Advice Goddess Free Swim
A little something different today, until I can put up some blog items -- you pick the topic. But, remember, one link per comment, if you post a link, so you won't get eaten by my spam filter.
Oh, and for starters, here's a link to a mention in an LA Times blog item of a notion I had about making a marriage license more like a driver's license:
As for ending marriages, I'd be open to some tinkering with the "till death do us part" system that results in too many expensive, drawn-out divorce battles. In 2007, Amy Alkon (whose recent Times Op-Ed article on unruly children in airplanes spent a good chunk of time on our "most viewed" and "most e-mailed" lists) suggested that marriage contracts ought to be more like driver's licenses: Every few years, couples would have to renew them. An intriguing idea, but a practical one?
An excerpt from that blog item of mine:
What's wrong with seven-year marriages if that's what people want? Personally, I don't believe in marriage, and I think living together is uncivilized, and kills your sex life. In my advice column, I've recommended that a marriage license be more like a driver's license -- renewable if you don't scream at your spouse too much, or start withholding sex. Why would that be a bad idea?And P.S. For people with kids, I think there should be a "delivery room through dorm room" plan, with an option to renew.
And a message for nitwit Mitt: What France does have, which is pretty damn smart, is a registered partner agreement (the PACS -- pacte civil de solidarité) for people like me who don't want to get married, but would still like the right to visit their partner in the hospital and continue living in their apartment after the partner dies, just to name a couple of examples.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/01/critics-blast-peta-advertisement-nude-model-crucifix/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20foxnews%2Fentertainment%20%28FOXNews.com%20-%20Entertainment%29
Critics claim PETA ad offensive to christianity - catholics interviewed make no mention on how molesting children affects christianity
lujlp at December 3, 2009 5:58 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8289188.stm
Pope warns of 'new colonialism'
Headline should have read "Man who sits on golden throne and endorses molesting children warns of materialism and use of modern technology in one area of the globe that preists can still fuck children without winding up with thier pictures on TV"
lujlp at December 3, 2009 5:59 AM
Actually, 19th-20th century humorist Finley Peter Dunne proposed a similar renewable marriage contract idea in one of his Mr. Dooley pieces many years ago. Couldn't find the piece on-line after a brief search, but Dunne's works are well worth checking out.
old rpm daddy at December 3, 2009 6:25 AM
I like Dr. Helen's idea of basically treating marriage like any other aspect of contract law. Couples can draw up any kind of marriage contract they want, as long as it's legal, and the job of the courts is to enforce what was written and agreed to.
Cousin Dave at December 3, 2009 6:38 AM
Dave, I would propose something different. A marriage license is an a la carte legal menu. The default rules are no alimony, joint custody of children, and equal divide of assets obtained during marriage, but you keep what you showed up with. This would subject to later court review if circumstances warranted (e.g., one party acted criminally or is unsuitable as custodial parent), but the courts would stay out of it by and large.
This default arrangement would be stated in big bold letter at the top of the license application and a version of "Miranda" rights explaining this would be recited by the offical who issues the marriage license. Both parties then sign it, hitching them. If the parties wish to change the default terms at the outset and have different rules (say, alimony for three years), they must *both* check the boxes they wish to change, and sign next to each of those changes on the application. The could, if they wish, even supplement their application with a longer contract drawn up that goes beyond the normal "check the box" options presented.
I suspect men would be fine with that change in marital laws, because they would experience a big gain, as many presumptions now effectively go against their economic and parental interests. I suspect churches and women's groups would denounce them with furious indignation, as they would follow the money and constituencies' interests. (Look around sometime and note how many many unaccompanied men come out of churches after they get out. They are all at least middle-aged and/or have kids in tow. Young men are *not* church customers. Older people and women are.)
Spartee at December 3, 2009 6:57 AM
How about, people that don't want to get married, don't? You want to visit someone, get a power of attorney, and your name on the lease to keep your digs. It's not hard. I personally like the covenant marriage idea better, you can't get out without a lot of hassle and counseling, and have to have premarital counseling too.
If you don't plan on committing for life, don't marry. There's no law saying you have to, so no need to change marriage into something more convenient for you.
momof4 at December 3, 2009 7:14 AM
On a free-swim note, here's a good commentary on the healthcare bill:
http://wwwyoutube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
momof4 at December 3, 2009 7:17 AM
Oops, missed a period:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc
momof4 at December 3, 2009 7:17 AM
How about a morning dose of healthcare "reform"? The NYT star columnist Nicolas Kristof writes sob story column, the gist of which is that a man in Oregon can't get treatment without insurance so he's GONNA DIE OMG SO WE HAVE TO PASS OBAMACARE RIGHT NOW!!1111!!!11.
Michelle Malkin bothers to actually call the hospital that supposedly wouldn't treat him; turns out he's been there, being treated, for 3 weeks, well withing the time-frame of the column. Kristof responds by making a bunch of new claims which also turn out to be lies:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/02/unbelievable-update-the-crappiest-nytimes-column-on-obamacare-just-got-crappier/
Robin at December 3, 2009 7:25 AM
"If you don't plan on committing for life, don't marry. There's no law saying you have to, so no need to change marriage into something more convenient for you."
Given divorce rates, people entering into marriage should not assume marriage is for life, even if they want it that way.
In light of that, we should look for ways to administer the process more efficiently--i.e., less conflict to adjudicate, not more--when society is called in to mediate, which is what courts do, albeit using guys in robes and cops with guns.
Spartee at December 3, 2009 7:30 AM
My dad actually suggested the renewable marriage idea to friends and family years ago. Everyone acted ike he was crazy, but it seems like a pretty good idea to me. Since we live longer, we're expecting people to stay married much longer than ever before.
I do, however, object to the idea of planning custody before even having children. That can certainly be the default preference, if neither parent is unfit, but courts still need the flexibility to determine what is best for the children in the present moment, not long before they are even born.
lovelysoul at December 3, 2009 7:34 AM
"In light of that, we should look for ways to administer the process more efficiently--"
Make it harder to marry.
momof4 at December 3, 2009 7:51 AM
No thanks, I'll keep my permanent marriage. Why would I enter into an agreement with anyone who, from the beginning, doesn't even want to TRY to be permanent?
I don't object to PACS. Wouldn't want my loved ones to go that route, but hey, it's up to them...
nicoleK at December 3, 2009 7:57 AM
Why don't we beat up on Tiger Woods. That seems to be the sport of the day.
Roger at December 3, 2009 8:45 AM
Ben Franklin suggested that marriages last for 15 years, that 15-year-olds marry 30-year-olds, and that 45-year-olds marry each other. I do not know if he was 30 at the time. This idea is a great example of utopian idealism, because it sounds mildly interesting but would never work in practice.
Pseudonym at December 3, 2009 8:50 AM
The Church of the SubGenius has offered Short Duration Marriages™ (SHOR-DUR-MAR) for years:
http://www.subgenius.com/marriage.html
LS at December 3, 2009 9:33 AM
I don't say this often, but I think that the Catholic church has had the right idea for generations.
A marriage recognized by the church is very different from a marriage recognized by the state. If one wants a covenant marriage between two people that obligates them to stay for a lifetime, then those people should be allowed that option. If someone wants a Catholic(or Mormon, or Jewish, etc) marriage, then they should be required to fulfill the obligations of that faith in order to get married.
If someone wants to enter into a shorter term civil marital contract then why not? It won't reduce the validity or religious significance of the original couple's covenant marriage.
We have jumped the shark when it comes to lifelong marriages. I doubt we will ever go back to a time when almost everyone stays married until they die. However, we have an opportunity to reduce the litigation and acrimony associated with the demise of these civil relationships. Why wouldn't we? How would that impact religious marriages in any way?
-Julie
JulieW at December 3, 2009 10:35 AM
"Oops, missed a period"
Congrats momof4 -- when will you become momof5?!
Meanwhile, if you REALLY want to protect marriage, make divorce illegal -- the movement is underway now:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ityjaAAMYI7StNV2uur-vrfyGuFgD9CA3KB80
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 3, 2009 11:05 AM
This is a good piece from the NY Times mag section by Elizabeth Weil. It's about her marriage to (another writer) Daniel Duane.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06marriage-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
Gretchen at December 3, 2009 11:16 AM
http://www.wftv.com/news/21564032/detail.html
Everybody huffing and hawing over Tiger's alleged 300 million dollar prenup. Meantime, just south of him, a man is screwed once again the the courts.
A dose of rage, if you will.
j.d. at December 3, 2009 11:17 AM
"However, we have an opportunity to reduce the litigation and acrimony associated with the demise of these civil relationships. Why wouldn't we? How would that impact religious marriages in any way?"
Except that someone in good faith, married in the catholic church for presumably life, can still end up divorced against their will, because of the state.
momof4 at December 3, 2009 11:17 AM
I enjoyed reading this article about paleo eating, the importance of vitamin D, compared to our modern inflammatory diet.
http://nephropal.blogspot.com/2009/12/humans-vs-apes.html
JT at December 3, 2009 11:27 AM
Except that someone in good faith, married in the catholic church for presumably life, can still end up divorced against their will, because of the state.
You are missing my point (or I'm not making in clear). If we can make marriage customizable, that should work for everyone. The Catholic should be allowed to make a marriage that can only end through death, and the atheist should be allowed to have a 7 year renewable marriage with 18 year forced addendum upon birth of a child. Why would allowing some people to have shorter marriages (or customize them in other ways) ruin the sacramental nature of the Catholic's lifetime union?
-Julie
JulieW at December 3, 2009 11:31 AM
JulieW, you are advocating separation of church and state. What makes you think that can succeed?
Pirate Jo at December 3, 2009 11:40 AM
About the new PETA ad, I'm breathlessly looking forward to their version with a nude woman wearing a hijab and holding a koran. Oh, wait...
Speaking of blue, I found a hilarious yet sad group of delusional parents, erm, well, I use the term loosely, that have found an interesting way to explain away their lack of control over their progeny. They call their kids "Indigo Children" and describe them thus:
What is an Indigo Child?
As a summary, here are the ten attributes that best describe this new kind of child, the Indigo Child
* They come into the world with a feeling of royalty (and often act like it)
* They have a feeling of "deserving to be here," and are surprised when others don't share that.
* Self-worth is not a big issue. They often tell the parents "who they are."
* They have difficulty with absolute authority (authority without explanation or choice).
* They simply will not do certain things; for example, waiting in line is difficult for them.
* They get frustrated with systems that are ritually oriented and don't require creative thought.
* They often see better ways of doing things, both at home and in school, which makes them seem like "system busters" (nonconforming to any system).
* They seem antisocial unless they are with their own kind. If there are no others of like consciousness around them, they often turn inward, feeling like no other human understands them. School is often extremely difficult for them socially.
* They will not respond to "guilt" discipline ("Wait till your father gets home and finds out what you did").
* They are not shy in letting you know what they need.
If you want to point and laugh you can find their website here:
http://www.indigochild.com/
Kat at December 3, 2009 11:52 AM
JulieW, you are advocating separation of church and state. What makes you think that can succeed?
A more appropriate question is who has the balls to stop me!
I understand what you mean...we talk about separation between church and state, and then put 'in God we Trust' on our money and debate whether public schools should have enforced prayer...{loud sigh}
-Julie
JulieW at December 3, 2009 12:07 PM
To tie together what JulieW and M4 have been saying, I quote the latter: "Except that someone in good faith, married in the catholic church for presumably life, can still end up divorced against their will, because of the state." Right you are. As I see it, the single biggest problem with civil marriage today is that the terms of the contract aren't up to the two parties who are actually entering into the contract. The state isn't a party to the contract (other than allowing a few tax benefits), but the state not only maintains a veto power over what can be in the contract, it retains for itself the right to arbitrarily and retroactively change the terms of the contract at any time, without the consent of the two people who are actually the parties to the contract. In no other area of contract low does the government (usually) exercise this kind of arbitrary power; if it did, the economy would grind to a halt because business would regard contracting in general as too risky. The sanctity of the contract is a bedrock principle of Western legal systems, but for some reason, it goes out the window when it comes to marriage contracts.
