posted
So, my wife thinks that I have set out to read everything that OSC has ever published, in print or online. In order to not make her wrong I've started reading OSC's columns on MormonTimes.com. Some of them are decidedly "Mormon" while others I think would be interesting to the rest of the world as well.
posted
I've only caught a few of these. too bad there isn't an RSS feed for his columns, since I only seem to catch them when I read about them.
Digging throught the site I did find a list of all his columns of which I'd only read a couple. Here's the list, so you can catch up on all things Orson Scott Card:
posted
By the way I agree completely with OSC about diapers. Though I have had my gag reflexes tested by some of my kids' worst diapers, it is so much easier than changing somebody else's kid's diapers.
Luckily the opportunity doesn't come about to change other kids' diapers very often because my wife and I agreed it would be stupid for any man to change another kids diaper in today's society. While I have done it when the kid is suffering and I'm the only one available for the task, its better to let a female do it lest accusations of abuse or other misconduct come about from it.
Some may consider it paranoid behavior, but I don't let other kids come over to our house unless my wife is there, not because there is any risk to the child, but there is a huge potential risk to me if somebody were to make a false accusation. Its something every man should be constantly vigilant of. One false accusation can ruin a man's reputation and life regardless whether formal charges are ever brought up.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you Steve_G, and I generally take the same precautions. I would never abuse any kids, but I've witnessed situations with my family members where accusations of abuse were flying and things went on the public record, and I don't want to get caught up in it.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: So, my wife thinks that I have set out to read everything that OSC has ever published, in print or online. In order to not make her wrong I've started reading OSC's columns on MormonTimes.com. Some of them are decidedly "Mormon" while others I think would be interesting to the rest of the world as well.
Could someone explain to me why his marriage article and that article he sited that I read months ago is bothering me so much? I loved the one about diapers though. Stuff like hat is what I love about OSC even when I disagree with him most of the time.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could someone explain to me why his marriage article and that article he sited that I read months ago is bothering me so much?
No.
I'm serious. It's making my brain itch. I agree with it on some levels, but there's something bothering me on another level.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Me too. I think it's that he has such a different set of assumptions than you or me. OSC honestly believes, as a result of his religious training/beliefs, that it is pretty much a given that you should marry only once and have a lot of kids. I admit to not fully understanding the theology behind it. It's pretty much a part of the religion, though. OTOH, I don't consider marriage or reproduction an absolute necessity, and, while I do have a daughter and am very proud of her, I don't know if I'll get married again or not. I'm open to it, but I could be plenty happy without it.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having another perspective would be nice. Like steven's perspective. I just don't like the idea of considering marriage as a not for profit company and I can't understand why the writer of that other article thinks it's unreasonable to want a man who is your best friend. She sounds too much like those Rules dames and they irratate me to no end.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Was there another article listed? Judging by my limited knowledge of your posts I would guess that steven's guess is probably it. OSC's view of marriage is very traditional and probably comes through in the column.
Was there another article listed? Judging by my limited knowledge of your posts I would guess that steven's guess is probably it. OSC's view of marriage is very traditional and probably comes through in the column.
Sergeant
Yes, it was that Marry Him! article from this magazine that was mentioned here months ago. That article bugged me. Perhaps I should be more detailed. She had points about pickiness, but again, that is suchan unappealing way of looking at marriage and relationships. Maybe because I have difficulty dealing with the mundane or something. Plus, my views, despite wanting a husband, or maybe a live in male partner and kids are not totally traditional.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, I don't know if this applies to you, but I think for some people, if they want/expect marriage to include lots of excitement, romance, and fun, and not much hard work and unpleasantness, they might not like OSC's vision of it.
I'd compare it to starting a business from scratch - doing so is probably going to require a ton of hard work, long days, and not that much excitement. It'll be a total grind most of the time. However, some people find it highly rewarding to be their own boss and to build something of value on their own.
Some people might have a naive vision of what it would like to be in business for themselves: freedom, lots of money and spare time, doing something "fun" and getting money for it, answering to nobody. These are also the people who will probably fail. It's people who approach business with lots of planning, realistic expectations, and hard work who succeed.
It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it kind of works.
Whether that explains why the article bugged you, I have no idea.
Edit: I think the analogy extends a little further.
