quote:It's fun to be so often (deliberately?) misunderstood.
According to you, the individuals in a marriage are not self-reliant or self-sufficient because one doesn't provide for his own finances and the other doesn't take care of all of his responsibilities. Therefore, "insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes", neither are mature.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you even reading the same words? That is completely off from everything he said, and he actually spoke quite specifically saying the exact opposite.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Name calling? I never said I agreed with the expectations, just that cultural expectations might have something to do with it.
And I would disagree with the expectations. I would hope I would hold a daughter to the same expectations I would a son. Since I am not likely to have any more kids, the point is moot.
I don't think I am a sexist. My wife does not think I am a sexist. What about my comments makes you think I am a sexist? Did any comment before I said "maybe gender has something to do with it" sound sexist?
quote:and he actually spoke quite specifically saying the exact opposite.
Could you demonstrate where? It seems that a sizeable number of people aren't reading this the same way you are.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is completely off from everything he said
How is it off? Are people in a marriage self-sufficient? I'm pretty sure that they are, by definition, not self-sufficient. Therefore, using his scope of maturity, the self-sufficient part, they cannot be said to have that.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky -- you directly asked Rakeesh if he thought that stay-at-home parents are immature. His response was "Not remotely."
He has clearly and explicitly said that he doesn't think that stay-at-home parents are immature. Camus keeps insisting that he thinks they are.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of curious how many people who're offended by the association of maturity with financial independence are not currently financially independent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to you, the individuals in a marriage are not self-reliant or self-sufficient because one doesn't provide for his own finances and the other doesn't take care of all of his responsibilities. Therefore, "insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes", neither are mature.
Even though I'm pretty darn sure it was obvious, let me make myself perfectly clear: in a family where one parent stays home to tend to the home and family and the other parent goes out to earn money to pay for that work, there is an exchange of responsibilities, each very big.
One of those responsibilities is that of earning the money to get the things needed to live. The other responsibility is that of being a capable and present parent to watch over children and rear them.
OK? This is so obvious I'm having a difficult time believing I'm not being willfully misunderstood here. Both parents are starting at 0 in terms of maturity, responsibility, self-sufficiency, all of these subjective words (but some, it seems, think only my definition is subjective). One parent does not stay home and take care of their children. So that parent is now at, let's say, -100. But that parent does go out into the world to earn money to support a family, to support people beyond that parent's own needs. So, back to 0.
The same goes for the other parent as well. It's an exchange. Assuming they're good parents, neither of them would be doing either thing (either not earning a living, or not staying with their children), unless they had a partner they trusted implicitly to help them share overall responsibility.
This is not a difficult thing to grasp, camus. Not even a little bit. I think my meaning is now and has been very clear.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Name calling? I never said I agreed with the expectations, just that cultural expectations might have something to do with it.
You spoke of cultural expectations in reference to your own children, and you were the one who brought this entire issue up in the first place.
quote:And I would disagree with the expectations.
Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
quote:I don't think I am a sexist. My wife does not think I am a sexist. What about my comments makes you think I am a sexist? Did any comment before I said "maybe gender has something to do with it" sound sexist?
I don't care whether you or your wife think you're a sexist; it's irrelevant. Your own words call you a sexist, over and over and over again. And in case that wasn't enough, you ended with this gem:
quote:What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?
quote:for a substantial length of time (I know that's vague) permits someone else to be responsible for the financial and material burdens of their own day-to-day life is not as mature, insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes, as someone who does not permit someone else to do that.
When asked about a group that fits this characterization, he said no, but has not withdrawn or ammended that characterization.
I'm pretty sure that camus is going off of what Rakeesh said in what I quoted above, which, as I said, he hasn't altered or withdrawn.
---
edit: I don't agree with how camus is addressing this, but it's not like he is at the opposite of what Rakeesh said.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Self sufficiency would, in my opinion, be one aspect of maturity.