Cousin Dave at December 3, 2009 12:17 PM
> think there should be a "delivery
> room through dorm room" plan,
> with an option to renew.
Options! Like buying a car! Gimme the Landau roof the in-dash nav package, bay-bee!
That word, and the consumerist mentality behind it, caustically poisons a thoughtful attempt to deal with profound social change: Not just long lives, but long, otherwise good lives, in which people are less likely to be patient with lagging sectors (so to speak).
I don't think it's good for the kids to know, or even worry, that their parents are going fly apart with sub-atomic fury as soon as they sign up for their first class at the local community college.
That's just not what the word "family" is about. And for the record, we don't get to choose what the word "family" is about... we can only study and adapt. Mother nature runs the show, always. Her planet.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 3, 2009 12:31 PM
"Except that someone in good faith, married in the catholic church for presumably life, can still end up divorced against their will, because of the state."
Actually it would be because of the will of the other party to the marriage. I don't see the state forcing too many divorces where neither party has initiated divorce proceedings (I guess you could counter with failing to recognize certain unions).
smurfy at December 3, 2009 12:32 PM
You know the difference between a golf ball and an SUV? Tiger Woods can drive a golf ball as far as 350 yards.
A hydrant then a tree? I guess Tiger Woods was having a hard time choosing between a wood and an iron.
You know what Tiger Woods and his wife were doing up at 2:30 in the morning? Clubbing, what else?
Patrick at December 3, 2009 12:36 PM
Well, since a lot of folks are hyping themselves, I'll chime in.
Opie and Anthony are bringing back (More specifically, being allowed to bring back) the Homeless Shopping Spree, in which homeless people are given large sums of money and set loose in a high-end mall full of people who pay good money not to be near homeless people. Classic spotlight on hypocrisy. Here's a piece I wrote about it. http://tinyurl.com/yeemy9v
Vinnie Bartilucci at December 3, 2009 12:42 PM
And for the record, we don't get to choose what the word "family" is about.
This is nonsense. Of course we choose what family is about, who is included in what we define as "family". Different cultures and different time periods have drawn those bounds differently. We're currently in the process of redrawing them again to better suit our era.
Whatever at December 3, 2009 12:43 PM
And not just long lives but more choice. don't we meet something like a hundred times as many hotties as we would have a hundred and fifty years ago?
smurfy at December 3, 2009 12:43 PM
> Of course we choose what
> family is about
The infantile narcissism of witless liberal zombiedom has no boundaries: We can have whatever kinds of families we want! Mothers are irrelevant! We can kill everyone in Afghanistan if we like!
As Cosh recently asked one of your goofball brethren: What's it like tob that guy?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 3, 2009 1:54 PM
If I had a 7 year marraige, I just as hell wouldn't have worked three jobs to put my husband through law school.
And I doubt he would have stuck around through postpartum depression.
And what if one of us becomes debilitated? I guess the 7 year marraige would be a get out of jail free card. I just hope it isn't too inconvenient to step over all the human misery left in the wake of that concept.
Jen at December 3, 2009 2:13 PM
The Indigo Child could also be describe as a confident child. But in this day and age of one-upmanship, I guess saying "my child is confident" lacks the panache of instead saying "my child is an Indigo Child(trademark)."
What a bunch of crap.
Juliana at December 3, 2009 2:14 PM
The Indigo child also matches sociopathy pretty well. Hmmmm. Gotta go contact the website people over there and make my feelings about them loudly known now.
momof4 at December 3, 2009 2:45 PM
Do any of you know two people who have the same definition of "marriage"?
I don't. Lots of the people in the argument don't even remember there are inheritance laws to deal with.
Reminder: so long as one of the dozen or so different classes of approved entity register your intent with the State and you get a license, you're "married", so far as the State and nation are concerned. The IRS requires a divorce or death document to change your tax status after that. The State has a vested interest in conventional marriage because you will typically establish a taxpaying household and bear children.
So, you're not? Show me how the state should accommodate you. You're not doing anything extra for the State.
-----
By the way: don't make something up about me because I presented this point. Government is a business. If you want something from government, show the benefits you bring with your proposal.
It's not enough to say "it ought to be...".
Radwaste at December 3, 2009 2:51 PM
"Man who sits on golden throne and endorses molesting children"
There you go again. Why don't you try and resolve whatever religious trauma you're dealing with?
crella at December 3, 2009 3:08 PM
Do any of you know two people who have the same definition of "marriage"?
You want to know what I hear with uncanny accuracy when married people describe marriage to me? "It's hard work."
So, why the fuck is anyone doing it? Are married people stupid or something? If I want more hard work, I'll just find some more clients.
Patrick at December 3, 2009 3:35 PM
"Lots of the people in the argument don't even remember there are inheritance laws to deal with."
Right you are. I'm guessing that most people who endorse uber-liberatarian ideals of marriage law (no state involvement) or short term marriage have not spent much time in domestic court.
I work for judges who do a lot of estate and family cases. Divorce is NOT, as many people seem to think, a simple matter- once a party has put their property together, it's pretty hard to separate it (not to mention the kids). Wills to direct one's intentions are great for estates; too bad so many people don't bother with them. Believe me, it would not simplify these things to add new levels of complexity to the marriage laws, unless both parties really sat down and made the contract in earnest, negotiating every term (which very few people would).
Besides, who would want a short term marriage? Why not just live together? The point of marriage is the commitment; "will you marry me for a while?" just doesn't have the same effect.
Lyssa at December 3, 2009 3:43 PM
Amy, if you have any unemployed readers in Leeds, UK?
http://hr.leeds.ac.uk/jobs/ViewJob.aspx?CId=2&JId=785
Research Officer - The rise and regulation of lap dancing and the place of sexual labour and consumption in the night time economy
(Job reference: 316199 ) Good interviewing, communication and organisational skills are essential as is the ability to work independently and as part of a team.
It is a paid position!
Gotta love those academic studies.
Nanc in Ashland at December 3, 2009 3:58 PM
Doesn't Islam have short-term marriages to allow people to sleep together without sinning?
Isn't that all a short-term marriage is, anyway?
You cannot combine lives and property and then just casually divide them up when one party no longer wants to be part of the deal without any acrimony or heartache, neither of which are conducive to a clean break.
Negotiating "every detail" means negotiating every excruciating detail. Do you really want a marriage in which you are contractually obligated to do the dishes twice a week, or the laundry once a week, or sleep with the other person on a dictated schedule?
What happens if one partner becomes aggrieved and decides to "work to the contract?" "Not tonight, dear, I've got a subordinate clause."
Conan the Grammarian at December 3, 2009 4:03 PM
crella does or does not the pope have a chair covered in gold?
And during his eclesiastical career he was appointed to te head of the inqusition(they changed the name but never disbanded it) and was central to the coverup of sexual abuse by preists.
Its interesting to note how religous aplogetics when unable to refute the truth of an argument against their favored institution try to shift the argument focus to some percived flaw in the person making the argument.
Well it wont work, the child molester protecter sits on a gold plated chair. And even were I to be commited to mental hospital those facts wont change.
I suggest you learn to deal with it
lujlp at December 3, 2009 4:06 PM
HOw much work will go into a marriage with a pre determined life?
Richard Cook at December 3, 2009 4:50 PM
A review of your book is up at the Spectator:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/03/verizon-made-them-do-it
Martin at December 3, 2009 5:32 PM
The infantile narcissism of witless liberal zombiedom has no boundaries: We can have whatever kinds of families we want! Mothers are irrelevant! We can kill everyone in Afghanistan if we like!
The lengths you go to willfully mischaracterize what I have written are impressive!
What I have written regarding your statements above:
1. Yes, "family" is a socially defined construct and that definition has evolved over time, and is currently changing to include relationships we didn't used to call family.
2. I wrote that it is not mothers or fathers, per se, that children need, but loving and nuturing parents. Gender is not the issue, but how children are cared for.
3. We didn't need to burn all of Afghanistan to the ground, just Kandahar and its environs where we knew the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership to be on 9/12. Instead we ducked around, and Mullah Omar and Bin Laden got away; even dumber, we invaded and now are still there 8 years later with no exit in sight. And no even remotely achievable definition if "success" there exists.
Whatever at December 3, 2009 6:00 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/03/advice_goddess_3.html#comment-1680510">comment from MartinMartin, thank you so much!
Amy Alkon at December 3, 2009 6:06 PM
> is currently changing to include
> relationships we didn't used
> to call family.
To our continuing detriment.
> Gender is not the issue
So you're saying it just happens that babies come to us from a man and a woman, rather than any two men or any two women. Nuthin' more to it than that... Evolutionary nature, the greatest source of efficient recursion and fractal meaning the cosmos has ever seen, doesn't play into this at all...
...Because you say so. Because it makes you feel good to say so.
RRiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhtttt...
> We didn't need to burn all of
> Afghanistan to the ground, just
> Kandahar and its environs
Oh.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 3, 2009 7:49 PM
...Because you say so. Because it makes you feel good to say so.
RRiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhtttt...
Because the data from the studies that have examined the issue have determined that children from same sex households do just as well as those raised in hetero homes. I know I linked to this a while ago, but here it is again.
Here's the American Academy of Pediatrics:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
You can want things to be different, but apparently queers can be perfectly good parents and raise thriving children.
But stomp your feet and insist you're right and it's science that is wrong.
Whatever at December 3, 2009 8:25 PM
> Because the data from the studies
Data! from the studies! Controverting the whole of human history and every experience you ever had!
Have you told your mother that her femininity meant nothing to you? Or your Dad that his masculinity meant nothing to you? As a reader of your comments, I personally am not surprised by your indeterminate composition, but....
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 3, 2009 10:31 PM
Besides–
> Here's the American Academy
> of Pediatrics:
Is this really the week that anyone wants to pretend that science is a politically isolated enterprise?
You might also argue for the inherent stability of golfer's marriages. That would be fun, too.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 3, 2009 10:40 PM
i love how crid demands references and sources for opinions that clash with his and then when they are provided, scream that they are biased and politically motivated.
by the way, not the same whatever.
whatever at December 3, 2009 11:54 PM
and anyway, crid, are you really saying that you have never, in your whole life, had anyone who you personally considered 'family' who wasn't actually related? seriously? it's not just the gays, you know. i have an "aunt" jackie who is always considered family by everyone i'm actually related to. there's no blood there. but no one would ever have considered calling her 'just a friend'. all players in the story - besides me, anyway - straight as an arrow. you seriously don't have anyone in your life like that? i feel sorry for you.
and i'm not the Whatever you asked, but i'll answer anyway, no, my mother's femininity and my father's masculinity did not affect me. they didn't even occur to me.
whatever at December 4, 2009 12:07 AM
Have you told your mother that her femininity meant nothing to you? Or your Dad that his masculinity meant nothing to you? As a reader of your comments, I personally am not surprised by your indeterminate composition, but....
Not sure what you mean by indeterminate composition. But no, I have no need to fuck with my parents. They did alright by me, mostly; I'm sure they messed up, too. But I got no need to screw with their heads.
To address what appears to be your real point: there are a lot of paths to a healthy childhood and subsequent readonably healthy adulthood. However, both what I know from my academic background (gasp! book learning!) and my life is that children thrive when they grow up with the security of being loved, a home that is a safe haven from the world, parents who parent like it's their job and who provide reasonable limits and some freedom to explore the world and make some mistakes.
Creating that environment and doing those things is hard, and people who can do it well come from all sorts of backgrounds and sexual orientations. If there is special magic, as you assume, in biology, that magic is apparently lost among the effects of much more potent variables that are captured by what I described above. Believe what you will. But I'm right.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 12:53 AM
> I have no need to fuck with my parents
Why would it be fucking with them? You say their sexuality had no bearing on the craft of your soul... Whatarya, ashamed?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 1:00 AM
Is this really the week that anyone wants to pretend that science is a politically isolated enterprise?
