posted on October 30, 2002 09:46:15 AM new
Bor- I don't think there is any "natural" family unit other than humans living together and taking care of each other.
If you place a young child in any grouping of people to be raised, that group is that childs family. No child is born expecting or demanding a particular family structure. There are certain needs that the child must have met, but they can be met in myriad ways.
There are only two things that a human child must learn from the family unit and it makes no difference what form that unit takes. The two things the child must learn are to love and to be loved. There is absolutely no evidence that any certain family form teaches these two things any better than any other.
We must also accept the fact that family forms evolve, are artificial in that the forms change and are just as effective in a changed form, so the form itself is not really important.
With the number of single women households with children the situation might dictate that polygamy is needed. Or it may evolve into family units that are made up of woman with men not present.
Right now we seem to be in a serial family form, that is, we seem to go through a series of mates and family structures.
A man or woman now has several "spouses" (with or without marriage) through the course of a life time. Children have several adults in the family unit over a life time.
Many thought that divorce would cause children of divorce to abhore divorce, but statistics tell otherwise. Divorce rates went up, not down.
Just as we no longer have the same employer, house, vocation for a life time, we no longer keep the same spouse, kids, family for a life time.
There are now many children being raised by the grandparents. Why ? Social Security provides a stable income for the grandparents that the parents simply do not have.
Take a look at the poorest communities and we can see a glimpse of what is coming. It is largely made up of single woman with children fathered by several men. The men float from woman to woman in a series of relationships.
This is begining to show up in suburbia, albeit in a more civilly formal construct. Men are also "floating" from woman to woman through divorce and re-marriage, and the children in the home have different fathers.
The men remain more mobile than the woman because divorce is the quickest ticket to poverty for women with children.
What is preventing a polygamy model from evolving from this situation ? Government policy is part of it. Not only laws against polygamy, but property and welfare laws have thus far prevented polygamy from "erupting".
posted on October 30, 2002 10:13:42 AM new
>This is begining to show up in suburbia, albeit in a more civilly formal construct. Men are also "floating" from woman to woman through divorce and re-marriage, and the children in the home have different fathers.
An underlying principle might also be at work there. It is more economically feasable for a mother to have three fathers to three children, each providing support than to expect one father to do for three children anymore. The men father as many children as they can afford to pay for. Also, genetic diversity is better served. With the greater income and higher lifestyle these days, perhaps this is inevitable.
>Bor- I don't think there is any "natural" family unit other than humans living together and taking care of each other. Or it may evolve into family units that are made up of woman with men not present. The two things the child must learn are to love and to be loved.
This, REAMOND, is a misconception fostered by the Feminist Movement: that since Women are every bit as good as a man, can do every signle job that a man can, therefore a man (male) is not necessary for the healthy upbringing of a child because any female can fill that role just as well.
That's Bullsh1t.
Now, I know posters will screeam at me for not being "pc" (TOO BAD!), but it does take a male to impart certain qualities and characterists to a child, just as a woman is necessary to impart certain patterns of behavior to a child. Sorry - but there IS a difference in behavior between men and women as a gender and for children to come out right and display socially acceptable behavior, every child needs input from each gender while growing up.
You all can demand proof of that, but I dare you to tell me that a woman can ever teach a boy how to become a Man. Sorry, you just won't convince me of it.
I believe that any "natural" family consists of at least one or more females and one or more males. What we are talking about here is plural, not gender.
posted on October 30, 2002 10:32:43 AM new"This, REAMOND, is a misconception fostered by the Feminist Movement: that since Women are every bit as good as a man, can do every signle job that a man can, therefore a man (male) is not necessary for the healthy upbringing of a child because any female can fill that role just as well."
I don't think it has anything to do with feminists.
"Now, I know posters will screeam at me for not being "pc" (TOO BAD!), but it does take a male to impart certain qualities and characterists to a child, just as a woman is necessary to impart certain patterns of behavior to a child. Sorry - but there IS a difference in behavior between men and women as a gender and for children to come out right and display socially acceptable behavior, every child needs input from each gender while growing up.'
While I would accept that there are differences, I would not accept that the differences are significant in modern society.