In a marriage (or other similar partnership) where you are relying on someone else and someone else is relying on you, you are not self sufficient.
But other aspects of maturity - responsibility for others, dependability, putting the needs of the family before your own - for example would be enhanced.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, Could you reconcile that with your statement about financial and material dependence? They seem to be directly at odds.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He explained about the sharing of responsibilities. He has, in fact, explained why the group you mentioned does not fit within that characterization.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I genuinely don't see how. Perhaps it's in my own belief that these things can be 'traded', since they have value. One person takes on a surplus of responsibility and is to some degree financially dependent for doing so. I'm only saying that that person is immature if you look at only the second part of that statement.
The person is doing a lot more in one area, and necessarily doing less in another. Suggesting that that returns things to a neutral state does not seem to be at odds to me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for taking up my side of things in this, kat, but I don't mind discussing it with Mr. Squicky.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Why did you only cut and paste the one sentence, taking it out of context?
Here is the quote "I also mean that the gender of the child might have something to do with expectations. Sons are expected to go out in the world and show that they can support a woman, or at least in olden times that was how it went. What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?"
I was talking about cultural expectations in the "old" days, you know like the 1950's or so and before. I was not talking about my beliefs in that statement, I was talking about cultural expectations.
Your blanket statement tells more about your hang ups then mine. You then say "Your own words call you a sexist, over and over and over again." What statements over and over again? This was the first time I brought up gender in almost 7 pages. I talk about my experiences growing up and with my son becuase those are all I have.
I reject you claim that I am a sexist. Asking a question does not make one a sexist. Especially in this context.
Why did you only cut and paste the one sentence, taking it out of context?
Here is the quote "I also mean that the gender of the child might have something to do with expectations. Sons are expected to go out in the world and show that they can support a woman, or at least in olden times that was how it went. What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?"
I was talking about cultural expectations in the "old" days, you know like the 1950's or so and before. I was not talking about my beliefs in that statement, I was talking about cultural expectations.
You can claim that the last line was spoken as a hypothetical, but I don't believe it for a second. And seriously, if you don't see how talking about "the gender of the child might have something to do with expectations" when all you've talked about is your own expectations and children, nothing I can say is going to highlight it for you.
quote:Your blanket statement tells more about your hang ups then mine. You then say "Your own words call you a sexist, over and over and over again." What statements over and over again? This was the first time I brought up gender in almost 7 pages. I talk about my experiences growing up and with my son becuase those are all I have.
I reject you claim that I am a sexist. Asking a question does not make one a sexist. Especially in this context.
posted
eros, I think you may want to take a step back. I don't think you're being fair to msquared and I think you may be crossing the lines of what should be acceptible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: eros, I think you may want to take a step back. I don't think you're being fair to msquared and I think you may be crossing the lines of what should be acceptible.
Are you serious?
*looks around the thread*
No, really, are you serious?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you trying to be obtuse? I had not brought up gender as a possible difference on how society might view the independence of boys versus girls until that post. All of my posts had been about my son and myself since that is my experience? I am a sexist becuase that is all the experince I have?
You see, you are now assigning motives to me that I do not have. I have not done that to you. I have been polite. I have not called you any names. I have not ridiculed what you have said, unlike your "Comedy gold" comment. It seems like you are turning to personal attacks for some reason.
Do you disagree that in the "old times" that fathers did not think that way? When men were supposed to ask the father for permission to marry the daughter before they ever asked the lady? When the question the father asked was "How do you plan on supporting my daughther?"
So in a case like this you find it more likely that I am a sexist instead of the chance that I just worded my statement poorly? No asking for clarification, just jump to conclusions?
quote:Remarkable. It is almost like depending on other people can actually be a more mature way of living than insisting on independent self-sufficiency and that your stated criteria of relying on someone else's financial and material support isn't necesarily a great metric for measuring maturity.
Yaaaaaaaay. It's great because it's true.