1. Do you really think children's physicians are really likely to push for something objectively bad for them to please a few homos and their hetero liberal enablers. Not much faith in our doctors, then.
2. Anyone who had done science for a living will tell you that science usually gets the right answer despite the vanity, egos, and personal agendas of its practitioners, not because those people are disinterested pursuers of truth. That's part of science's special power.
3. A few bad climatologists does not undermine AGW theory, which is supported by data from many fields and from places other than those using the suspect data set that has the denialists so worked up.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 1:03 AM
Why would it be fucking with them? You say their sexuality had no bearing on the craft of your soul... Whatarya, ashamed?
I'm not saying that at all. Who I am was certainly affected by who my mom is and who my dad is; part of that is being a woman or man. My experience would certainly he different if I were raised by two women, two men, or my grandparents l, or were adopted by Mormons. The way we are raised certainly shapes us. I'll reiterate, since you seem to either intentionally take things in a way other than how they are written or find my writing hard to comprehend: My experience isn't the only way, or the best way. There are many ways to a healthy adulthood, incluing being raised by a gay or lesbian couple, as long as the child is loved, provided security, some discipline and the chance to learn and make decisions.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 1:15 AM
> Do you really think children's physicians
> are really likely to push for something
> objectively bad for them to please a few
> homos and their hetero liberal enablers.
Yep.
> Not much faith in our doctors, then.
Nope. Especially when they cluster into circle-jerky, pdf-generation mode to service "thinkers" such as yourself. The impact of a femininity (and masculinity) is so grandly profound (and microscopically nuanced) as to be irrefutable. To argue against this, as you do with one hand on your dick and your other on the mouse, strikes me as unthinkably strange... I just can't imagine the removal from the lives of others that a person would have to suffer before making such a case.
You wonder if mothers are important(!).
And then, you decide to ask somebody(!!).
You might next argue that a period of lightness, –grayed by cloud cover, perhaps– is unlikely to follow tomorrow's sunrise. Everything's up for grabs on Planet Whatever... Gravitation, biology, everything. All someone needs to do is publish a paper.
> anyone who had done science for a living
Anyone who's read a casual survey of the history of science knows your second paragraph to be a stinking pile of horseshit. Progress has often been retarded for centuries, even millennia, as authorities shat on the truly humble willingness to study and report without preconception. McArdle (or someone) made the point last week that this scandal will be a great opportunity for pop-science enthusiasts (such as our hostess Amy) to drop their chirpy, prayerful, Reader's Digest presumptions about the dispassionate nature of scientific enterprise. Apparently you're not ready to do that yet. (Having grown up on a college campus, I know better than to trust academe.)
> A few bad climatologists does
> not undermine AGW theory
If it were only a few, you might have a point. But I think this is yer basic naked power grab by a lot of politically enthusiastic, tenure-addled fuckwads. (NOBODY thrives in the academy without learning how to deeply blow the dean, or at least the Chair of the grant committee....)
> There are many ways to a
> healthy adulthood
Pretending for the moment that "healthy" were our only aspiration, which is tough to do, I have to wonder if you think it would be OK for kids to grow up without fresh, hot food, or a camping trip, or a mattress to sleep on, or playtime outdoors, or the enjoyment of music, or the company of kids their own age, or well-fitting clothes, or maybe even learning to read. I mean, golly, I bet some kid out there could turn out OK without any of those things, too. You're ready to sacrifice the love of mothers in the lives of distant children: What else will you ask them to endure? How lucky will you insist they be in their resistance to burdens? Is there any bottom to your cruelty?
_________________________
Wikipedia says Kandahar ("environs") has half a million people. You still want 'em all dead?
How old are you?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 1:48 AM
i also love crid's over-dramatization of everything to make his own ridiculous point. it's deeply amusing.
whatever at December 4, 2009 2:03 AM
Patrick feigns "amusement" when pressed, as well.
I don't know if heartless dismissal of motherhood can be "over-dramatized".
cridcomment@gmail.com at December 4, 2009 2:21 AM
again, crid. not the same Whatever. i don't know what it is about capitalization of words you don't recognize, but it's also clearly a different writing style.
but again with the over-dramatization there. no one is dismissing motherhood. anyway, do children think about their parents' sexuality? i would think that would be a little odd....
whatever at December 4, 2009 2:41 AM
I can't tell you apart, you're both loonies.
> i don't know what it is about
> capitalization of words you
> don't recognize
I recognize that it's an inappropriate notation of distinction for adults who claim to represent a genuine human identity, and that grownups use capitalization. Are you children with playnames, or teenage rappers for whom it's critically important to be Ice-T and not Ice Cube? Maybe one of you is the imaginary friend of the other. Why would someone persist in such imbecility? Does anyone in the world love you enough to care about your writing style? From now on you should call yourself "Edgar", after the composer. We've never had anyone by that name here.... Now, tell me again, why do I distinctively loathe you? Oh, don't bother, it'll probably be clear soon enough.
[Oh, look!:]
> i would think that would be
> a little odd....
Children don't have to think about their parents sexuality, it molds them anyway. I think there are lot of qualities to the way women respond to the world that aren't directly related to the way they fuck.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 3:45 AM
Crid imagines he is "pressing" people, which I can only smirk at.
Crid, the hard facts are on our side. You have nothing but hysteria, distortion and misinformation.
You would just as well insist that 2 + 2 = 347.63 and imagine that you're "pressing" people by your persistence on the matter. Where is your data?
Patrick at December 4, 2009 4:06 AM
(Trying hard to imagine Crid as a child, telling his mother how much her femininity meant to him.)
Patrick at December 4, 2009 4:11 AM
You can only smirk anyway, even when "viciously" attacked. And how old are you, again? Your demeanor worries me that you guys are children.
You too Whatever, give it up. How old? This is for your imaginary friend....
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 4:13 AM
How old am I again? Unless you think "none of your business" is a number, I never told you the first time.
And yes, I am very amused right now. Amy gave us carte blanche to pick a topic for this thread. I can laugh at the sheer predictability of you turning this into the gay marriage discussion thread.
You have foamed like a lunatic over this issue for the six years that I've known you, as much as a person can know someone else when their only contact is a blog and a single email exchange. (I'm sure Louis's parents appreciated the flowers, by the way, Mark.)
It's useless to discuss this issue with you. You refuse to look at objective data, insisting that it's slanted. You have never once produced any that supports your contention. You willfully distort clear statements to demonize your opposition. You refuse to even hear, much less address, answers to challenges.
In short, you cannot discuss this issue like a reasonable adult. Nonetheless you're obsessed with it and insist on discussing it. How else should we regard you?
A better question would be what happened in your childhood, Crid. Where did this unhealthy obsession and intolerance of dissent come from? Did you parents get divorced so Dad could shack up with his boyfriend? What was it?
Patrick at December 4, 2009 4:32 AM
Whatever: 3. A few bad climatologists does not undermine AGW theory, which is supported by data from many fields and from places other than those using the suspect data set that has the denialists so worked up.
Good article from Scientific American that rebuts the arguments of AGW naysayers. Hope you like it.
Patrick at December 4, 2009 5:31 AM
I grew up with Scientific American, subscribed for 30 years, then gave up because single sourcing science and politics doesn't work for me.
The breaking point came when I discussed a article on nuclear disarmament by Kostas Tsipis of MIT with J, a weapons scientist with whom I orked cows. J looked extremely frustrated, in the way that folks with exotic clearances sometimes do, and then said very carefully "He's lying, and he knows he's lying".
I clicked through to the content-free drivel Patrick linked. It reminded me why I quit. Pay it no mind.
--
phunctor
phunctor at December 4, 2009 7:22 AM
Patrick, I haven't had time to read through that whole article you linked to. The fact that the author starts the article off in name-calling mode does not encourage one that good solid science will follow. That's as may be. But I did find one essential point that the author asserts, which is easily disproven. It is this: "And a new research paper by Mann and his colleagues seems to confirm that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” between 1400 and 1700 were both caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that do not seem to be happening today." (emphasis mine)
That last part is hogwash. We have in fact seen extraordinary (in the context going back to about 1880) solar activity within the past half century. () The solar maximums in the 1950s and 60s were the highest ever recorded, and the ones in the 1980s and 1990s were nearly as high. The solar maximum in this decade was much lower, and the current solar minimum is unprecedented within the history of solar physics studies. This latter roughly corresponds to nearly everyone's temperature data, which all show a global cooling trend since about 1998. CRU and GISS (Hanson) are the exceptions. As we now know, CRU's data set is (to put it charitably) highly suspect.
Another thing that jumped out at me in the article that Patrick linked to was the author's peculiar assertion that nature somehow distinguishes between "natural" and "artificial" CO2, and absorbs the former while leaving the latter in the atmosphere. That smacks of Gaiaism. Along these lines, I will point out that Scientific American got on the AGW bandwagon long ago, way before there was much data. I think it's clear that they did this to try to increase circulation, rather than because they thought it was scientifically valid -- no one could say one way or the other back in 1995. That, along with the firing of Martin Gardner, was when I cancelled my subscription.
Cousin Dave at December 4, 2009 7:28 AM
Seriously, how many people will be willing to invest in their relationship and future, if they know it's temporary? Very few. Very few people working and supporting their (what, spouse? temp-spouse??) while they go to school to improve BOTH their lives in the future. Very few people sticking around through job loss, or illness, or just the crappy times that ALL marriages go through.
Robert Duvall had one of the best marriage lines I've ever heard:
"You know, all marriages go through good and bad years. We ended on a good year." You have no logical reason to expect to be super-happy all the time with your spouse or marriage. That's an unrealistic expectation of anything-people aren't always happy even at jobs they love, aren't always happy with the kids they adore, doesn't mean you quit. Same with marriage.
Again, don't want to get married? Don't. The rest of us don't have to completely redefine the entire structure just to suit your personal preference for complete lack of commitment. At least the people who divorce tried. Maybe they shouldn't have, who knows. But their failure does not mean we need to do away with the entitiy.
momof4 at December 4, 2009 7:30 AM
Well, sorry the Scientific American article didn't go over well. I was hoping to point out that just because of few unethical climatologists. (I don't say "bad climatologists" because I don't know that they're marginally competent or worse in their field. They could be great. I just know they're unethical.)
Momof4: The rest of us don't have to completely redefine the entire structure just to suit your personal preference for complete lack of commitment.
That's an interesting statement. But are you saying this in the context of the idea of making marriages short term, and contractually defined, or are you addressing the idea that gay marriage is redefining marriage for everyone else?
If it's the former, I can see the point. Making all marriages suddenly come with expiration dates isn't appropriate for those who are already married with the understanding that their commitment is forever. I suppose you could make both options available, but what a disaster that would be..."And just why do you want the short-term marriage instead of the permanent one? Worried you'll get sick of me? The wedding is off! It's the permanent or nothing!"
On the other hand, if it's the latter, I don't agree. Your marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Allowing marriage to include same sex unions in no way affects yours. No one's imposing an expiration date or even forcing you to acknowledge someone else's marriage.
Patrick at December 4, 2009 7:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/03/advice_goddess_3.html#comment-1680606">comment from momof4At least the people who divorce tried.
I'm sure that makes their children feel much better.
A huge problem I see in people, especially married people, who write me is taking each other for granted. They do that, in part, or in large part, because of the sense that it's forever.
Amy Alkon at December 4, 2009 8:00 AM
While marriages with expiration dates would be convenient for individuals who want the benefits of marriage without the expectation of long-term commitment, I don't see the benefit to society.
It's in our best interest for families to stay together for the duration. Lots of marriages fail, but those marriages are going to end with or without expiration dates. If my marriage had expired after a year or two, I would have left a lot sooner than I did, which would have been great for me, but not so good for everyone else, and even worse if my ex and I had had children.
The gay marriage angle is something different entirely. Since gays are already raising children (and doing it about as well as heteros are), it is in our best interest to encourage those families to stay together and give them all the help hetero families get.
