posted
While I didn't catch the Republican debate live, I listened to it on YouTube at work yesterday. And of course, being both liberal and atheist, there are many comments I could make.
But what really struck me was at least two of the candidates (I know Mit was one of them...as I said, I was listening, not watching) expressed their desire to strength families or that they were pro family.
My question is, how is anything to do about family the president's job? Am I crazy, or shouldn't the job of making strong families be up to the families, not the government?
Or were those comments just meant to be against gay marriage and too subtle for me to catch it?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:My question is, how is anything to do about family the president's job? Am I crazy, or shouldn't the job of making strong families be up to the families, not the government?
In a vaccuum, I agree, to make or not make a strong family should be up to the families.
We don't live in a vaccuum.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying he's pro family implies that others aren't. And if the competition does not say they are pro-family, they might be in trouble, since that is akin to saying that they hate puppies, and are Pro-abortion (As opposed to being pro-choice. One is creepy, the other makes sense)
That could be it... Maybe he's implying that he himself has a strong family, thus making him a better candidate.
Maybe he's trying to make an entirely new issue, so now fundementalist Christianity has to be not only anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-life, but they have to be pro-family too.
If that's the case, it's rather feeble. Who is going to say that they are 'anti-family'?
But what defines a family. There's where there can be contesting in the political arena. Is gay marriage *really* a marriage? Can they adopt a child and be a 'family'? But, don't you remember in 'Over the Hedge', friends can be family. And, Ohana means family (Different movie, sorry). So, maybe while conservatives believe that family is a working dad, a stay-at-home mom, and four boisterous children, liberals believe that a family is like the cast of Friends.
I guess I have to say that none of the views reflect what I believe. It's all going towards speculation. I think it's rather silly to be 'pro-family'. Just as silly to be against it. Or maybe, we can support the child's right to choose which family he or she wants to live with.
I'll stop. I'm not being funny, just annoying. Sorry... Sort of.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Maybe he's trying to make an entirely new issue, so now fundementalist Christianity has to be not only anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-life, but they have to be pro-family too.
Umm . . . it's not new. "Pro-family" has been a political catch-phrase for years.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't like the thing with abortion where people say "choice" and "life" rather than abortion, as a euphemism. "Pro-family" is a euphemism for nothing. It helps us feel good about the candidate without telling us anything about him.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Politicians were saying they supported "working families" before gay marriage was an issue, FWIW.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of pro-family, anybody else get the sense that Tagg Romney is a douche bag?
Edit: Admittedly, I do like Taggert as a name. I was a fan of Chris Heinz, the legitimately funny Gore daughter and the whole Edwards clan, and even Barbara Bush radiates a respectable matron authority-- even when she unloads on poor people-- but as of today, Tagg Romney screams douche bag.
posted
It's the equivalent of photo-op with children. It conveys fatherliness, caring, a softer side, caring about the "average American" in a traditional way.
Specifically, I think it's gained a new meaning, one of being for the family unit and against anything that is percieved to be against that: gay marriage, abortion, atheism, pre-marital and extra-marital relations, violence and sex in movies and video games, any form of drug use...
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. In Finland being pro-family means trying to ensure governmental benefits for people with young children, trying to stop those same people from falling through holes in the social security net and trying to keep them employed, and also working against domestic abuse and alcoholism. (Sometimes it also means working against violent entertainment.) It feels strange that in America it'd be immediately associated with completely non-family-related things such as premarital sex, atheism or gays.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hnn If they were REALLY pro-family they'd do more to help the family than just say, Oh, yes, we want to protect you from the REAL evil in the world.
I think they should concentrate on reforming the foster care system.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Maybe he's trying to make an entirely new issue, so now fundementalist Christianity has to be not only anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-life, but they have to be pro-family too.
Umm . . . it's not new. "Pro-family" has been a political catch-phrase for years.
And he's trying to bring it up to an entirely different level! Well, I won't stand for it. From now on, I'm pro-single.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think they should concentrate on reforming the foster care system.
Maybe, but I think that helping Unions get a better foothold in the private sector would do wonders for working families.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:... completely non-family-related things such as premarital sex, atheism or gays.
How are issues of sex "non-family-related"? You would think that, for instance, pre-marital sex, one of the leading contributors to single parenthood, might be related to families. Right?