The idea that 'Someone who needs or gets their family's help to survive is just not as self-sufficient and mature as a person who does not' is just .. well, it's fundamentally dumb. It ignores the disparity of circumstances that a person can face (and the fact that these circumstances are not equally allowing of financial independance between all people), it ignores the fact that financial independance doesn't necessarily include more maturity, and it implies that structures like shared-responsibility marriages and closer-knit families are inherently 'less mature' than families that bunt their kids out the door at 18 on principle.
Also as an aside, man this place has a lot of cyclical personality feuds.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm kind of curious how many people who're offended by the association of maturity with financial independence are not currently financially independent.
I am not financially independent and I am not offended. I figure this is a good generalization, but doesn't apply to me.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Are you trying to be obtuse? I had not brought up gender as a possible difference on how society might view the independence of boys versus girls until that post. All of my posts had been about my son and myself since that is my experience? I am a sexist becuase that is all the experince I have?
You see, you are now assigning motives to me that I do not have. I have not done that to you. I have been polite. I have not called you any names. I have not ridiculed what you have said, unlike your "Comedy gold" comment. It seems like you are turning to personal attacks for some reason.
Do you disagree that in the "old times" that fathers did not think that way? When men were supposed to ask the father for permission to marry the daughter before they ever asked the lady? When the question the father asked was "How do you plan on supporting my daughther?"
So in a case like this you find it more likely that I am a sexist instead of the chance that I just worded my statement poorly? No asking for clarification, just jump to conclusions?
msquared
You're either selectively reading or not reading my response at all and, if you seriously think you've been polite in this thread, likely operating in a different universe.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So in a case like this you find it more likely that I am a sexist instead of the chance that I just worded my statement poorly? No asking for clarification, just jump to conclusions?
Um to be fair you were just outright saying things like "What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?" and it's sorta a leap to say that someone like erosomniac is actively in the wrong to fit them in with a rather persisting pattern that more than implies that you tie gender into disparate expectations of how people should be judged in accomplishments.
If you were going for hypotheticals maybe it's time to change your tact? Maybe go for 'actually' polite?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How have I not been polite? Have I called any one a name? Have I called thier belief wrong or stupid? I have read your resonses "Your are a sexist." "Comedy gold." They are not hard to figure out and seem pretty self explanitory.
Explain how I have been rude, please? Was I rude before you called me a "Sexist". If so, again, please show me where?
I disagree with your position and you disagree with mine. Fine, is that a problem?
posted
Hmm...I think the thread has completely degenerated. There are three different conversations going on, and all of them consist of name-calling and defending from name-calling and getting offended by imagined slights and being irritated by what looks like someone's deliberate offendedness and the topic is completely gone.
If it were a blog, the comments would be closed.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. The key issue I have is the inherent tie-in to 'maturity.' Taking it out makes it an entirely different statement, so ..
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remarkable. It is almost like depending on other people can actually be a more mature way of living than insisting on independent self-sufficiency and that your stated criteria of relying on someone else's financial and material support isn't necesarily a great metric for measuring maturity.
Yaaaaaaaay. It's great because it's true.
The idea that 'Someone who needs or gets their family's help to survive is just not as self-sufficient and mature as a person who does not' is just .. well, it's fundamentally dumb. It ignores the disparity of circumstances that a person can face (and the fact that these circumstances are not equally allowing of financial independance between all people), it ignores the fact that financial independance doesn't necessarily include more maturity, and it implies that structures like shared-responsibility marriages and closer-knit families are inherently 'less mature' than families that bunt their kids out the door at 18 on principle.
Also as an aside, man this place has a lot of cyclical personality feuds.
I agree. People are all different, and their families, cultures and individual circumstances are all different, to a degree that a general definition of maturity is impossible and just leads to thread-thrashing. Someone press the reset button.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The responsibilities of a child in his/her parents' home are rarely equal to or even approach the responsibilities of a co-parent who has children depend on him/her.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The responsibilities of a child in his/her parents' home are rarely equal to or even approach the responsibilities of a co-parent who has children depend on him/her.