MonicaP at December 4, 2009 8:02 AM
'I can't tell you apart, you're both loonies.'
what is it they say about pots and kettles? obviously, if you can't recognize differences in writing style and lack/presence of punctuation, regardless of what you think it says of my intelligence, it indicates that you cannot, in fact, read. and no one cares about my writing style. it is, however, not the same as the other Whatever's. which was point, you idiot.
and ditto patrick.
whatever at December 4, 2009 9:04 AM
To argue against this, as you do with one hand on your dick and your other on the mouse, strikes me as unthinkably strange... I just can't imagine the removal from the lives of others that a person would have to suffer before making such a case.
So I wank while responding to blog comments. Imagine how well the porn must work then!
You might next argue that a period of lightness, –grayed by cloud cover, perhaps– is unlikely to follow tomorrow's sunrise. Everything's up for grabs on Planet Whatever... Gravitation, biology, everything. All someone needs to do is publish a paper.
Everything is subject to study. Science is full of results that challenge the way we think, that's what makes it interesting! Or does the sun still orbit the earth on planet Crid?
Anyone who's read a casual survey of the history of science knows your second paragraph to be a stinking pile of horseshit. Progress has often been retarded for centuries, even millennia, as authorities shat on the truly humble willingness to study and report without preconception.
I've done more than a casual study of the history of science; I wrote my undergraduate thesis on one aspect of it. Those who authorities who retarded progress were usually the church. Scientists, as a general rule, lack the power to prevent others from studying things.
McArdle (or someone) made the point last week that this scandal will be a great opportunity for pop-science enthusiasts (such as our hostess Amy) to drop their chirpy, prayerful, Reader's Digest presumptions about the dispassionate nature of scientific enterprise. Apparently you're not ready to do that yet. (Having grown up on a college campus, I know better than to trust academe.)
Do you ever actually respond to what someone has written, or are a bot being prepared for the Turing test that produces scripted responses based upon a few keywords? Here's what I wrote:
I spent 8 years earning my living as working in science, from lab rat to research fellow before leaving that world. I'm published in half a dozen or so peer-reviewed journals. I'm not at all deluded about the nature of science.
There is push and pull all over the place by interested parties. When you submit an article to a journal, the action editor distributes your paper to people who are likely to agree and disagree with your theories; reviewers on both sides tend to pick your work apart. Those who agree do it because they don't want crap work going out there that does a poor job of representing their favored theoretical approach, and those who don't do it because they want to poke holes in your work. You don't get your work published unless you can answer both sides effectively.
Good scientists also provide their raw data to others when asked, and those who don't follow this practice are rightly regarded with suspicion.
> A few bad climatologists does
> not undermine AGW theory
If it were only a few, you might have a point. But I think this is yer basic naked power grab by a lot of politically enthusiastic, tenure-addled fuckwads. (NOBODY thrives in the academy without learning how to deeply blow the dean, or at least the Chair of the grant committee....)
Your ignorance is showing. I never got money from a "Grant committee"; I'm not sure if our department had such a thing. Grants came from places like NIH. If your work is good, and you publish a lot, you can thrive in the academy without being the Dean's favor. My dissertation advisor was almost universally loathed by others in the department, and yet still got big grants, plum teaching assignments, and easy committee work. Because he published a lot and brought in outside funds.
Pretending for the moment that "healthy" were our only aspiration which is tough to do,
No, that's really what I hope happens to children, that they grow up to be healthy adults. Emotionally, physically and intellectually capable of living a full life.
I have to wonder if you think it would be OK for kids to grow up without fresh, hot food, or a camping trip, or a mattress to sleep on, or playtime outdoors, or the enjoyment of music, or the company of kids their own age, or well-fitting clothes, or maybe even learning to read. I mean, golly, I bet some kid out there could turn out OK without any of those things, too.
Yes, I wish rank deprivation on children - healthy food, friends, playtime! That's what I was saying when I wrote:
You're ready to sacrifice the love of mothers in the lives of distant children: What else will you ask them to endure? How lucky will you insist they be in their resistance to burdens? Is there any bottom to your cruelty?
Yes. There is No bottom to my cruelty because my wish for children, and I'm quoting
I'm incredibly cruel because I wish for children the following things, quoting again:
Whereas the implication of your statements seems to be that no matter the squalor, poverty or neglect, as long as children are with their biological mother and a father, that is the best choice because in Crid land biology is destiny!
Wikipedia says Kandahar ("environs") has half a million people. You still want 'em all dead?
I don't know exactly how many people would have needed to be killed to be confident we got Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. But we knew roughly where both of them were, and I would have make the choice to firebomb to be sure we got them both. Yep.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 9:37 AM
Since this is the free swim thread, Arianna Huffington seems to think this video is the cutest of all time.
Patrick at December 4, 2009 11:28 AM
> The rest of us don't have to
> completely redefine the entire
> structure just to suit your
> personal preference for complete
> lack of commitment.
The "entire structure" sucks. As noted elsewhere here this week (maybe this very thread, but who cares enough to re-read?), several generations have to come see marriage as Christmas-y fulfillment with music and laughter and gifts and food and nothing but nurturing adoration. Nobody, no one sees it as a series of duties to others, and certainly not as a service to the larger community. People are concerned only with themselves.
In this light, your qualified chatter about a "complete lack of commitment" is frogwash. The "commitment" is tenuous and brittle: In other words, it's not really a commitment, and people shouldn't take pride in casual failures. Society is interested in the fulfillment of the promise, not just the promise itself.
> Here's what I wrote:
I saw it. It was wrong.
> I'm not at all deluded about
> the nature of science.
Maybe you're part of the problem.
> children thrive when they
> grow up with the security
> of being loved
Smug, infantile, Disney-drunk pussyfooting. Do children need mothers?
> I don't know exactly how many
> people would have needed
> to be killed
Golly buddy, it's a little late to pull the brakes.
I don't know what your life has been like, but I get the sense you're not in the habit of talking to people who don't already know what the script is, in safe-place wink-nudge settings where it's all about comformity... So that if you don't know whether it will conform or not, you keep your mouth shut.. This is a real problem in academia and leftist politics. I mean, have you ever actually said out loud to anyone, anyone at all, that you think "Kandahar and its environs" should be "burned to the ground"?
We've established that you haven't told your mother how impersonal her duties were... You never even noticed she was a woman!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 1:19 PM
I see our resident One-Note Johnny got over sulking and decided to come back. Cridsy-poo still hasn't provided a single piece of scientific data to support his pompous pronouncements, but seems more imperious then ever.
Crid blusters: The "entire structure" sucks. As noted elsewhere here this week (maybe this very thread, but who cares enough to re-read?), several generations have to come see marriage as Christmas-y fulfillment with music and laughter and gifts and food and nothing but nurturing adoration.
Any pertinent surveys to support this, Crid? Or is this more huff-huff-because-I-said-so hot air?
Crid blusters: Nobody, no one sees it as a series of duties to others, and certainly not as a service to the larger community. People are concerned only with themselves.
I see you polled the entire planet since the last time you were on this blog, or at least all married people on this planet. You've been just the busiest little bee this afternoon, haven't you?
Crid: I saw it. It was wrong.
Because you say it is? Pffft.
Crid: Maybe you're part of the problem.
Maybe you have the problem, Mr. Scientific-Data-is-Wrong-If-It-Doesn't-Agree-With-Me!
Crid: Smug, infantile, Disney-drunk pussyfooting. Do children need mothers?
One-Note-Johnny rides again. He asked this already, it was answered. He even got the answer he liked. He even screamed like a loon over his willful distortion of the answer. Children need mothers to provide the egg cell, and to forcibly push them out into the world. Beyond that, they need nurturing, love and protection. That's often a mother's role. Not always, and children can thrive without mothers.
Crid: I don't know what your life has been like, but I get the sense you're not in the habit of talking to people who don't already know what the script is, in safe-place wink-nudge settings where it's all about comformity... So that if you don't know whether it will conform or not, you keep your mouth shut.. This is a real problem in academia and leftist politics. I mean, have you ever actually said out loud to anyone, anyone at all, that you think "Kandahar and its environs" should be "burned to the ground"?
We don't know your life is like either, and we don't need to. Regardless of your personal experience, Crid, we already know you only have one script, and regardless of the number of times this scenario plays itself out and you get your ignorant, self-righteous ass handed to you, you go right back to it.
You're boring, Cridsy. Boring.
Crid: We've established that you haven't told your mother how impersonal her duties were... You never even noticed she was a woman!
That was never said, jackhole, but you've never let that stop you before.
Patrick at December 4, 2009 2:01 PM
I saw it. It was wrong.
Bullshit. It's right. I've been both inside and outside academia, and done both pure and applied research. What do you know about how science works? You read a few blog posts by climate change denialists cherry-picking emails and now you think you "gotcha"! Science is bunk!
Smug, infantile, Disney-drunk pussyfooting. Do children need mothers?
It's not pussyfooting: Mothers don't magically make things OK. Fathers don't magically make things OK. Having a mom and a dad doesn't magically make things OK. Gender is not the magic thing. What makes for for healthy children is that when they are hungry, or ill, or upset, or need discipline, (or other essential needs) that loving adults with whom they share a close bond be there to provide it for them. It doesn't matter if it's a mommy or a daddy doing it. What matters is that grown-ups are there for them, reliably. The data are clear on this.
I think your refusal to accept this is part of the modern conservative psyche - you don't require evidence for your beliefs, you just "know" them because that's the way things used to be in some halcyon day of yore, and if we could only be like things used to be, everything would be perfect! And when confronted with evidence your assertions are wrong - in this case, that 25 years of studies (the paper I linked to was a review) reveal that children of same-sex families do just as well as those raised in hetero families - you just say nuh-uh! But can't back it up with anything. You're just like "It's obvious! Believe me!"
There's no point in debating people who presuppose the facts and aren't willing to reconsider that they might be wrong.
We've established that you haven't told your mother how impersonal her duties were.
We've clearly established that you have a reading comprehension problem. Here's what I wrote: Who I am was certainly affected by who my mom is and who my dad is; part of that is being a woman or man.
I mean, have you ever actually said out loud to anyone, anyone at all, that you think "Kandahar and its environs" should be "burned to the ground"?
Yes, this was absolutely my position after 9/11. And I said it to people. We needed to go where the terrorists were and make sure we killed all of them and the people who gave them safe haven. If it meant burning the whole damn area to the ground, so be it. Sure as shit would have given future terrorists some pause about attacking us again. When you do something militarily, you don't fuck around.
What we did not need to do was try to pussy-foot around, let the awful warlords of the Northern Alliance run things on the ground as our proxies, and fail to kill the terrorists who attacked us. Then, what next? Install a corrupt kleptocracy to be our puppets while we occupy a wasteland that has never been governable for years at a cost of many lives and billions of dollars.
And just to double-down on the stupid, we then decided to occupy another Muslim country because our President had a hard-on for one-upping his old man and because Americans knew Saddam was a bad guy and that people from the Middle East attacked us. Who cares that they were mostly Arabs, all those brown Middle Eastern folks are pretty much the same, anyway. So we brought the democracy fairy to Iraq, as well, because endless occupations of Muslim countries are finance themselves. And it has been awesome!
People who think that invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan was a smart idea are living in the worst kind of fantasy land, because victory is just around the corner! And they'll spare no amount of American lives or treasure to get to somewhere that is unattainable. In case you're asking, I think Obama is a fool, too, for sending more troops there when we should be getting out.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 2:30 PM
> parents who parent like it's their job
I love that. It's part of the whole 'white people' detachment thing... Parenthood: It's a job!
C'mon, Whatever, I want you to TELL your mother that your Dad and one of his golfing buddies would have done as well.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 2:33 PM
> Mothers don't magically make things OK
Did anyone say it did?
These aren't principles of yours, they're prayers.
> And I said it to people. We needed
> to go where the terrorists were
> and make sure we killed all of
> them and the people who gave
> them safe haven.