And who brought atheism into this? You're right that it's not directly family-related, but I didn't think anyone was claiming that it was.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: Politicians were saying they supported "working families" before gay marriage was an issue, FWIW.
But "working family" is kinda an euphemism for "blue collar." Politicians who say they support working families are usually trying to appeal to the "common man" and distance themselves from the candidates that come from wealthy families and "have never had to work a day in their life." Although it's expanded a bit from blue collar to cover referring to most of the middle class, I think.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still, Qaz's point stands. Promoting "family values" was a huge part of the Republican strategy in the 1988 election, for instance, LONG before gay marriage was even on most people's radar as a possibility.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My question is, how is anything to do about family the president's job?
There are many social issues which many people feel the government should be involved in, including poverty, health care, standard of living, health and safety, drugs, and families.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
To those who do not believe in Homosexual Marriage, those who proclaim "Family Values" believes it means no gay marriage.
However, it does not say that, and if asked, the proclaimer of Family Values can say "I didn't say anything about gay marriage."
However, it was a phrase used long before the Gay Marriage movement and the Anti-Gay Marriage Movement ever bumped uglies.
"Murphy Brown" had a wonderful episode where Dan Quayle attacked Murphy Brown for Family Values issues, in this case the value was single motherhood.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it amazing how anti-families society is (maternity leave, responses to flex time, etc), yet everyone is always shouting about their pro-family values.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: You would think that, for instance, pre-marital sex, one of the leading contributors to single parenthood, might be related to families. Right?
Being against pre-marital sex is fine, but again, should it matter how the president feels about it? I mean, if they want his opinion, fine...but I don't think there's going to be a bill outlawing pre-marital sex coming up any time soon. At least, I hope not.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Family Values is a great code phrase.
To those who do not believe in Homosexual Marriage, those who proclaim "Family Values" believes it means no gay marriage.
However, it does not say that, and if asked, the proclaimer of Family Values can say "I didn't say anything about gay marriage."
However, it was a phrase used long before the Gay Marriage movement and the Anti-Gay Marriage Movement ever bumped uglies.
"Murphy Brown" had a wonderful episode where Dan Quayle attacked Murphy Brown for Family Values issues, in this case the value was single motherhood.
I like a phrase I learned in the 2006 campaign, "dog-whistle politics" for this phenomenon. To me the subtext of "family values" seems to be "2 parent families with 2.4 kids are great, anything else is just wrong". More recently it's become synonymous with anti-gay marriage.
Anti-immigration rabble-rousing is an even better example of dog-whistle politics. For many pols, anti-immigration slogans mask underlying racism. Not for all, hopefully not even most, but definitely for some politicians it is a thin veneer.
Snail, the phrase "family values" has been effectively used by the right for decades, so here it is saturated in conservative context. According to wiki, some American leftists have tried to redefine "family values" along the lines of the Finnish views you cite, but with little success.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: How are issues of sex "non-family-related"? You would think that, for instance, pre-marital sex, one of the leading contributors to single parenthood, might be related to families. Right?
I actually really wonder how you could measure that. Still, I'd say what would contribute to single parenthood in such cases would be irresponsible sex, and not all pre-marital sex is irresponsible.
For example, my aunt and her boyfriend have two lovely children and a house together, but they're not married. Is this a problem? Would theirs be somehow more of a family if they were married? Those of my friends who are having pre-marital sex yet don't want children use protection. Most of those of my friends who are my age (I'm 22) and do have children are not married, though most of them also plan to marry in the future. So their children don't hava a family yet? How would having a child from pre-marital sex automatically indicate that someone's going to become a single parent? How is responsible pre-marital sex in any way a problem? The only single parent I know is a single parent because she divorced.
Quite honestly, I don't see why non-religious people would get married at all. (Well, I suppose there are some legal benefits that a married couple would have as opposed to a simple living-together couple, though not that many anymore.)
quote:Snail, the phrase "family values" has been effectively used by the right for decades, so here it is saturated in conservative context. According to wiki, some American leftists have tried to redefine "family values" along the lines of the Finnish views you cite, but with little success.
That's interesting.