-Some people get lucky and have a great business idea and make a lot of money without much effort. Likewise, some people get really lucky and marry someone who is really easy to be married to, and stays exciting for a long time. Don't expect it to happen.
-You can have your own business and just work on your own, and that keeps your challenges/problems within limits. You will not build a large or highly successful business this way. You can be married and not have kids, and it limits the challenges and problems you'll face. You won't get the same rewards from your marriage that you would if you had kids.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That makes sense, though I am aware that good relationships take work.. It's sort of how I want to have kids. I know it will be difficult and involve many dirty diapers and not a whole lot of sleep, much crying and frustratiomn but it will also involve having a wonderful new life that I'll get to watch grow up. The good moments for the most part will outweigh the bad, depending on my attitude about it. If I get angry and frustrated at a baby for being a baby, that's just bad for me and the kid. If I see the child as communicating the best way it can through crying, and realize that this part of the child rearing process won't last forever it will be better. Perhaps I am a romantic in the sense that I think romance is a good concept to have underneathe a marriage the way you'd have some awesome part in a song. Some kind of violin or bassline. Or possibly some awesome background vocals or piano parts to support the melody of it all. I take it to mean mutual respect and taking time to care and be attentive to the other person needs. I do not know. I see an underlying magic and beauty to the world that may or may not exist, but that doesn't mean you can't have both hard work and drudgery AND excitement and romance at the same time, even though they seem opposite. It doesn't have to be a total and complete grind. That's as bad as saying it's going to be flower petals, walks on the beach and people with saxaphones and violins following you around playing mushy music all the time.
Plus I need to add I am frustrated by the whole get married to be married because if you're not married you are XYZ, not totally grown up an dmissing out on something and that vibe really is crawling under my skin as I don't think it's enough JUST to be married and have kids. It's not like OSC and this woman are saying marry someone even if they don't respect you, but the idea of marriage being like a business partner ship doesn't sit well with me. TO me it's as bad as someone marrying someone because they have a very bodacious posterior. But it's different degrees of unhealthy. I also get that vibe from a lot of his stories. Not the Alvin serious, which next to Lost Boys has the best marriage, but in the Ender Series, especially in the later ones there iss a lot of Get Married to Be Married Syndrome.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think it's just a matter of not requiring the "perfect" partner, either in courtship or after the knot is tied. You can and should definitely have elements of romance and fun and attraction. Just don't hold the relationship to an impossible standard in that regard, and be ready for the other aspect.
OSC's article was definitely written for a specific religious audience that already presumably share his values, which include the idea that getting married is something you gotta do.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Oh, I think it's just a matter of not requiring the "perfect" partner, either in courtship or after the knot is tied. You can and should definitely have elements of romance and fun and attraction. Just don't hold the relationship to an impossible standard in that regard, and be ready for the other aspect.
OSC's article was definitely written for a specific religious audience that already presumably share his values, which include the idea that getting married is something you gotta do.
Yeah, I figured that. It's not like I even have the illusion that even a person I feel strongly about is a Knight in Shining Armor and is Utterly Perfect in Every Way as having flaws is such much sexier and appealing. But still... I'm not sure if I can relate to the OMG must get married NOW thing even if I am turning 30. I want a nice man, but still, if I started following the Rules i'd want to be taken to a field and shot because those are such stupid rules for the most part.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
As for flaws, I don't know. I think acne scars are sexy, and pimples. A lot of people don't seem to like those. Tattoos are not a flaw, but I love beautiful black tattoos and traditional Japanese ink. I also think scars can be really cool looking too, as my left hand is covered with them.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
syn- here is the line that i found upsetting "All the things you think you have to do before you get married are a waste of precious time."
I would never consider the time before I married my spouse a waste of time. My life was still meaningful before he was there. However, I did marry young. I found a man I wanted to be with forever and I could see no reason to wait. I think if I had said, sorry, I'm not getting married until I have my phd, call me back in 7 years, that would have been a waste though. I do agree with OSC (wow, shocking statement) on the idea that you don't get perfection. It is a lot of hardwork and I get the feeling a lot of people don't get that idea. I think he focused so much on the hard work and the not magical parts because he was trying to counterbalance the all magic and romance image currently found in the US. Like in Gilmore Girl where Lorili divorces Chris (?) even though they had a child together, got along well, etc because he just wasn't "the one."