Riiiiight... So the part about 'burning Kandahar and environs to the ground' (pop.: half a meg) was bullshit posturing, right? Golly, it's FUN to pretend to be masculine, isn't it? Almost like there's an inherent difference to it. Or something.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 2:38 PM
Jackhole writes: C'mon, Whatever, I want you to TELL your mother that your Dad and one of his golfing buddies would have done as well.
That was never said either, but Johnny One-Note is on a roll!
Patrick at December 4, 2009 2:48 PM
Golly, it's FUN to pretend to be masculine, isn't it?
Oh, God, the irony!
Patrick at December 4, 2009 2:50 PM
Did anyone say it did?
These aren't principles of yours, they're prayers.
"Prayers" backed by 25 years of scientific data, and yours are backed by...nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing.
But stick out your chest a little more and huff-huff a little harder, Cridsy. Maybe you'll convince yourself.
Patrick at December 4, 2009 2:53 PM
These aren't principles of yours, they're prayers.
You're the one persisting in evidence-free beliefs!
C'mon, Whatever, I want you to TELL your mother that your Dad and one of his golfing buddies would have done as well.
Why would I say something that isn't what I think just because you want me to?
So the part about 'burning Kandahar and environs to the ground' (pop.: half a meg) was bullshit posturing, right?
That was what I wrote on this blog a while back. In some other discussions, I phrased the same intent differently. You're the only person who cares, because your style of argumentation is all about extremely selective parsing of others' words.
Golly, it's FUN to pretend to be masculine, isn't it? Almost like there's an inherent difference to it.
I'm OK with my masculinity, don't really need to "pretend". There is a difference to it! Men ≠ Women.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 2:53 PM
> your style of argumentation is all
> about extremely selective parsing
I read what you say and I see what you mean. If you think we have no genuine disagreement, you're tragically deluded.
> Men ≠ Women.
Children are exempt though, right?
You really oughta talk this over with yo' mamma.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 4:43 PM
I read what you say and I see what you mean. If you think we have no genuine disagreement, you're tragically deluded.
If you see what I mean, then you would not write things like:
In response to a comment of mine where I wrote,
No, I'd say that's pretty much directly ignoring what I wrote.
Or I write
And yet to you this you reply that:
When clearly I stated the opposite. Which leads me to believe you're playing word games. Or you are suffering from a serious comprehension problem.
Children are exempt though, right?
We're going in circles, now. Do a quick search on the page for this comment: "Posted by: Whatever at December 4, 2009 2:30 PM" Repeating myself is getting tiresome.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 5:15 PM
> We're going in circles, now.
Bad comma, babe.
Children need mothers or they don't: You haven't thought this through, and I've not yet seen a comment of yours worth reading twice. If you were thinking clearly, you'd be able to say it once and mean it.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 5:23 PM
You really oughta talk this over with yo' mamma.
She'd come down somewhere between our positions, I would think. She's more of a traditionalist than I am, and she'd probably buy your arguments about there being ineffable differences between the way men and women relate to children, and that giving children both is the ideal.
But in her work, she's come into contact with enough ill-treated children and awful home environments in hetero families and single-parent families that I think she'd say that I'm right about what is most important - a secure, safe, loving home - and the things that trouble you so about gay couples raising kids are not a big problem in the grand scheme of things.
I'm not a parent yet. But what I do know is when I'm with my nieces or nephews, and they get hurt, they run to whichever parent is nearby, and that's who cleans the skinned knee, puts on a band-aid, comforts them, makes it better. Parenting is about being there and being responsible, not about whether your packing testes or ovaries.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 5:31 PM
Damn, my least favorite grammatical error:
...you're packing testes or ovaries.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 5:34 PM
If you were thinking clearly, you'd be able to say it once and mean it.
I'm thinking entirely clearly, you just want the product of that thinking to yield a different result. If, all of a sudden, I were to see the light and say, "The only place to raise a child is in a home with a man and a woman and children who are raised in other environments are pitiably deprived," you'd have decided I started to think clearly. It's not clarity of reasoning you're after, but agreement.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 5:48 PM
> I'm thinking entirely clearly
Then whence all these codicils and conditionals and amendments and supporting documents? Your beliefs are too complicated to be believed. You think a mother's love is pivotally important to children or you don't; You don't.
So why the shame spiral, Pilgrim?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 6:15 PM
Argument goes around and around about global warming. Well, dang. Look here.
Argue about the cause if you must, but don't pretend the ice isn't going away.
Radwaste at December 4, 2009 6:27 PM
Jeez.. It seems to come and go! Iddinat sumpin'?
The weather, man, the weather!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 6:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/03/advice_goddess_3.html#comment-1680682">comment from Crid [CridComment @ gmail]This Free Swim thing seems to have worked rather well. What do you think...should I do this from time to time? Turns out I came down with some bug...had to postpone all radio (except for the one I woke up for at 3am on Wednesday...was too late, so I just did my best). Slept for about two days around the clock...feeling better now, but just catching up on my column and everything.
Amy Alkon at December 4, 2009 6:40 PM
Meanwhile I havent slept in 27? 28? hrs
Im too fucking burntout to do the math
lujlp at December 4, 2009 6:48 PM
> had to postpone all radio
What, you publishing a book every month? Come on, playa, sacrifice your body the Vince Lombardi way: "Boys, you gotta play hurt."
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 6:50 PM
Yeah, Crid, but it's going away more and for longer.
Gee.
You'll notice I'm not citing Fox News, CNN, Yahoo! or Huffington Post - all of which find this a fascinating way to sell Kleenex.
Try to find direct reports whenever you can. You, of all people know what can be done with video.
Radwaste at December 4, 2009 6:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/03/advice_goddess_3.html#comment-1680687">comment from Crid [CridComment @ gmail]> had to postpone all radio What, you publishing a book every month? Come on, playa, sacrifice your body the Vince Lombardi way: "Boys, you gotta play hurt."
Believe me, that was my idea, but I literally had no voice, could make no sounds. I did one radio show I woke up for at 3 am - strained to squeak to talk - and then was just honest with everybody else that there was a problem, and they all have postponed, and I'll reschedule with one. I actually haven't spoken for days (doctor's orders) -- squeaked out a few words when necessary -- and Gregg and I have been having these funny conversations where he's on the phone and I'm on Skype and he talks and I type what I have to say. Luckily, I type very fast, although not anywhere near as fast as I talk.
Amy Alkon at December 4, 2009 7:00 PM
Then whence all these codicils and conditionals and amendments and supporting documents? Your beliefs are too complicated to be believed.
My beliefs in this matter are simple: a child needs loving and supportive parents. There are no codicils or conditionals to that.
So why the shame spiral, Pilgrim?
What shame spiral?
Whatever at December 4, 2009 7:06 PM
Yeah, Crid, but it's going away more and for longer.
That's information Radwaste. Data! Crid isn't a fan of data. He's got beliefs.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 7:08 PM
> Argue about the cause if you must
I must!
Listen, I think global warming is happening, and is probably being caused by people. But I subscribe to the Lomborg approach to this: It's a problem, it's not the problem. (I'll put the usual links up later tonight.) All of the things that civilized people are doing to get their shit together in other respects will make it less of a problem anyway.
Aside from the chilly nakedness of the power grab by scientist and their zombie Reader's Digest-devotees, GW is a way for inarticulate busybodies to express their fantasy that life should be a perpetual motion machine, where we put the right policies in place next Thursday and then everything goes great for everyone until the end of time. But that's not the planet we're on.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 4, 2009 7:09 PM
Just closing that italics tag in case the blog software doesn't do it for me.
Whatever at December 4, 2009 7:09 PM
Crid: Children need mothers or they don't: You haven't thought this through, and I've not yet seen a comment of yours worth reading twice. If you were thinking clearly, you'd be able to say it once and mean it.
He has said it once and meant it, you self-righteous prig.
Patrick at December 4, 2009 9:00 PM
> a child needs loving and supportive parents
Parents? A mother and father? Why didn't you say so? We're done here.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 5, 2009 2:13 AM
The Goddess writes: This Free Swim thing seems to have worked rather well. What do you think...should I do this from time to time? Turns out I came down with some bug...had to postpone all radio (except for the one I woke up for at 3am on Wednesday...was too late, so I just did my best). Slept for about two days around the clock...feeling better now, but just catching up on my column and everything.
I understand the use of it if you're having some problems keeping up with the demands of daily blogging, especially since it has no readily apparent financial compensation. For myself, I'm not a big fan of it. The bull-headed and self-righteous dominated this one.
Crid: Parents? A mother and father? Why didn't you say so? We're done here.
Or two mothers, or two fathers...or they can make it by with one. Or even none, as long as the children have nurturing, protection, love and guidance from somewhere.
Patrick at December 5, 2009 2:48 AM
but my absolute favorite is when crid chooses to argue that because whatever stupid call name you use is stupid (which i have already agreed that yes, it is) the person who uses it must also be, and proceeds to argue about the name instead of the issue - and then declare himself the winner. what a blowhard. and his previous irrelevant comment about how women fuck - how would he know?
whatever at December 5, 2009 7:23 AM
To put the shoe on the other foot, I would like to see Crid tell the African-American gay couple who live in my area and were allowed, despite the laws of Florida, to adopt their foster daughter and become her parents.
Go ahead, Crid. Go ahead and tell them that their willingness to adopt the little girl means nothing. Their child will never grow up and attain the self-actualization of a person raised by a man and a woman. Let that be your opening line, that the love of gay parents for their children means nothing.
Patrick at December 5, 2009 9:33 AM
Parents? A mother and father? Why didn't you say so? We're done here
Parents, plural, of whatever gender combination. It does seem to be really hard for just one person to do the job.
Whatever at December 5, 2009 11:41 AM
> Parents, plural, of whatever
> gender combination
Tell your Mom and Granny too, that's all I ask. Don't be a coward with beliefs of such certainty to you. I mean, if you were gay or something, you'd want them to know that, too, right? Step right up and declare your allegiances.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 5, 2009 11:57 AM
>>Tell your Mom and Granny too, that's all I ask.
Taking umbrage on behalf of offended femininity again eh, Crid?
Such a waste of your talent.
Jody Tresidder at December 5, 2009 1:26 PM
Well, I'd ask him to tell his Dad and Granddad too, but men have been suffering this particular indignity for a very, very long time. Their absence of expectations is a big part of the problem.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 5, 2009 1:30 PM
What's with obsession with my family?
Whatever at December 5, 2009 2:26 PM
Family and kids were Amy's topic... Up there at the top of the page. I'm wondering why your haven't shared your feelings with them... I think there's probably a very good reason.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 5, 2009 2:35 PM
I'm wondering why your haven't shared your feelings with them... I think there's probably a very good reason.
We're WASPs. We don't talk about stuff like this.
Whatever at December 5, 2009 3:41 PM
Assuming you have any, do you tell your gay acquaintances they are unfit to be parents?
Whatever at December 5, 2009 3:45 PM
> We're WASPs. We don't talk about
> stuff like this
Exactly! Ex-cocksucking-motherfucking-zactly! You don't talk about stuff like this because you don't think about it. Resentments get in the way.
After a glass of wine at lunch the other day, I wrote a whole long-assed comment about this. About how your whole attitude seemed composed around themes of emotional removal ("Whatever!") that would resonate with any white American (save perhaps Amy, who doesn't think about it much, but is Jewish, and it shows, to our continuing delight: this is a protestant thing).
And then I thought, jeez, that's more than this guy needs to read. So, well before finishing it up, I cut out everything between the shoulders and the ankles and left you with with that sparkling little crystal you see from 2:33pm, above.
But I have a clipboard manager! Is it still here? Ta-DA!
_________________
> parents who parent like it's their job
I love that. It's part of the whole 'white people' detachment thing... Y'know, European families, socialized for hard work and a mortal fear of closeness to others (midievel boarding houses were all about lice), coming to a new land and building families with all these cold, sanitary boundaries: spiritless children in isolated rooms; spotless, moat-like manicured lawns; white picket fences to keep the world out; a sidewalk, and 3.3' of grass before the curb. Not about intimacy, or any kind of connection. People don't talk about what they think, they talk about the approved topics. Parenthood: It's a job!
