quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The OP linked writer needs some education. Current behavioral scientists are fully cognizant that ALL language is social constructs and are wary of using labels without due caution. Gravity, in fact, is a word that is a social construct.

quote:



Being such does not mean the term doesn't have useful relations to whatever Reality underlies the models we deliberately create or the ones we implicitly assume from the words we are taught or the sensory experiences we interpret, most of which are Strongly influenced by the reactions and behaviors of others we observe during our personal socialization as a child, biggest of which is learning our culture's language. Only mono-lingual Westerners are as sure only one Reality exists. Those who speak different languages know there are subtle and less subtle differences in the reality communicated by each language.

quote:




The linked writer is also quite ignorant of the vast number of other species besides humans who have 'altricial' (helpless at birth, dependent on close attending caretakers for survival.) young at birth or hatching.

quote:


"Motherhood" has been universal for human societies, HOW it's practiced varies with the cultural practices of each group and how the previous generation experienced child rearing. Western ignorance of the variations world wide in human societies is taken as proof we are all the same. BZZZT! Wrong.

quote:


The criticism of social programs that were designed to bring more of society to some basic level of income and living standard is miss placed and again, ignorant. The driving force pre-50s in general welfare floor rising was the union movement and the economic/employment boom during WWII. As the society returned to a post-war stability, a number of economic and political forces emasculated and mooted the move to living wages by worker cooperatives. The middle class is now vanishing as they bought the Kool-Aid of the wealthy preaching a 'rising tide lifts all boats'. What actually happened is concentration of wealth and the growing impoverishment of the working class returned to late 18th century curves. Ones Progressives then changed as urban poverty and massive social unrest threatened all stability. The first President Roosevelt being a prime mover in bringing rampant capitalism under reasonable regulation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

a couple of things---one is, its pretty clear to me the author is not specifically referring to "motherhood is a social construct" when he says "alas, this sort of thinking...," he is referring to the overarching post modernistic concept of rejecting tradition and of what is self-evident.

the other is, i would say as ive said elsewhere in the forums, on the whole campuses are bastions of liberal thought, and "this sort of thinking..." goes with the territory.

The author's portraying what he considers to be a *very* radical social theory. It's not my experience that most students buy into very radical social theories - including this one (as he casts it). This is why I'd like to see the evidence that they do. As it stands, the author's concluding remark just looks like a piece of throwaway prejudice and a stereotype.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The OP linked writer needs some education. Current behavioral scientists are fully cognizant that ALL language is social constructs and are wary of using labels without due caution. Gravity, in fact, is a word that is a social construct. Being such does not mean the term doesn't have useful relations to whatever Reality underlies the models we deliberately create or the ones we implicitly assume from the words we are taught or the sensory experiences we interpret, most of which are Strongly influenced by the reactions and behaviors of others we observe during our personal socialization as a child, biggest of which is learning our culture's language. Only mono-lingual Westerners are as sure only one Reality exists. Those who speak different languages know there are subtle and less subtle differences in the reality communicated by each language.
The linked writer is also quite ignorant of the vast number of other species besides humans who have 'altricial' (helpless at birth, dependent on close attending caretakers for survival.) young at birth or hatching. "Motherhood" has been universal for human societies, HOW it's practiced varies with the cultural practices of each group and how the previous generation experienced child rearing. Western ignorance of the variations world wide in human societies is taken as proof we are all the same. BZZZT! Wrong.
The criticism of social programs that were designed to bring more of society to some basic level of income and living standard is miss placed and again, ignorant. The driving force pre-50s in general welfare floor rising was the union movement and the economic/employment boom during WWII. As the society returned to a post-war stability, a number of economic and political forces emasculated and mooted the move to living wages by worker cooperatives. The middle class is now vanishing as they bought the Kool-Aid of the wealthy preaching a 'rising tide lifts all boats'. What actually happened is concentration of wealth and the growing impoverishment of the working class returned to late 18th century curves. Ones Progressives then changed as urban poverty and massive social unrest threatened all stability. The first President Roosevelt being a prime mover in bringing rampant capitalism under reasonable regulation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Universal Child Care was tried on an experimental basis with Project Lebensborn. The best and brightest Aryans were encouraged to mate and the children were raised in creches and indoctrinated with proper party protocol from literally from when they first learned language.