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like in Gilmore Girl where Lorili divorces Chris (?) even though they had a child together, got along well, etc because he just wasn't "the one."
Ya know, you read something like that and think "How could someone be so stupid?"
But then. . I've known a couple of womend with those very rose-colored glasses who've either divorced or refused to marry as a result of them, so. . . guess it's not that unrealistic, sad to say.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: syn- here is the line that i found upsetting "All the things you think you have to do before you get married are a waste of precious time."
I would never consider the time before I married my spouse a waste of time. My life was still meaningful before he was there. However, I did marry young. I found a man I wanted to be with forever and I could see no reason to wait. I think if I had said, sorry, I'm not getting married until I have my phd, call me back in 7 years, that would have been a waste though. I do agree with OSC (wow, shocking statement) on the idea that you don't get perfection. It is a lot of hardwork and I get the feeling a lot of people don't get that idea. I think he focused so much on the hard work and the not magical parts because he was trying to counterbalance the all magic and romance image currently found in the US. Like in Gilmore Girl where Lorili divorces Chris (?) even though they had a child together, got along well, etc because he just wasn't "the one."
That bugged me too. I can't help but think it's not unhealthy for a person to have a healthy idea of who they are before making such a huge step like marriage. Or, perhaps they are like the fellow in a Personal Matter and they just want to go to Africa. There doesn't seem to be much of a point of being married and whining about not going to africa.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A "healthy idea of who they are" is simply not a goal you can actually achieve without experiencing real life.
There is another man I could have married, and he's a great guy. He just happened to have been on his mission when I met my husband. This many years into the marriage, I would have been a totally different person than I am now. I've also thought about what would have happened if I didn't get married and pursued my career in biology. Once again, totally different person.
I think we have a good enough idea by the time we are in our early twenties, and sometimes before that.
No amount of premarital soul searching is going to make you who you are going to be in the marriage. So why bother? Such a self centered activity is going to be more about finding what makes you happy and making a list of those things rather than finding a person you can explore the world with together. Learning about life through a marriage is just a completely different experience and requires the opposite of self centered searching. It requires searching for a way to work with and understand your spouse. Who we are develops naturally and much more beautifully if we aren't always worried about who we are.
If we have told ourselves a story about who we are, we will be too rigid in the way we approach others and what we require of them. We will have created a one person dogmatism that would make it hard for us to adapt to situations that challenge our person. We will become that much less compatible to a lot of other people, all of who are good, decent human beings.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I reckon so, but I'm reminded of a book I just finished about two people with Asperger's Syndrom and how they got married and despite having a condition in common and a simular way of viewing the world their marriage fell a part. They had to learn that in order to have a good marriage you have teo learn to love yourself as well. They took a lot of anger and trauma from the past and bought it with them into the marriage. There second marriage worked better because they were apart for a while and able to soul search and toss aside that old anger, and they were able to understand the other person better. I can't help but think that it is important to love yourself before you can love another person in a marital way.
I also am still frustrated by that girl's point of view. Seriously, if all you have in common in a marriage is the kids then what happens when the kids leave home and it's just the two of you?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a difference between loving yourself and taking time to "find yourself." most of the people who take time to find themselves are not learning to love themselves, they are bumming around Europe (or someplace), usually unemployed and on their parents money. It's a very selfish time, often filled with much drinking. I will admit that I am biased in that definition since right now I go to a fairly expensive private school for of spoiled brats. As far as just being married for the kids, who is arguing that?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what that dame made it sound like. Like she wanted to get married JUST to have a father for kids and not out of, well... love and connection. That doesn't sit well. Especially since Aidan in Sex and the City was soooooo good looking, but why should Carrie marry him if she doesn't LOVE him as much as she loves big? That seems unfair to him and her...
Also that dame watches too much television and should consider doing something else.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using people who aren't just damaged from a bad history, but have a disorder such as Aspergers is not the best example. Of course we need to repair damage. But then, if we focus our energy on what is WRONG with us, this is yet another story that will curtail our ability to contribute something good.
So the Asperger's couple isn't such a bad example after all. If they had figured out they were too angry and damaged before, they would never have gotten married. Though they required some separation, it was their marriage that ended up healing them. The healing process usually involves pain.
While I appreciate the concept that we must love ourselves, I don't think it is an emotional experience we should be seeking after. The love will come naturally if instead, we seek to do well: do the best we can at our work and more importantly, serve those around us.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Love in marriage is the same way: if two people sincerely serve together, they will gain enough in common that there is going to be a lot of love in the marriage.