So anyway, then people grow up in this fiction of detachment. And they go to work in the science department (or literature, or maybe even the arts), and they're always very sensitive to what the topic on the table is in the faculty meetings... This is important, dammit.... Tenure is on the line! (There's no more powerful word for these folks than "agenda".) Everyone stays with the script. Global warming: The Biggest Threat EVER! And it comes from our own HEARTS! But rational SCIENCE will TAKE COMMAND and make things better!
And so they start to sell that to the media, it gets some traction, and things are going pretty well.
But wait! It turns out our scientist has a secret life! He has secret feelings and secret ideas he doesn't share with anyone!... But eventually –having selected a transparently bitter and sarcastic eponym– Our Hero will express his really personal & magical voodoo! The extra-special silliness he whips out will have been forged in the same cauldron of blunted feeling as the mischief in the faculty meetings, and will show a similar backhanded adherence to the strictures of that family.... 'Let's bomb Kandahar out of existence'.... Only with absolutely NO consideration from other souls.
But you shouldn't think of him as bitter or anything. Tick tick boom....
C'mon, Whatever, I want you to TELL your mother that her brother-in-law and your Dad would have done as well, had they decided to team up and raise you.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 5, 2009 5:38 PM
When gay friends ask my opinion, I tell them. To date none who object have maintained permanent unions anyway.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 5, 2009 5:40 PM
I told my mother that two men could raise a child just as effectively as a man and a woman.
She agrees.
That's the point. You don't need to make it personal. If I choose to cultivate the idea that my mommy is the best mommy ever, I wouldn't tell her that anyone, man or woman, could have been a better mommy than she was.
Your disingenuous demand of Whatever is asking him to insult his own mother. Nice try, but like every other argument Crid has raised, it's dishonest. But is that any wonder? I've been doing this debate with Crid for nearly six years, and his arguments have not changed one iota, nor have his tactics. If there is an argument he doesn't like, he simply pretends not to hear it. Witness his demands that you say that "mommies aren't necessary." The obvious evidence children who grow up and thrive without the presence of mothers would make this a no-brainer.
But when the point was conceded, he twisted the statement like a balloon animal...which is polite way of saying he's a liar...into "a mother's love means nothing." The fallacy of bifurcation (the "all or nothing" fallacy) served him so well (so he thought), that he brought it up again this time.
I could say, based on the example of Crid himself, that the two gay men who successfully bucked the system and were able to become the legal parents of a baby girl here in Florida, are better parents than say...his.
If I believed in such barbarism, I would say that Crid's parents need to introduce his mouth to a bar of soap. Which is, I believe, the rather medieval punishment for lying. "A child doesn't need a mother to thrive" does not equal "a mother's love means nothing." Bad boy, Crid. Your parents should have taught you not to tell lies.
Patrick at December 5, 2009 10:36 PM
Crid - is the scientist is your little story above supposed to be me or someone like me? I'm impressed at the detail with which you you've projected that inner life. If it's supposed to be someone like me, it's spectacular in its wrongness, but I applaud the effort.
C'mon, Whatever, I want you to TELL your mother that her brother-in-law and your Dad would have done as well, had they decided to team up and raise you.
This is a silly request and you must know that. Again, white folks of my background make nice conversations with their family around acceptable topic and quietly when we think no one else is hearing or we've had a bit too much to drink mention things like XXXX's drinking or YYYY's marriage troubles. But we don't do hot-button social issues, and I'm not about to go there because somebody on a blog suggested I do so.
Whatever at December 6, 2009 8:56 AM
> But we don't do hot-button social issues
Oh, you do them, you just do them in shame.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 6, 2009 11:03 AM
Oh, you do them, you just do them in shame.
Yeah, shame. LOL. Because I don't pursue provocative topics with my family at the behest of a random dude on a blog. For all the detachment you accuse me of, you're a moron about family relations.
Whatever at December 6, 2009 11:49 AM
BUT HOW IS IT PROVOCATIVE?
You're so casual about it: Golly, it's all about PARENThood, not motherhood or fatherhood.
Except where the rubber meets the road in terms of, y'know, actual human beings, which is in your own (isolated) heart. After that, you're content to fuck up the lives of distant children as you play political ego games and congratulate yourself as a free thinker. Why not? After all, you got yours, right? And to Hell with the rest of them....
Liberals: "We don't talk about stuff like this."
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 6, 2009 12:39 PM
BUT HOW IS IT PROVOCATIVE?
Because it involves discussing homosexuality, which still has a big "ick" factor for people of their generation.
Whatever at December 6, 2009 1:06 PM
Wonderful! You're solidly locked into a fully-circuitous, cluster-depth-9.9 navel gaze... Unwilling to consult the feeling and beliefs of others –including those who gave you life– for fear of giving offense, even as you prepare your compassionate little revolution to make them irrelevant anyway.
And you swing those quotation marks around like big, smelly testicles, marking off new territories of isolating condescension. It's an interesting technique! Mind if I give it a try? Here:
Don't worry about thing, Dad, we've got that whole "sex roles" thing under control! We've completely revolutionized everything since 1991, when Madonna invented fellatio... There a whole lot of new stuff about human nature that you've never heard of, so you'd probably better just stay indoors.
Yeah... It's good!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 6, 2009 1:55 PM
"We don't talk about stuff like this."
That's the best line out of this blog all year. It
Jesus Fuck on a stick with glitter.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 6, 2009 1:58 PM
We don't talk about stuff like this.
Yep. My family doesn't talk about stuff like this. Maybe in your family, everybody challenges each other all the time. I'm sure you mock the churchgoers for believing in god. And the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers duel it out over where, exactly, does personhood begin over Thanksgiving dinner. Then, there's a rousing discussion of whether or not Obama was born in Kenya. But most people who want to have good experiences with their families don't do that sort of stuff.
Whatever at December 6, 2009 2:35 PM
> people who want to have good
> experiences with their families
Aw, c'mon, dood. Again with the distancing language... People sophisticated enough to (oh-so-gently) condescend to loved ones about a big "ick" factor ought not be so tongued-tied in discussing stuff like this.
("Huh?")
("Stuff like this, man... C'mon, you know what I mean... STUFF like THIS!")
The reason you wouldn't want to tell your mother that her womanhood meant nothing positive in your development is NOT that she's squeamish about how some boys get all winky-winky with their wanky-wanks.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 6, 2009 3:25 PM
Again with the distancing language.
Again with the failure to address whatsoever anything I wrote. Do you relate to your family the way you're telling me to? Do you aggressively debate contentious social issues with your loved ones?
People sophisticated enough to (oh-so-gently) condescend to loved ones
There's no condescending. I know who they are and how they feel.
The reason you wouldn't want to tell your mother that her womanhood meant nothing positive in your development is NOT that she's squeamish about how some boys get all winky-winky with their wanky-wanks.
I would never tell her this because it's not true. As I've written. It would be awesome if you'd stop putting words in my mouth.
Whatever at December 6, 2009 3:54 PM
Do you aggressively debate contentious social issues with your loved ones?
I do if they start it, I really dont care enough about the sensabilities of my familly to go out of my way not to offend them.
Probably has somethnng to do with the fact that I nearly died a few times, that or that they didnt care enough about my sensabilites to go out of their way and not be narccisistic abusive assholes
Whatever you are right about Crid being an ass, you are probably right in your assumption that he does not relate to his own familly in the way he suggests you relate to yours.
But bullshit makes great fertalizer - he has a point about WASPs tiptoeing thru emotional landmine for no real good reason whatsoever
lujlp at December 6, 2009 5:37 PM
> Do you relate to your family the
> way you're telling me to?
Yep. There are two kinds of people: Those (called "intimates") to whom you can say whatever you want them to hear, and everybody else.
Besides, I'm not actually demanding that you talk to your family; I'm more fascinated by why you don't have the faith of your convictions. And by gum, I think think we've got an answer!
> Do you aggressively debate contentious
> social issues with your loved ones?
Whoa! Cut the string, Chatty Cathy! Stomp the brakes, Speed Racer! You've switched arguments again.
For a minute there, you were alleging the problem was a matter of taste: To ancient, provincial, waste-away bumpkins like your parents, Boysex was icky-poodle! It was a generational thing, a fashion distinction. Mom liked the Beatles, while you were all about Hootie & the Blowfish... That sort of thing.
Suddenly, turns out, it's a matter of contention!
Yet if it matters so little whether babies have mothers, how could it be contentious?
Married/no kids, right? Does your wife know you think so little of her feminine nature?
> I would never tell her this because
> it's not true.
So you're saying that her femininity did have an essential effect on your development, but it's not a blessing you want other people to have?
Dance, fella, dance!
(PS Looj: Gfy...)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 6, 2009 5:42 PM
I'm way too busy this week to read this crazy thread and see where the free swim went. But did you see this study, Amy? http://health.yahoo.com/news/healthday/nevermarriedover40welladjusted.html
It found that people over 40 who never married (as opposed to people who are divorced or widowed) are not necessarily either less happy or less well-adjusted than their married peers. In fact, unmarried people who were independent personalities with strong social networks were actually happier overall than their married peers. Granted, the study's sample size was small, but I think it's right on. I've always thought that whether you're happier married or unmarried depends on what kind of person you are (and whom you marry).
Gail at December 6, 2009 6:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/03/advice_goddess_3.html#comment-1680955">comment from GailThanks, Gail - was planning on posting that for tomorrow. If not for Gregg, I'd probably be single myself. (I don't need a boyfriend; I do need Gregg.)
Amy Alkon at December 6, 2009 6:35 PM
Mom liked the Beatles, while you were all about Hootie & the Blowfish... That sort of thing.?
Never accuse me of liking Hootie and the Blowfish.
Yet if it matters so little whether babies have mothers, how could it be contentious?
Don't be disingenuous. The status of gay couples and their roles in society is one of the most contentious social issues we face in the U.S. The reflexive homophobia of many people, especially the older generations, is a big part of it.
Married/no kids, right? Does your wife know you think so little of her feminine nature?
Well, since I'm not gay, I'd say her feminine nature is a key part of her appeal.
So you're saying that her femininity did have an essential effect on your development, but it's not a blessing you want other people to have?
Dance, fella, dance!
No dancing needed. Who I am - for good and bad - was shaped by all of the characteristics of my upbringing. My mom's femininity, my dad's masculinity are parts of that; so was my mom's intellect, my dad's sense of humor and myriad other things, some positive, some negative.
If I were brought up in a different sort of home, say a home created by two men, I would have had a different experience, and would not be exactly the same person I am today. But if those men were there for me and did the things good parents do, I'd have a pretty good chance of being a healthy and happy adult.
Whatever at December 6, 2009 7:10 PM
You've removed your dentures, and now you're going to gum the topic to death. This is old Jedi WASP trick; when cornered, defeat your opponent with tedium. Protestants are brilliant at this, world-famous.
> The status of gay couples and their
> roles in society is one of the most
> contentious social issues
Great. So let's get on with it and contend. I contend that your mother (or most any mother you meet) isn't supposed to sit sullenly and passively as you try (for the first time aloud, I'm quite certain) to express this idea to her. If she scratches back at you for being stupid, then you might fucking well deserve it. Shit fuck, you seem to be saying that convincing people of your righteousness would be unpleasant, so you'd rather not be bothered. (The academic WASP thing again? Don't make a scene, dear, especially not during the faculty meeting.)
You are preparing to dismantle the foundation of civilization, the loving family. It's dirty down there, because it's where mankind raised itself from the soil. You ought not expect to keep your hands clean.
> since I'm not gay, I'd say her
> feminine nature is a key
> part of her appeal.
Right, but it's not like that nature has any POWER to you, it's not a distinctive and essential human quality or anything, right? You've told her this, too, right?