There are religious conservatives in Finland, though they're a minority party. (They have seven members in the current parliament, if I recall correctly, the parliament having 200 members in total.) And to them being pro-family does seem to also mean being against gay adoption and things like that. But even if you asked the leader of the Christian conservative party here what she thought the biggest threat to family was in Finland, she'd say low income for the parents and domestic abuse and stuff like that. The gay thing would be more of an afterthought (still a troubling one, of course).
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who is going to say that they are anti-life?
Alright, I'll come forward. I am anti-life.
Well, not really. I like being alive. I even like most living things.
But, politically, I support the death penalty, and I support legal abortion. Ergo, I am anti-life. Actually, I think you guys are right. Anti-life sounds bad semantically. Nobody would agree to that title.
Hey, I know! I'm pro-death!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Murphy Brown" had a wonderful episode where Dan Quayle attacked Murphy Brown for Family Values issues, in this case the value was single motherhood.
That's not exactly accurate, at least not if I recall correctly. The "value" there was whether "choosing to be a single mother" is just another lifestyle choice that should be held as a valid goal by our society and not single motherhood by itself.
People beat Dan Quayle up for this one; I pretty much agree with him on it. It's not just a lifestyle choice. It's not just (or even primarily) about you, but rather about the child. It is entirely possible to raise a healthy child as a single mother, especially given an extensive support network, but the way it was being treated, from my recollection, there was little if any focus on the problems associated with raising a child in a single parent household where that parent has a job that demands a whole mess of attention.
I'm not saying, and neither did Dan Quayle, that we should censor this sort of thing, but I think pointing out that it is selfish and unrealistic should be done.
---
On the wider issue, I really wish people who claim to be "pro-family" acted like the term meant anything like what I take it to be. But, I'm not holding my breath. To me, that'd be sort of like expecting most Christians to act Christ-like.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm prepared to vote for the candidate who mentions family the LEAST. It's too much to hope that none will mention it all. I don't mind being persuaded, but I feel like the constant appeal to traditional family values that the candidates engage in is base manipulation.
quote:I think that helping Unions get a better foothold in the private sector would do wonders for working families.
Why? As liberal as I am concerning employment and the economy, I don't see unions as particularly effective (or non-corrupt) organizations.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that helping Unions get a better foothold in the private sector would do wonders for working families. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? As liberal as I am concerning employment and the economy, I don't see unions as particularly effective (or non-corrupt) organizations.
When manufacturing jobs went overseas, the minimally skilled/unconnected class went from working class houseowners to working poor. Instead of steel and auto workers, they work at walmart or became security guards, at a fraction of the pay and benefits. Maybe it's just black families, but one of the largest strains on working families that I see is that they are working poor. You don't have to have a bachelor's to become an electrician, building engineer, or anyone of the strongly unionized white private sector minimally skilled jobs that still pay well.
Raising the minimum wage is a blunt instrument to stem the tide of working poor in this country. If, instead of raising the minimum wage, we focused on getting in and strengthening Unions in the right industries, we wouldn't have to raise the minimum wage to assist the working poor. If you want to be "pro-family," get rid of the working poor.
quote: Raising the minimum wage is a blunt instrument to stem the tide of working poor in this country.
Except that it won't. I'd be much more supportive of free daycare centers maintained with tax dollars than I am of the minimum wage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quite honestly, I don't see why non-religious people would get married at all. (Well, I suppose there are some legal benefits that a married couple would have as opposed to a simple living-together couple, though not that many anymore.)
I used to think this way, but I've changed my mind. I think there is a large difference between private and public commitments. Everything changes constantly and when something is between two people only, when those two people both change their mind over time, it doesn't necessarily feel like you're breaking a commitment. It feels more like circumstances changed and what you said to each other back then came from a time and place that no longer exists. Promises to stay together forever feel more like pillow talk than a concrete commitment.
Yes, marraiges can fall apart as well. But I think on average, it's harder to break off a marraige than it is a long term, serious relationship that both parties intended to last forever. Making the promise to your friends, family, society in general, and the government does make a difference.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Squick. I loved Murphy Brown, but the whole pregnancy arc made me throw things at the screen. And then her perpetual painter just happened to be willing to act as a nanny.
Far from the most unrealistic thing that ever happened on that show. But definitely way up there.
Being a single mom is really, really hard. And that was really not given much attention on Murphy -- it was in fact downplayed to a ridiculous extent.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was an immature Dan-Quayle-hating-Murphy-Brown-loving teenager at the time, and I still thought her single motherhood seemed kinda unrealistic.