I think that is the concept that drives a lot of the opposition to Universal Child Care. Now, if child care expenses were directly deductible from the AGI for tax purposes.... But, heaven forbid the individuals should make their own decisions on child care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Women have been searching for the answer to decent affordable childcare and having to go out to work out of necessity for 40 years....and still havent got what they need.
The deconstruction is the cuts to programs that made it possible for mothers who needed it most.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Women have been searching for the answer to decent affordable childcare and having to go out to work out of necessity for 40 years....and still havent got what they need.
The deconstruction is the cuts to programs that made it possible for mothers who needed it most.

The first months and year of having a child are so demanding and important. Related to that, here is what strikes me about social conservatives: (1) they are anti-contraception; (2) anti-abortion; (3) anti-help for new mothers; (4) and believe abstinence is the best family planning policy.

If you are going to force mothers to have children -- then it seems to me you would want to support them -- especially in the beginning.

If you are going to adopt "family values" as your moniker (to oppose gay marriage) and to otherwise appear sanctimonious -- then I think you should put your money where your mouth is and support mothers with more help.

Next, forcing mothers to have unplanned/unwanted children -- it is really hard for me to understand that. It's no wonder this policy agenda is mostly driven by conservative men.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

A hit piece on wealthy stay at home moms. Literally compared to mistresses. (And I mean literally in the actual meaning, not figuratively-literally like the Joe Biden meaning.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/poor-little-rich-women.html?_r=0

quote:

Rich, powerful men may speak the language of partnership in the absence of true economic parity in a marriage, and act like true partners, and many do. But under this arrangement women are still dependent on their men — a husband may simply ignore his commitment to an abstract idea at any time. He may give you a bonus, or not. Access to your husband’s money might feel good. But it can’t buy you the power you get by being the one who earns, hunts or gathers it.

The wives of the masters of the universe, I learned, are a lot like mistresses — dependent and comparatively disempowered. Just sensing the disequilibrium, the abyss that separates her version of power from her man’s, might keep a thinking woman up at night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

Rich, powerful men may speak the language of partnership in the absence of true economic parity in a marriage, and act like true partners, and many do. But under this arrangement women are still dependent on their men — a husband may simply ignore his commitment to an abstract idea at any time. He may give you a bonus, or not. Access to your husband’s money might feel good. But it can’t buy you the power you get by being the one who earns, hunts or gathers it.

The wives of the masters of the universe, I learned, are a lot like mistresses — dependent and comparatively disempowered. Just sensing the disequilibrium, the abyss that separates her version of power from her man’s, might keep a thinking woman up at night.

yes, you get the sense that the author believes there is little to nothing egalitarian about the marriages, that distinct duties falling along traditional gender lines is anathema, and that these women would all be much better off if they put junior in day care and acted like their husbands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

He concludes:

"Alas, the problem is that this sort of thinking is a dominating force on American campuses."

Come on. The man's a cuckoo clock.

And Saul Alinsky always said, never argue your opponents point. Always just ridicule him instead.

If you and the author want to provide evidence that this notion is, in fact, an example of a 'dominating force on American campuses', Hunter, I'd be delighted to see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

Rich, powerful men may speak the language of partnership in the absence of true economic parity in a marriage, and act like true partners, and many do. But under this arrangement women are still dependent on their men — a husband may simply ignore his commitment to an abstract idea at any time. He may give you a bonus, or not. Access to your husband’s money might feel good. But it can’t buy you the power you get by being the one who earns, hunts or gathers it.

The wives of the masters of the universe, I learned, are a lot like mistresses — dependent and comparatively disempowered. Just sensing the disequilibrium, the abyss that separates her version of power from her man’s, might keep a thinking woman up at night.

yes, you get the sense that the author believes there is little to nothing egalitarian about the marriages, that distinct duties falling along traditional gender lines is anathema, and that these women would all be much better off if they put junior in day care and acted like their husbands.