> I would have had a different experience
Yeahyeah. Very good. Boring, but plain. See, I contend that a child deserves the "experience" of a loving mother with a loving father. You think motherhood is unimportant, which I think is wack-a-zoid and psychotic, especially from a big strong spirit such as yourself, a towering intellectual figure of nuance and compassion and attuned interpersonal sensitivities. Motherhood meant nothing special to you. Again, your Dad, paired with his golfing buddies, would have done as well...
And here we are again. Did you want to do another loop, or did you wanna answer some points? C'mon, you (sheepishly) backed down on the Kandahar thing, and you oughta back down on this as well. Turns out you didn't really want to haughtily roast half a million souls:
> I don't know exactly how many
> people would have needed
> to be killed
...And I don't think you really want to stop the babies of the future from being loved by the women whose nature is so distinctively (if imperfectly) disposed to for caring for them.
Maybe you're just a little pissed off. International relations can be frustrating: Let's kill everyone who even MIGHT be a bad guy! Being raised to adulthood, even done well, leaves resentments and doubts: To Hell with the loving family!
But if you really, really feel that way, you ought have the nards to argue first with those in whom your disappointment took root.
You, or (perhaps) they, might simply be mistaken.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 6, 2009 11:11 PM
>>Right, but it's not like that nature has any POWER to you, it's not a distinctive and essential human quality or anything, right?
Crid,
My femininity means fuck-all without that other "distinctive and essential human quality" - a loving commitment to my kids.
But we've had this discussion before.
My family is far more vulgar and argumentative, I think, than Whatever's.
Still, there are some topics best avoided at get-togethers (my parents are elderly, live in France and dislike America; enough said!).
However, one of the many reasons I cherish my 80-year-old stepfather is for all his rigid, older generation prejudices, he will always wax eloquent and enthusiastic on the subject of gay parents.
Why? Because he has got to know some personally, very well.
He still makes insufferable comments about the flamboyant "swishiness" of one of his friends (he usually starts the conversation with "say what you like about pushy gays..."), but because of his own experience, he rates them as parents as second to none.
I believe there's hope for you yet, Crid.
Jody Tresidder at December 7, 2009 7:40 AM
> My femininity means fuck-all
> without that other "distinctive
> and essential human quality" -
> a loving commitment to my kids
So what? Your car means fuck-all without gasoline, but you've better have a fully operational transmission as well.
> But we've had this discussion before.
You were wrong back then, too, and in the same way. A 100-level philosophy course would mop this up for you, just a freshener on contingencies, necessity and sufficiency.
> My family is far more vulgar
> and argumentative
Vulgar, as in the Latin, 'tongues', right? Sure. This is the white people thing: We mustn't be like (vulgar) commoners! We mustn't disagree! Someone from outside might SEE that our lives aren't in perfect alignment, and then all would be lost!
> one of the many reasons I cherish my
> 80-year-old stepfather
I have a noon meeting and no time to hunt, but somewhere on this terabyte drive there's a quotation from Benjamin Franklin (France's favorite!) about this, paraphrasing: 'We know that wisdom doesn't come with age, that young men can be bright and old men can be fools.' Sorry. I'll make it up to you.
> I believe there's hope for you yet, Crid.
If you mean that like I think you do, you're wrong yet again!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 7, 2009 10:54 AM
But also-
> Why?
"Why?" Indeed. I hate it when people interview themselves. It gives the impression they think the rest of the world is a late night talk show, and they're the sexpot starlet, and the rest of us are hanging on their every word. The smarminess continues with the next sentence...
> Because he has got to know
> some personally, very well
...a Disneyfied sentiment of clucking simplicity. 'You just need to KNOW one! I've been working and thriving in motherfucking HOLLYWOOD for the last twenty years; I know hundreds, if not thousands. "Personally", even. Work, play, socialize, invest, everything. The presumption and provincialism are all your own.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 7, 2009 11:01 AM
And besides.... You guys are both too eager to say that I think having a loving mother makes everything go perfectly. This is a legitimate (if transparent and worthless) technique in argument, but it makes me think you either haven't been reading closely or aren't thinking clearly. I think a loving mother with a loving father is what's best for children. Not perfect; best. Some parents die, anyway. But if you just tell me there's a kid coming to this planet, one about whose circumstances and character I will know nothing (and these things are almost impossible to fully judge until adulthood), then I'll say that what's best for him, and most likely to give a good outcome for all parties, is a loving mother with a loving father. And then if things go wrong, we can say at least he had the best.
Don't you want what's best for kids?
If not, can you specify which kids don't deserve the best? It would save us a lot of time.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 7, 2009 11:30 AM
>>You were wrong back then, too, and in the same way. A 100-level philosophy course would mop this up for you, just a freshener on contingencies, necessity and sufficiency.
That's probably why I wouldn't ask a philosopher for child-rearing advice, Crid.
(And by "vulgar" I mean we all love fart jokes.)
Jody Tresidder at December 7, 2009 12:15 PM
>>Vulgar, as in the Latin, 'tongues', right? Sure. This is the white people thing: We mustn't be like (vulgar) commoners! We mustn't disagree! Someone from outside might SEE that our lives aren't in perfect alignment, and then all would be lost!
You know something, Crid?
So many of your comments in this thread (see above, esp.) feature the same sort of wildly misplaced energy.
They are "all bubble, and no thrust".
(In quotes, because it's a quote from an engineer's report on a poor design submitted to a Mississippi steamboat company.)
Jody Tresidder at December 7, 2009 12:37 PM
> why I wouldn't ask a philosopher
Ya wanna makes sense or ya don't.
> (In quotes, because it's a quote
Why respond to a "poorly designed" argument? Something caught your eye.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 7, 2009 2:21 PM
>>Why respond to a "poorly designed" argument? Something caught your eye.
I replied because I was brought up with good fucking manners, is all.
Jody Tresidder at December 7, 2009 2:38 PM
To Crid
What do you think would happen to children raised by homosexuals? What would they lack compared to children raised by heterosexuals? Please be specific.
Ben-Jammin at December 7, 2009 2:57 PM
> What do you think would happen to
> children raised by homosexuals?
Fer starters, they would grow up without the knowledge of the intimate love of a man or a woman.
There are other problems... In particular, I don't think any boy learns to be a man from any woman. When the time comes, he'll go elsewhere for guidance, looking first to his base appetites.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 7, 2009 3:22 PM
Sigh.
Shit fuck, you seem to be saying that convincing people of your righteousness would be unpleasant, so you'd rather not be bothered. (The academic WASP thing again? Don't make a scene, dear, especially not during the faculty meeting.)
I'd rather enjoy my time with my folks and debate the issue with those who are persuadable on it.
You are preparing to dismantle the foundation of civilization, the loving family.
Yes, because nothing I have written suggests I think that a loving family is a good thing. Once again, you are either 1) intentionally misrepresenting what I have written or 2) dramatically challenged at reading comprehension. There is no other option. I mean, it's not like I've said that a child needs loving parents at least half a dozen times on this page.
Right, but it's not like that nature has any POWER to you, it's not a distinctive and essential human quality or anything, right? You've told her this, too, right?
It's a key part of her appeal to me, but it has no power or distinctiveness? How's that work? I read this and I lean toward you having problem 2) a comprehension deficit, but then there's always the possibility of 3) you just select text I write and at random and then claim I don't mean what I wrote. Either way, your statement here is beyond nonsense. At best it's a sign of your fundamentally dishonest approach to debate.
Yeahyeah. Very good. Boring, but plain. See, I contend that a child deserves the "experience" of a loving mother with a loving father. You think motherhood is unimportant, which I think is wack-a-zoid and psychotic, especially from a big strong spirit such as yourself, a towering intellectual figure of nuance and compassion and attuned interpersonal sensitivities. Motherhood meant nothing special to you.
More 1) or 2). Willful misrepresentation or cognitive deficit.
And here we are again. Did you want to do another loop, or did you wanna answer some points?
I've already answered your points ad nauseum. These are the same points you keep making again and again. It's tiresome.
You can wax mystical about the essential gender mix for raising kids all you want. I think that the essential element of raising healthy children is that they grow up in an environment of love and physical and emotional security. And that these things - which can be provided by parents of any gender who make the effort - outweigh the importance of everything else. And the data I've encountered support this. If you can contradict me with evidence other than appeals to your insights into the world, be my guest.
C'mon, you (sheepishly) backed down on the Kandahar thing, and you oughta back down on this as well. Turns out you didn't really want to haughtily roast half a million souls:
Oh no, as I made clear, I'd have supported roasting as many as necessary. Could have been a million!
...And I don't think you really want to stop the babies of the future from being loved by the women whose nature is so distinctively (if imperfectly) disposed to for caring for them.
I want children to grow up in loving homes. To many grow up in shitty homes. I don't care what kind of parts the adults have, as long as they're sane and decent people who are willing to shoulder the burdens of parenthood, they have my blessings.
To Hell with the loving family!
We're definitely back to 1) or 2) again here.
But if you really, really feel that way, you ought have the nards to argue first with those in whom your disappointment took root.
I feel pretty good about the job my folks did, all things considered.
Whatever at December 7, 2009 7:49 PM
Just let the women know, dude. Let 'em know there's nothing special going on with them....
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 7, 2009 9:16 PM
Unless there's any chance at all that things might become, y'know, contentious.... YOu wouldn't wanna lose face or anything.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 7, 2009 9:21 PM
Just let the women know, dude. Let 'em know there's nothing special going on with them....
So I should lie to people I'm close - say exactly the opposite of what I feel and what I have so clearly expressed here - to cause you say so?
It's definitive. You are either cognitively impaired or fail at basic comprehension.
Whatever at December 7, 2009 9:45 PM
...and clearly haven't a lick of actual data to support your motherhood=magic contention.
Whatever at December 7, 2009 9:49 PM
Don't be shy... Let the women in your life (intimates, cocktail party guests, coworkers) know that you're going to need "actual data" before you believe there's something special they have to offer.
"Actual data".
It's important, right? It's civil rights thing for you, right? If there were slavery going on, you wouldn't be bashful about "contention", would you?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 7, 2009 10:30 PM
Let the women in your life (intimates, cocktail party guests, coworkers) know that you're going to need "actual data" before you believe there's something special they have to offer.
Apparently it doesn't matter to you how dishonest your characterization of what I wrote is, as long as it fits your preferred narrative. I mean, you made that statement in response to comments in which I've repeatedly insisted that an integral part of my experience of being raised by my mother is who she is as a woman, and an integral part of why I love my wife is her femininity. Of course they have something special to offer.
The impulse to descend into ad hominems is really strong. WTF, dood?
But then I gave it some thought, and came up with the following:
Here are two statements that I think you agree with:
1. Men are fundamentally different than women. The way a person thinks, acts and relates is deeply impacted by gender.
2. Children raised without parents of both genders are deprived in some essential way.
We good so far?
Here are two statements that I agree with:
3. Men are fundamentally different than women. The way one thinks, acts and relates is deeply impacted by gender.
4. Children raised by only parents of only one gender are not deprived in any essential way by the fact that their parents are either men or women but not both.
I've stated these things in a bunch of different ways. Clearly, unambiguously. From the way you repeatedly either ignore or miscast what I have written, I assume you prefer to argue with strawmen, or intentionally misrepresent others so you can say what you like. Or you think that my statements 3 and 4 are in inherent conflict with each other and therefore I cannot logically believe both of them at the same time. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with inherent conflict.
Is that about right? If it is, I'm happy to explain myself in greater detail. If it's not, can you offer a coherent explanation for your opting throughout this thread to disregard what I've actually written in favor of something else?
It's important, right? It's civil rights thing for you, right
Yes, I think this is a civil rights issue. And it's one that I want to win on. In this case, I think the win happens with a little tact and patience, and with the waning of power of the pre-boomers. But nobody's getting lynched, or hosed down in the streets, or shot. This ain't 1964. Opposition to gay marriage correlates very positively with age, even among conservative Christian groups, a fact that bodes ill for gay marriage opponents. My gut tells me that patience and moderation wins this battle.