I didn't mind that he took so much flak for it, though. Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there is a large difference between private and public commitments. Everything changes constantly and when something is between two people only, when those two people both change their mind over time, it doesn't necessarily feel like you're breaking a commitment.
I disagree.
Take my aunt and her boyfriend again. As said they have a house and a two children together but they're not married. If either of them walked away right now, do you think there wouldn't be a public backlash against the one walking away from family and friends? People would be treating it just as they would be treating it were it an actual divorce. I'd say they pretty much made that public commitment when they build the house and decided to have a child together.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: I was an immature Dan-Quayle-hating-Murphy-Brown-loving teenager at the time, and I still thought her single motherhood seemed kinda unrealistic.
I didn't mind that he took so much flak for it, though.
posted
It may have been unrealistic, but it wasn't what Quayle tried to spin it as. He criticized the show (without ever having seen an episode, he later admitted) as an example of single women intentionally choosing to have children with no partner. What actually happened on the show is that Murphy and her ex-husband decided to reconcile and then he changed his mind and left the country. She then found out she was pregnant and agonized over the decision of what to do about it, finally deciding to keep the baby.
He should have been applauding her decision not to abort, instead of holding her up as an anti-family values example.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Murphy Brown (the character was right): if you are fabulously wealthy and can afford to pay a house painter to watch your kid full time, you really can have it all, married or not.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, you are oversimplifying the scenario that led up to the pregnancy. Among other things, Murphy later admitted that she deliberately chose not to use birth control. (Consciously because she figured she'd be unlikely to get pregnant; subconsciously because she thought this might be her last chance to do so.)
quote:He should have been applauding her decision not to abort, instead of holding her up as an anti-family values example.
I agree with that. And it's part of why I had (and have) no problem with Quayle getting flak.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think politicians who rant and rave about family values understand that the things they rant and rave about are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! Yes, they may object to abortion, I do to a certain extent, they may be against divorce, every situation is complicated, but it's still none of their business. It's still people's private lives and regardless of their decisions, they cannot win. If a woman gets an abortion, peopel will look down on her, if a person makes an adoption plan, they will recieve judgement, if they choose to parent singly, again, judgement. Instead of them taking the time to read out speeches about society and values deteriorating, why not actually do something to help people and make things better for them? Judging will not help, it will only frustrate a person and make their lives worse. Divorce, abortion and most of the things they gripe about will not go away, so why not do something about the conditions and really be aware of what the real problem is? It's so easy to rant and rave about homosexuality and divorce and things like that as they are sensitive political issues that get people rabbling and running to the polls to vote for or against something that REALLY ISN'T THE REAL PROBLEM MESSING UP THIS COUNTRY FOR AGES! It's all a game, like men using a line on a woman to get her to sleep with him! I cannot offer a solution other than focusing on things that are REALLY important, like realizing the effects of abuse on children and, once again, doing something to reform the systems that are in place to help children.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If either of them walked away right now, do you think there wouldn't be a public backlash against the one walking away from family and friends? People would be treating it just as they would be treating it were it an actual divorce. I'd say they pretty much made that public commitment when they build the house and decided to have a child together.
I can accept the argument that building a house and having a child together is a form of public commitment. I don't think that negates the value of a public ceremoney in which you specifically commit to stay with a person till death parts you. I'm not saying people's relationships mean nothing without doing so. But I think it has value beyond a religious framework.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think that negates the value of a public ceremoney in which you specifically commit to stay with a person till death parts you.
Well, I disagree. I'm not sure, for example, how a quick marriage done in a spur-of-the-moment at the magistrate in front of a few complete strangers is automatically more "committed" than what my aunt has. But I guess it's a matter of opinion in the end - we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Well, I never said that. I said on average, I think marriage is more committed than lack of marriage. I think that's pretty straight forward since in one you explicitly commit to stay with somebody and in the other it's more implicit. I'm sure there are tons and tons of exceptions going both ways with people like your aunt being extremely committed without marriage and people like Brittney Spears being extremely not committed with marriage.