Yet: it is not impossible that they could match or exceed these responsibilities. I could even use anecdote to show that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The presense of an exception does not invalidate the general statement, which is generally true: the responsibilities of a child in their parents home rarely (occasionally, but very rarely) approach or equal the responsibilities of a parent in a home with children.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Ok here is a difference.
You called me a sexist. I never called you, personally, anything.
You are taking general comments about a topic and personalizing them.
I say "Kids who live at home after high school and sponge off Mom and Dad are immature"
No, that's not what you said, at all. That's part of what you later tried to clarify your meaning to.
quote: and for some reason you think I am talking about you?
Do you not see a big difference between what you said and what I have been saying.
Yeah, you're right. There's a vast, immeasurable difference between you saying "You're stupid" and "All people fitting X characteristic are stupid." I shouldn't be offended by the latter. Clearly if you say something like "all Asian people are stupid," you aren't insulting any specific Asian person! No way! What's next? "All Mormons are cultists" isn't an insult to any individual Mormon? Try that one next; I want to watch the reaction.
quote:And yes, I would like you to quote me. Show me where I was rude to a particular member on the level of what you were to me.
I'm sorry, but if you don't have the energy to go back and read your own posts, what right do you have to expect me to go and do your work for you? I don't need to back up my claim; I think you're a sexist, period, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else that that's the case--not even you. If you're genuinely interested in figuring it out, I've already given you instructions.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok I am writing you off. You make a claim, say it is all over the place and then will not support it. You do need to back up your claim but I am not going to push it because I know you can't.
I have gone back and read my posts. I disagree that I was rude but obviously will never convince you of that.
As to the generalizations, without that we are unable to have general discussions.
Let me go back to my primary statement.
By the time kids graduate from high school, they should want to get out of the house as much as the parents should want them out of the house.
I stand by this. I think it is healthier, all things considered and knowing that there will be exceptions, for kids to get out on their own and grow away from the parents. Make mistakes, small ones hopefully. Learn what it means to be grown up and responsible. Learn all the sacrifices your parents made for you and are still making for you.
posted
Actually, you do need to back up your claim. At least, that's typically the way it works. The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof on them.
So it's not really fair to go, "You're sexist! Prove it? Nah."
Not that I particularly have an opinion on whether or not the accusation is correct.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I know we're moving around the same point. My post wasn't a contradiction or anything. It's just me pointing out helpful additional stuff in regards to my main point.
quote:and for some reason you think I am talking about you?
.. um, you sort of, uh .. are, when you are making statements of judgement against groups/examples that necessarily include/represent them, it's a judgement of them. And you have actually done that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Actually, you do need to back up your claim. At least, that's typically the way it works. The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof on them.
Typically, yes, but like I said: I have no interest in proving I'm right. I know I am, and it doesn't matter to me at all whether anyone else, including msquared, believes it - just that he knows I think it.
Edit: and further, I have provided proof. His unwillingness to go and look at it is not my problem, any more than it would be my problem were I citing a reference off this site and he refused to click the link.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you fall into the category I am talking about then I plead guilty. If you are a twenty something who is still living at home having Mom cook and do your laundry while you sit around the house all day and play video games, yes I am talking about you.
But if you pay rent, work full time or part time, go to school, or any other very good reasons for the exception, then no, I am not talking about you.
posted
msquared, You started out talking about a much broader category than that. You seem to have narrowed it by dribs and drabs, but I can very easily see people thinking that you are still sort of holding to your original statements.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been consistent in my view but have accepted other people protestation that I might have been too broad in my initial statement.
I still think it is the parents duty to raise the kids so that when the time comes, and in our culture that is normally after high school graduation and/or the 18th birthday, the kid should want to move out on his/her own. They should want to take that first step to independence away from the family. And the family, meaning the parents, should also want this.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