So if we are seeking for a spouse with even a moderate checklist of what they must be in order for us to be happy, I think we're going to end up being lonely and that dame figured it out too late.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The correlary between marriage and business is very interesting to me, since we've had a business and my husband has a persistent belief in the fun/freedom nature of business, despite the stresses, while I find it more trouble than it's worth. But I guess it's a good thing he feels that way about me.
I don't think he's too much trouble, though Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amka: So if we are seeking for a spouse with even a moderate checklist of what they must be in order for us to be happy, I think we're going to end up being lonely and that dame figured it out too late.
I think a moderate checklist of what a person must be in order to be considered a potential spouse is absolutely crucial. The key is how you define "moderate." I could not be happy living with someone who smokes. I could not be happy married to someone who is physically or verbally abusive. I could not be happy married to someone who isn't interested in lifelong growth and learning. I would not have considered marrying someone who's views about what marriage means were incompatable with mine.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one has to havfe some standards. Ideally speaking, I may not prefer a conservative sort of guy for a mate, but how do I know he won't be the right man? I'm allergic to cigarettes, but have an odd thing for smokers I don't get, but I definetly have to rule out abusive and controlling people. I'd definetly have to rule out guys who are... well, mean, petty, cruel to aanimals, believe in spanking children and won't change their mind, anyone who thinks it's OK to let a child CIO and won't look at it from another perspective, a person who doesn't want kids and will not change their mind, someone who cheats a lot, and I agree about not having someone who isn't interested in lifelong growth and learning. And someone who won't treat our kids with compassion and respect too.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I think it comes down to knowing what is a character issue and what is not. The kinds of lists I have seen are not about character issues: is a Soprano, is shorter/taller than me, plays piano. One can argue whether one's weight is a character issue, I suppose. I know it's appalling to think someone would have such items on a list, and that's the reason such lists have been discouraged in the Latter-Day Saint culture. But religious commitment and the weight of marriage are obviously appropriate items to screen for, and while the are character matters, one should not count on taking up with someone who is an opposite planning to change them.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like my old professor told us, (he was speaking about a job, but it fits a spouse too) "Everyone should have two lists, Things they Want; and Things they Need. One list should be much longer than the other."
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my head, I had large, moderate, and small list. I do think a small list is necessary, and everyone has pretty much already talked about those things.
Same religion, same idea about having kids, not abusive, not addicted to anything, trustworthy, compassionate.
What is CIO, Synthesia?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think CIO refers to "cry it out," a method for "teaching" babies to sleep through the night by letting them cry themselves to sleep. According to this method, you're supposed to leave them in their cribs to cry for x amount of time, as opposed to picking them up and cuddling them or nursing them when they wake up at night.
I don't think CIO is a good idea, and refused to do it myself with my daughter.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik: I think CIO refers to "cry it out," a method for "teaching" babies to sleep through the night by letting them cry themselves to sleep. According to this method, you're supposed to leave them in their cribs to cry for x amount of time, as opposed to picking them up and cuddling them or nursing them when they wake up at night.
I don't think CIO is a good idea, and refused to do it myself with my daughter.
I agree, children need a foundation of love and trust, and this isn't leaving a child to cry for 5 minutes I'm talking about, it's more like an hour or so and it's been proven to be unhealthy. Even Ferber doesn't approve.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband and I feel differently about CIO, spanking, co-sleeping, allowance, college v. military, and the list goes on. But we feel the same that the parents come to a consensus and are united in giving guidance to children.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, I don't think that letting babies cry themselves to sleep has been proven to be unhealthy. There are studies which conclude the opposite, in fact. Here's a nice list of studies. I haven't read the studies myself, but from the abstracts it appears that the evidence points toward CIO being OK. Combine this evidence with the fact that pediatricians - who should generally be up to date on the literature - commonly recommend it, and it seems implausible that it's been "proven" to be unhealthy.
