote: |
Thanks for all the congrats guys.
btw Is our marriage the first Daves marriage? We met on the Turkey forum so I guess I should be thanking Dave. |
Wasn't there talk a couple of years ago (geez, I've been here too long!) about some sort of match-making scheme here at Dave's? Were you the pioneer?
d |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