While any individual gender in contact with a child can impart some behavior examples to that child, they are not significant nor exclusive to either gender.
The differences between the genders are less than the differences within the genders for characteristics that are functional. Any characteristic you wish to assign to a gender, you will find wider differences within that gender for a given characteristic.
But I would like to know what characteristics only men can impart to children ? And what behaviors are exclusive to men and to woman.
posted on October 30, 2002 12:12:19 PM new
Reamond, you are entitled to your opinions. However, you are lacking in factual foundation for your thoughts. For instance, for a while it was widely believed that all male traits and all female traits are the product of society and therefore learnable by either gender. That means that one gender can pass on traits to children from both genders. This was an actual hypothesis held out by the Feminist Movement and since then, study after study after study has shown that to be false.
Therefore, there are traits that are inherit to each gender specifically wired in the brain according to each gender. And that traits passed on by parents have an enormous influence on the social development and later, the expression of socialization of children. Since our society is made up of both women and men, it behooves us to impart socially acceptable characterizes and traits as are acceptable to both men and women. That requires both a male influence and a female influence on each child.
You want me to define what each of these traits are. These studies did not define them, so I can not say to be accurate with what I think are those traits -- follow me? And if I were to, I would have to have a lot of links to back me up, as this crowd would want blood for it! In my own meandering in my mussing, I assume Caveman Social structuring (for want of a better term). We know that agrarianism is a recent development within the last 5,000 to 3,500 years. Before that, we were a hunter-gatherer-scavenger species. Through specialization denoted by gender, roles developed that made for better survival characteristics and those characterizes passed down successfully to the succeeding generations. Here is what I see:
Men. Hunting in groups was more successful than hunting individually, so it became the dominant method for successfully passing on their genes to later generations. Certain social behaviors developed that allowed individual hunters to band together and to hunt together successfully. Co-operation is one of them. The Male-Bonding, so much made fun of by Feminists and the media, was likely to play a part here. A Ranking, rather than a Pecking Order works better for co-operative group efforts. Leadership, rather than tyranny, was likely to keep the group happily together. Other things.
Women. Since they are the parasite's host, and they produce the meals necessary for new births, they tend to end up as the gender to raise the children from infancy to pre-puberty. Being with child and having children meant that they could not roam far. Being physically weaker, the food that they gathered did not require the hunter's strength that men have (upper-body strength to toss spears, wield bows and arrows, a club, etc). Staying closer to home, they tended to forage together in groups for protection, but gathered separately. A need developed to create a Pecking Order so that choice gathering spots were reserved for some as compared to others and a tyranny to preserve the Pecking Order went hand in hand.
Children, by gender, have different wiring patterns in the brain. This alone does not give them what they need to hunt or to gather and whatnot. The social traits that develop because of the different wiring in the brain allows children to learn how to utilize their genetic programming to a greater advantage. Therefore, it takes a Man to pass along those social traits that make hunting in groups successful and it take a Woman to pass along those traits that make gathering and nesting a success to children. And without input from both genders, the child becomes socially dysfunctional and often with bad intimate relationships.
posted on October 30, 2002 03:32:34 PM new
Borillar, you're assuming that early man was an animal hunter, when that doesn't seem to be the case in tropical climates. Many ate only fruits, vegetables and nuts, so there was no hunting involved... no skins needed for warmth. Aren't the traits you're referring to really only hormonal?
posted on October 30, 2002 03:39:50 PM new
And a sorry assumption it is. You go from feeling sorry for perverts to blameing all of societys ills on the Feminist Movement,and thats what is wrong with women now.I have never in my life met a feminist,I was out there trying to survive .Best not, try to put us in a tidy little package Borillar.The package will explode in your face.
posted on October 30, 2002 04:01:56 PM new
KraftDinner, I am no anthropologist. I wrote what my guesses were. Certainly, there is proof enough that our brains are hardwired towards one gender type and that we celebrate seperate traits.
posted on October 30, 2002 04:11:04 PM new posted on October 30, 2002 03:39:50 PM by junquemama "And a sorry assumption it is. You go from feeling sorry for perverts to blameing all of societys ills on the Feminist Movement,and thats what is wrong with women now.I have never in my life met a feminist,I was out there trying to survive .Best not, try to put us in a tidy little package Borillar.The package will explode in your face."
posted on October 25, 2002 12:40:20 PM by junquemama "Borillar,I am going to continue to pose this question untill You answer,You are the one who brought it up.So there fore You have answers.Why is the dog more important then the child? Posted on 1st page of this thread:"
Community Guidelines, User Agreement
8.6. Breach. You will breach this Agreement if you:
a) Harass, threaten, or intimidate another member or AuctionWatch staff. During debate or disagreement, always address the issue at hand, not the individual.