From just the two short quotes in your post. The post modern woman sees the entire world as power. And...(But it can't buy you the power you get by being the one who earns, hunts or gathers it.). I wonder how that is reconciled with minimum wage? But, I am aware most liberals don't feel the need to reconcile their ideas.

quote:

As a term, critical theory has two meanings with different origins and histories: the first originated in sociology and the second originated in literary criticism, whereby it is used and applied as an umbrella term that can describe a theory founded upon critique; thus, the theorist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."[1]

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

as a woman, and a mother....yes....Ive been there, done that....
its certainly not an experience you have or will ever have....
I dont expect you....to see it any other way, than you have already stated.

Really? Playing the "mom" card rather than the "race" card.

Let's imagine a different way. How would that look?

Right after WWII millions of men came home from the Pacific and Europe and needed jobs. The government used propaganda for the Harrier Nelson or June Cleaver effect. Women stay in the house and take care of men and kids. I'm stating this as fact not as part of imagining a different way.

So this era is the end of modernity and the beginning of a Post Modern era. When I was growing up, it was certainly reasonable to live on one paycheck. A high school diploma, and often less than that, bought you into a reasonable existence.

Then, the 60's implementation of Post Moderism happened in a big way. Some trillions of dollars have been confiscated from some people and transfered to others. The Great Society.

It was meant to fix all of the ills of Modernity. And it completely failed every place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

as a woman, and a mother....yes....Ive been there, done that....
its certainly not an experience you have or will ever have....
I dont expect you....to see it any other way, than you have already stated.

Really? Playing the "mom" card rather than the "race" card.

Let's imagine a different way. How would that look?

Right after WWII millions of men came home from the Pacific and Europe and needed jobs. The government used propaganda for the Harrier Nelson or June Cleaver effect. Women stay in the house and take care of men and kids. I'm stating this as fact not as part of imagining a different way.

So this era is the end of modernity and the beginning of a Post Modern era. When I was growing up, it was certainly reasonable to live on one paycheck. A high school diploma, and often less than that, bought you into a reasonable existence.

Then, the 60's implementation of Post Moderism happened in a big way. Some trillions of dollars have been confiscated from some people and transfered to others. The Great Society.

It was meant to fix all of the ills of Modernity. And it completely failed every place.

Acccording to you, post-modernism was implemented in a big way in the 60s.

I find this rather odd and original. Particularly odd as most of the leading figures of post-modernism eg Foucault, Lacan, de Leuze, Beaudrillard etc published almost all of their work in the 70s or later and almost all of academia dates post modernism from this period.

However if you are correct and it is actually a 60s phenomenon as manifest in President Johnson's "great Society" program, then the entire leftist and post modernist academia have been wrong for a few decades now because they fail to acknowledge a conservative US President as the god father of post modernism.

I guess that must be down to their inherent anti-Americanism? Yes?
/irony

Also post modernism (as I understand it, and I rather suspect I understand it a lot better than you) doesn't seek to "fix all of the ills of Modernity", as you erroneously claim. Postmodernism is best seen as an explanation or description of things, it doesn't pretend to be a solution to anything. It would expressly and categorically reject the idea that there exists a single great solution to the problems of modernity. Only a person who doesn't understand even the most elementary basics of post modernism would advance a claim such as yours.

An alternative explanation that springs to mind is that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are pontificating about. That seems to explain all the relevant evidence rather neatly too, doesn't it? If I had to choose I would opt for the latter explanation.

It might be best if you stuck to subjects that you know something about, but then if you did, I suspect we would be seeing a lot fewer and much shorter posts from you. Who knows it might work wonders for your intellectual reputation (such as it is)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Darling you have been caught red-handed pontificating royally about things you either misunderstand completely or know nothing about. In layperson's terms you have been caught wanking intellectually about things you know nothing about. You have been exposed as a loud-mouthed pretentious ignorant poseur, the kind of person who gets thrown out of Skid Row bars for being too objectionable for the rest of the clientele to stomach.

While I would never put myself in that position, and so don't really know what the appropriate course of action you should adopt is, I suspect a little humility, a lot of silence and perhaps an apology and plea for forgiveness would be a much better pose for you to adopt than sour grapes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh sweet jeebus on a space hopper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh sweet jeebus on a space hopper.

My thoughts exactly.

Do these people inhabit an alternate reality to the rest of us?