I feel a little bit like we're talking past each other. The real thing I was trying to argue was why non-religious people might want to get married. I'm not religious and eventually, I would like to get married for the reasons I already stated. I think there are emotional as well as pragmatic benefits to a ceremony. If you see no value in marriage, that's cool. Just trying to explain one point of perspective you said you didn't get. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Speaking of pro-family, anybody else get the sense that Tagg Romney is a douche bag?
I know the discussion has moved on significantly, and I probably shouldn't bring this back up at all, but I thought that comment was completely out of line, Irami.
From what I know of Tagg he is a kind and loving father and a good man.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When manufacturing jobs went overseas, the minimally skilled/unconnected class went from working class houseowners to working poor. Instead of steel and auto workers, they work at walmart or became security guards, at a fraction of the pay and benefits.
quote:If, instead of raising the minimum wage, we focused on getting in and strengthening Unions in the right industries, we wouldn't have to raise the minimum wage to assist the working poor.
Weren't these industries unionized when their jobs went overseas?
What would you implement to strengthen unions? Which industries would you unionize?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure, for example, how a quick marriage done in a spur-of-the-moment at the magistrate in front of a few complete strangers is automatically more "committed" than what my aunt has.
Are those the only two options? What about a non-religious ceremony with family and friends in attendance to witness you making a commitment with a loved one and afterwards getting sloshed to celebrate?
Nobodies criticizing your aunt, but just because she doesn't need/want a ceremony, doesn't mean that there can be no value in them for others. I can definitely see a great deal of value in having a wedding, completely outside of religious necessities, but that doesn't mean I believe that without a wedding there can be no family. Also, I think the term "wedding" here can get pretty loose: from courthouse to chapel to a couple in the woods holding hands and staring fondly into each others eyes.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I feel a little bit like we're talking past each other. The real thing I was trying to argue was why non-religious people might want to get married. I'm not religious and eventually, I would like to get married for the reasons I already stated. I think there are emotional as well as pragmatic benefits to a ceremony. If you see no value in marriage, that's cool. Just trying to explain one point of perspective you said you didn't get.
quote:Nobodies criticizing your aunt, but just because she doesn't need/want a ceremony, doesn't mean that there can be no value in them for others. I can definitely see a great deal of value in having a wedding, completely outside of religious necessities, but that doesn't mean I believe that without a wedding there can be no family. Also, I think the term "wedding" here can get pretty loose: from courthouse to chapel to a couple in the woods holding hands and staring fondly into each others eyes.
All right. I get what you're saying now. And you're right Amanecer, we were talking past each other a bit. I'm certainly not saying that non-religious people shouldn't get married or that marriage can have no value at all for individual people. And I don't think you were saying that non-married relationships are not committed or not worthy. You're right too, vonk, in that the need for such things varies in each individual situation. Who's to go and tell people which is the right way for them to build their relationship?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: From what I know of Tagg he is a kind and loving father and a good man.
And yet, I look at this clip and I think "douche." What are you going to do? ________________
Scott, they were unionized before, when they were sent overseas. Firmly entitled working-class white guys organize into Unions, and often with help from their more learned brethern. People whose status in this nation is a bit more precarious are scared. The union movement is in trouble in both ways, from the anti-union employer above to the scared immigrant or minority labor below. I imagine the dynamic was similar to pre-FDR America. There is so much varied financial instability among service workers that there needs to be some sort of cultural change in favor of unionizing private enterprise.
I've also seen that companies treat their direct employees well, but use a third party vendor as a morally and administrative buffer for services like security, maintenaince, and catering. Outsourcing was seen as a way to save time and effort, but when the parent company is seeking a contract, they don't want to know the messy details about how the vendor keeps it's bottom line low. For example, students at Harvard University were in the paper in a hunger strike recently not for how Harvard treats its employees, but how its newly outsourced security provider, Allied Barton, treats the employees.
This outsourcing is only bad when it serves as a loop hole for parent employers to get around providing reasonable wages and health benefits for their full-time employees.
And then there are industries where Unions were never established, gardening, housekeeping, etc, the Union would guarantee healthcare and pensions which, in the long term, will save tax dollars and increase the quality of life for the working poor. I know that there is a segment who will say that these industries have an elastic demand, but I think we underestimate how much Americans can't be bothered with cleaning house or mowing lawns. It's kind of like making shoes.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, because why have a reasoned political discussion when you can resort to crude ad hominems.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