You are harassing me. I have answered your questions previously and there is nothing more to say on the subject. Just because you are not satisfied with the answers, you insist on pursuing me around on the RT, That is unacceptable. That is harassment.
posted on October 30, 2002 04:12:58 PM new
I know what you mean Borillar... me neither, but the hardwiring is just chemical. I'm sure if you depleted half of a man's testosterone and pumped in female hormones, he'd end up wanting to have tea parties and wear pink. Our brains have evolved into thinking there are 2 separate ways to be... male or female.
posted on October 30, 2002 04:25:36 PM newYou are harassing me. I have answered your questions previously and there is nothing more to say on the subject. Just because you are not satisfied with the answers, you insist on pursuing me around on the RT, That is unacceptable. That is harassment.
YEAH RIGHT
5 days go by,and this is following You?It couldnt be because, You dont want to hear what I have to say?
You didnt answer Jack!.I knew when You started this thread where You were going,And here You are,and here I am.You use the rules of AW for Your own use and whim,You call out others in a thread to tell them they are a moron.I dont break AW rules,YOU DO.
posted on October 30, 2002 04:25:46 PM new
junquemama, what Borillar said made sense to me in this way...
When witches were burned at the stake, everyone thought they were ruled by the devil and possessed demons. Now we know they probably had epilepsy but at the time they were villified. Today, our most villified are the perverts who we'd all love to see burned at the stake but there might be a medical reason why these people are like this. Same with the dog that bites, etc. We should have sympathy for all involved, not just the victims as the perpetrators could be victims too.
posted on October 30, 2002 04:35:13 PM new
Krafty-"junquemama, what Borillar said made sense to me in this way...
When witches were burned at the stake, everyone thought they were ruled by the devil and possessed demons. Now we know they probably had epilepsy but at the time they were villified. Today, our most villified are the perverts who we'd all love to see burned at the stake but there might be a medical reason why these people are like this. Same with the dog that bites, etc. We should have sympathy for all involved, not just the victims as the perpetrators could be victims too."
Krafty,All I can say is,You skipped some words,Or missed what was being said.
posted on November 1, 2002 07:54:36 AM new
There have been limits and structures of accepted sexual behavior since the most primitive societies evolved. Our own society is extremely liberal, but it is unknown whether that liberality is a "freedom" or simply a social ill.
I urge you to read Sir James George Frasier's book, "The Golden Bough" for more information on primitive totemism and taboos related to marriage, government, etc. (This book was quoted extensively by Freud and is the basis for Freud's interest in writing "Totem and Taboo." Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents" also sheds much light on why society places restrictions on our behavior.)
At any rate, I believe our sexual behavior is more hardwired than the result of any group attempting to "control." A society that needs to reproduce itself quickly may allow polygamy, but most societies in general abhor this practice.
posted on November 1, 2002 09:37:54 AM new
Thanks for the input, twinsoft. It is always interesting to know the historical context behind things that enables you to discover the truth of many things. Are what we think of as being "right" or "wrong" something naturally occuring in nature or did some king or pope or other VIP in the past simply get a bug up his or her rear and make a proclamation and it's stuck with us ever since? History often reveals the truth.
On another note, if we are to move forward, sometimes we humans have to strike out on our own, reguardless of the past. While monogamy may be the norm in western Christianity, it may not be the norm for all of human history. As far as I've read, marriage has always been about which spouce gets to inheirit and which ones don't. In many ancient and primative societies that I've read about, usually a male would have more than one mate, but only one could inherit the property. I think that this is what current laws ought to be defining - prperty rights, and not being in the business of telling us who can love whom.