Whatever at December 7, 2009 11:19 PM
RightRightRight... I'm twisting your words and warping your meaning, and it's a cryin' shame, 'cause you're a compassionate little man who only wants to be tolerant and inclusive. And compassionate. You feel the pain of others, and it touches you deeply, 'cause you know what it's like. You want to share feelings. Or at least, you want people to see that you do. Grownups especially.
> Of course they have something
> special to offer.
But it's not essential. I mean, if any particular kid has to skip out on that corner of nature, HUMAN NATURE, it's no big deal, right? I'm mean, the little fuck has gotta hear the music sooner or later, right?: Get over yourself, ya squealing little sacka shit... sometimes things don't work out so good. Grownups have NEEDS...
Or will you argue that since they don't know what they're missing, everything's cool?
Never knowing the love of a woman. For a LIFETIME. And you're cool with that.
> Clearly, unambiguously.
Stupidly, frost-heartedly. Prayerfully, cowardly. Shamefully, manipulatively. The dyads go on and on! They're poetic and they're fun!
> I'm happy to explain myself in greater detail.
SHOWTIME! Hit me! Let 'er rip! Curtains up! As we usta say in Indianapolis: "Gentlemen... START!.. YOUR!.. ENGINES!"
Go ahead and explain the specific life experiences that have caused you to believe that femininity isn't half the human experience, a treasure of incalculable value to any freshly delivered spirit, the birthright of every child born: inter faeces et uriname nascimur.
For the moment, the rest of us (adults) will work very hard to pretend to care about your pathetic little development issues, giving an illusion of shared experience and "safe place". Go ahead.
> I think the win happens with a little
> tact and patience
But subterfuge is a lot less trouble, especially for a tightass little white guy. Wouldn't wanna upset the folks over a little thing like (slavery).
(Um, all these things are interchangeable, aren't they? That's the word out of Copenhagen this week....)
> My gut tells me that patience and
> moderation wins this battle.
List the feelings more strongly felt in the gut than cocksucking FEAR. Is there any human experience less "moderate" than the loss of a mother?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 1:03 AM
funny. i had no problem understanding the other Whatever. Crid, on the other hand, just likes to rant and rave and use lots of words that don't a) address anything that was actually said and b) use a lot of heart-tugging images that, while irrelevant, prove the point to him. incidentally, why does Crid insist that all of these so-called deprived children are without, specifically, a mother? why is it only the "lack of femininity" that he finds so unpleasant? he has yet to note that children can also be raised by two women as well as two men. or is that ok? nah, i think that the idea of being "motherless" is just so much more heartbreaking.....and therefore the blowhard wins his argument without any actual fact or documentation to support it. lovely.
whatever at December 8, 2009 1:15 AM
> why is it only the "lack of
> femininity" that he finds
> so unpleasant?
You're new to the blog, and perhaps congenitally slow on the uptake, so I forgive you this clumsiness. Ask the single mothers here if I'm a nice guy... Or hit the "blog archives" which Amy has thoughtfully included on every page of her site at top left margin.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 1:28 AM
i've read all those. i know that you're equally hard on father-absence in other columns. but on THIS one, you're opting for the more emotional 'motherlessness'. it's not exactly accidental - you're using emotion to win your argument instead of actual data and instead of actually responding to what's said. it's not unfamiliar from you either.
whatever at December 8, 2009 1:34 AM
> instead of actual data
There it is again!
"Actual data"!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 1:35 AM
funny how you insist on it, research it and present it incessantly when it agrees with your opinion but ridicule it when it doesn't.
whatever at December 8, 2009 2:01 AM
If you've made it to adulthood and need a laboratory to verify your understanding of such matters, you're not concerned with reality.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 2:12 AM
funny how there ARE laboratories and studies on such matters that disagree with your data-less opinion, but since you disagree with them, they're biased. funny how if you didn't disagree with them, they'd be right on.
whatever at December 8, 2009 2:15 AM
and by the way, since you're going to appeal to 'history' again to prove your point, 'history' involves one probably (although, arguably, not provably) distant male, whom the children may or may not have known beyond name and what he looked like, and several women raising several children belonging to all of them. the 'one man one woman' model is relatively new.
whatever at December 8, 2009 2:54 AM
> the 'one man one woman'
> model is relatively new.
"Model"? It's literally fucking genesis... It's the source of everyone who ever lived. Ever. There have been zero exceptions. Do you comprehend the magnitude of what you're saying?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 6:17 AM
>>Go ahead and explain the specific life experiences that have caused you to believe that femininity isn't half the human experience, a treasure of incalculable value to any freshly delivered spirit, the birthright of every child born...
No, you go ahead and explain, Crid.
What "specific life experiences" left YOU with these heteropresumptive hillbilly prejudices about parents?
Jody Tresidder at December 8, 2009 6:25 AM
Chance gives us our parents. Crid.
After that, it is their choice whether they or not they will prove to be good parents.
And you have absolutely no evidence - not even a fleetingly compelling Planet-Crid anecdote for crissakes - that gay parents are handicapped in the quality of love and guidance they can offer their kiddies.
Jody Tresidder at December 8, 2009 6:37 AM
and how many wives did jacob have? jacob is, by the way, in genesis, actually. a large portion of human history involved one man, many wives. the children were all raised together. or are you going to pretend that the majority of history didn't actually happen? hardly a 'one man one woman' model.
do i comprehend the magnitude of what i'm saying? do you even know what that is?
whatever at December 8, 2009 6:39 AM
I'm twisting your words and warping your meaning, and it's a cryin' shame
It's not. But it makes trying it pointless to argue with you because you read me writing, "I mean X", and then responding with "gotcha, you clearly mean Y".
And you have absolutely no evidence - not even a fleetingly compelling Planet-Crid anecdote for crissakes
Here's the thing, there's no need for evidence on Crid's part; it's assumed, and like good assumptions everywhere, it's never questioned.
Whatever at December 8, 2009 7:19 AM
> What "specific life experiences" left
> YOU with these heteropresumptive
> hillbilly prejudices about parents?
I've never met anyone who didn't have a parent of each kind: A man and a woman. That's just for starters. Most every day of life has made it clear that a loving mother with a loving father is how things go best.
> you read me writing, "I mean X",
> and then responding with "gotcha,
> you clearly mean Y".
Given the molecular biology of it all, you're not the one to be lecturing on X & Y.
"Heteropresumptive," smirks the panicked Tressider. And our mysterious undercase intellectual thinks "a man and a woman" isn't the font of humanity, it's just a "new model". And the big Whatever has more rhetorical problems than we can count.
At the root of all of this is political correctness... This is how desperate you guys are to be seen as modern and compassionate. You just never, ever want have to give bad news to an adult, especially a politically active one who might snap at you with some kind of teeth... ('Remember those Act Up people in the 90's? They were unpleasant!')
And so to Hell with the children.... 'All they need is love! I heard it in a Beatles song once! We don't have to worry that there are different kinds! Love is all one indistinct, cancerous mass, and a truly FAIR society would just be able to throw some at any problem and make it better. The poochy-poutedness of our facial expressions and head-tilty-ness of our compassion will demonstrate our sincerity to the people with incisors, and hopefully they'll eat us last! '
'There are no boundaries to our naïve magnificence! Not even in human feeling! (Except, y'know, in our private lives...) We can make families out of whatever we want! We'll let ACORN guide our path with speed bumps:
| “Remember, most anything is possible,
| because it’s all a function of power,”
| the memo explained.
Grotesquely pathetic. And cowardly. Pussy-cowardly.
If you don't share this belief of yours with every loving mother you meet, you're just cock-suckingly ashamed, as you ought to be.
Anything else?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 1:53 PM
Guys, guys... You've said it's a civil rights thing... Would you have been this bashful about slavery? Blog bluster but nothing else?
TRY IT, that's all I ask. Next time you're in a room with a few mothers, not even necessarily close friends (nor total strangers), go ahead and bring it up. Non-confrontationally. Conversationally. Just mention to them that you think motherhood has no essential power for children.
The courage of your convictions, and all that.
(If you do this in Utah, and send me video, I'll send you $5.)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 3:13 PM
$7 for a Youtube. $7.50 if it's HD
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 4:54 PM
"And our mysterious undercase intellectual thinks "a man and a woman" isn't the font of humanity, it's just a "new model" "
i am absolutely and completely flabbergasted that now you are apparently denying that there is, or ever has been, families consisting of one man with multiple wives. heard of the muslims? or the mormons? (granted, the mormons supposedly don't do that anymore, but still) or hey, ever read ANY of the old testament? you're the one that brought up genesis....
oh, and by the way? my mother AND my father, both, have absolutely no problem with me raising kids. and i've mentioned before that i'm not straight.
whatever at December 8, 2009 8:13 PM
> you are apparently denying that there
> is, or ever has been, families consisting
> of one man with multiple wives
I deny nothing of the kind — Everything under the sun has been tried. But what's best is a loving mother with a loving father.
> my mother AND my father, both, have
> absolutely no problem with me raising
> kids.
Intimacy brings all sorts of pressures to bear, as your capitalized namesake readily demonstrates... Kids don' t want to review "contentious" matters with parents, and vice-versa. Again, tell it to the mothers you meet, as described above: Their femininity is not a worthwhile factor.
Don't be bashful, man... This is about civil rights!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 8:21 PM
"I've never met anyone who didn't have a parent of each kind: A man and a woman. That's just for starters. Most every day of life has made it clear that a loving mother with a loving father is how things go best."
so what you're saying is you have no actual basis for judgment or comparison? kinda what i thought. since you have no and hate any actual data on the matter.
"I deny nothing of the kind — Everything under the sun has been tried. But what's best is a loving mother with a loving father."
based on what, exactly? your own opinion? which is worth less than nothing. for hundreds of years the standard was one father, several mothers, and it's still done in several cultures today (not even talking about muslims and mormons, actually). hell, there's a particular people in the amazon that their tradition is one woman, many fathers. it's working just fine for them. so seems that not only is the 'one man one woman' model not the only one, it's not even the only one that works. based on actual data. not your worthless opinion.
whatever at December 8, 2009 11:00 PM
> you have no actual basis for judgment
> or comparison?
Have you ever met anyone who wasn't born to a man and a woman?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 8, 2009 11:17 PM
born to is not the same as raised by.
whatever at December 8, 2009 11:27 PM
Tell
The
Women
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 9, 2009 1:19 AM
have
done
so
and
they
agree
what
the
hell
is
your
obsession
with
telling
the
women
whatever at December 9, 2009 2:07 AM
They agree that femininity is not essential to children?
Listen, did you even read this stack, or did you just come in late to pick a fight?
Press the home key, knock yourself out.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 9, 2009 2:47 AM
read the whole thing. and yes they agree. and so do i. but it's always fun to pick a fight with you, crid, since it's so damn easy.
whatever at December 9, 2009 2:56 AM
How many "they's"? Are you like the other guy? Does your "gut" tell you not to ask to many people?
You think it's cool to take healthy babies from the context in which nature literally delivered them, at the intersection of a man and woman, for purposes of adult amusement.
Good luck out there.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 9, 2009 3:26 AM
>>Just mention to them that you think motherhood has no essential power for children. The courage of your convictions, and all that. (If you do this in Utah, and send me video, I'll send you $5.)
Crid,
It's become a bore picking through your overwrought insults to find the point to your comments, so I'm outta here.
But since you feel so comfortable hiding behind the skirts of religiously conservative moms in Utah - despite your boast that "I've been working and thriving in motherfucking HOLLYWOOD for the last twenty years..." - you know what you need to do?
Motherfucking move.
Jody Tresidder at December 9, 2009 6:19 AM
> picking through your overwrought
> insults to find the point
Do you want me to be clearer? I can do that! I promise!
> I'm outta here.
NO! Wait! We're begging you! Jooooo-deeeeeeee
..... come back!!!
Besides, you missed the point. I'm happy here, and deeply adored by all who cross my path.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 9, 2009 11:43 AM
Leave a comment