Whether the parent finds it preferable to comforting and helping the child fall asleep is a personal decision, IMO, and (other aspects of parental care being equal) doesn't impact the well being of the baby.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some pediatricians reccomend it, others are vehemently against it. Pretty much all of them on both sides (the ones that take a "side" anyway) agree that it impacts the well being of the baby, they just disagree on whether that impact is positive or negative.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been proven to be unhealthy. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/04.09/ChildrenNeedTou.html But it depends on what is meant by cry it out. There's a difference between laying a baby down and coming back in the room to pat her back and reassure her and leaving her alone to wail in her crib for hours. There's also a difference between letting a six month old cry it out (again, reassuring them every few minutes or so, the way Ferber outlines it) and doing that to an 8 week old baby. That strikes me as wrong because biologically speaking babies NEED to be held, comforted and picked up when they cry. It's what helps their brains to develop and it teaches them to trust their parents to take care of their needs.
Plus I hate the idea of doing that. It makes my heart hurt. Especially if it's a newborn! That's when they need the most care and rocking and spoiling!
Another thing to consider is the idea of Cry it Out is related to the behaviourlist idea that says the more you pick up a baby the more the baby will cry. In the case of ignoring the baby's cries, they've found that a baby will sometimes just give up crying altogether, making parents think that the method works, but really you have a child that has given up all together. Babies use crying as a way of communicating because they have no other way to express their needs. If folks see it as manipulation or as some way to annoy them they may not be empathetic enough towards that kid. Plus, another proof lies in children who have come from overseas orphanages who get their cries ignored, who are fed on a strict schedule and do not get held and cuddled enough. It has a negative effect on most of the children.
quote:If folks see [crying] as manipulation or as some way to annoy them they may not be empathetic enough towards that kid.
Amen, Synesthesia.
Another way I look at it is that until a few thousand years ago, we lived in the wild. Babies could not be left alone to predators. They are programmed to not be left alone. There is no real reason to counteract that programming except for the convenience of the parents.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If folks see [crying] as manipulation or as some way to annoy them they may not be empathetic enough towards that kid.
Amen, Synesthesia.
Another way I look at it is that until a few thousand years ago, we lived in the wild. Babies could not be left alone to predators. They are programmed to not be left alone. There is no real reason to counteract that programming except for the convenience of the parents.
So true. Plus babies NEED to be held, cuddled and talked to, they have got their whole lives to be structured and have schedules.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, I've got studies that contradict your Harvard article. See the list I linked earlier. There are controlled studies that look at the specific question (how to get babies to sleep) instead of comparing the overall tendency of cultures to respond to their babies' crying.
A lot of the studies to which people refer to supposedly show that CIO is harmful are actually studies that show that persistent emotional neglect and lack of physical contact is harmful. (Duh)
If your baby gets lots of attention and care and responsiveness, letting them cry themselves to sleep isn't teaching them that their parents don't care about them. Of _course_ babies need lots of contact and nurturing. They can get it at times other than bedtime. Parents also need sleep, and there really is no clear *fact based* case, on the balance, to show that CIO is harmful. At most the research is split.
If you prefer not to do it, because it makes you feel bad, or because it's not worth the effort to you, or you pick the "con" research over the "pro" research because it seems more right to you, fine, but there isn't sufficient reason to say that people are harming their children because they prefer to let their children cry themselves to sleep.
(And this doesn't mean persistently neglecting children who need something for hours at a time, just in case anyone is concerned that I'm advocating such a thing. "CIO" as most people understand it doesn't mean extreme measures)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, this really is where the Golden Rule applies: Do unto others as you would have done to you.
Why are they crying? Because they are alone and frightened, and very likely hungry. Until they have a full sense of permanence and self, any attempt to train them to be alone at night by crying it out is, IMO, selfish. Yes, I know we need sleep but maybe we should blame the lack on modern lifestyle more than baby's needs.
It is well enough understood now by pediatricians that they recommend a baby sleep in the parent's room until they are 6 months old.
Sure, babies can adapt. They're very good at it. And in an environment that otherwise is full of responsiveness, they'll probably do pretty good. What can't be studied is how the same exact individual is going to turn out if they are subjected to lone sleeping and CIO vs true nighttime parenting.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I decided long ago that trying to be perfect is counter productive for me. So I mainly try to figure out what will be "good enough" and go with that. For my family, sleeping at night helps us function better as parents the rest of the time. (shrug). I'd certainly re-evaluate if there were clear evidence that what we do is harmful (and therefore not good enough), but there isn't.
And the golden rule hardly applies in a consistent manner when parenting...personally, I want the cookie.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
