Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Sex-trade workers hail legalization of brothels as major victory (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Sex-trade workers hail legalization of brothels as major victory
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ontario’s top court has legalized brothels and will allow prostitutes to have security and other staff that is specifically aimed at protecting prostitutes.

In a landmark decision Monday, the court said that prostitution is extremely dangerous work where inherent risks are multiplied by laws preventing prostitutes from working together under one roof or hiring security staff.

Commencing next year, a five-judge panel said unanimously, prostitutes in any part of the province can work legally in brothels that will be operated like ordinary businesses.

As of April 25, they can engage bodyguards or security staff.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/sex-trade-workers-hail-legalization-of-brothels-as-major-victory/article2381372/singlepage/#articlecontent

That court approved same-sex marriage in 2003, two years before nationwide legalisation. Obviously, this will probably have a rockier path federally this time, but maybe this will follow too.

Posts: 7452 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dobbie
Member
Member # 3881

 - posted      Profile for Dobbie           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They say "trade' but they always end up wanting money.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Canadian law in this area certainly needs to be cleaned up; as the article points out, it's counterproductive to have legal prostitution while making it illegal for a prostitute to conduct their affairs in a safe manner. It seems to me that it should be the one or the other: illegal, or legal and regulated in ways that maximize the safety of the workers.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, this ought to make those weekends where 19 year olds from boarder states head to Canada to get drunk all the more interesting.

You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.

Posts: 21416 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
They say "trade' but they always end up wanting money.

I've heard some of the ones here in Oakland will take certain trade goods in lieu of cash payment.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute.

What the hell? Where did you come up with that?
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Well, this ought to make those weekends where 19 year olds from boarder states head to Canada to get drunk all the more interesting.

You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.

Believing that traditional values are of worth does not mean one also believes everything everyone was doing in the past was better morally speaking.

Most people when they talk about traditional values are focusing on ideals espoused by their forefathers, or in some cases societal norms from the past. It doesn't mean that if one points out the Puritans were right to eschew adultery, that they must also believe we should burn witches, or even that we ought to force adulterers to wear scarlet letters.

I am fine with the philosophy that when you try to make prostitution illegal, you drive it underground and it becomes unsafe without actually curbing it in any noticeable way. I also understand why many believe (including myself) that sex should as a general rule be indulge in only within the confines of marriage.

Posts: 14185 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute.

What the hell? Where did you come up with that?
It was a random factoid in one of the history books I read earlier this semester on the American family.

Edit to add: Check out The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz. If you wait until tomorrow, I'll try to either find the page number or the citation she used for the fact.

Posts: 21416 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What the hell? Where did you come up with that?
It's amusing that you default to the notion it's nonsense. From Lyrhawn, known for his flights of historical fancy and make-believe, of course. Why? If true, would it put a ding in your notions of the good old days?

In any event, I'm curious as all get out about the idea, but if true it wouldn't surprise me. Humans I generally think have wanted sex about as much in one period of history as another, but until recently this was only considered anything other than gross sin for men, but not women-and often for men too, of course. But men could have (as far as society was concerned) consequence-free sex, so long as it was kept private. Couldn't say the same for women. Even when they desired sex as much as men (which I daresay was often enough), they couldn't have their cake without very publicly needing to eat it, too, to mangle the saying.

That's all conjecture of course, but it feels pretty sound, and the notion Lyrhawn expressed isn't so shocking once you think about it.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Well, this ought to make those weekends where 19 year olds from boarder states head to Canada to get drunk all the more interesting.

You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.

Believing that traditional values are of worth does not mean one also believes everything everyone was doing in the past was better morally speaking.

Most people when they talk about traditional values are focusing on ideals espoused by their forefathers, or in some cases societal norms from the past. It doesn't mean that if one points out the Puritans were right to eschew adultery, that they must also believe we should burn witches, or even that we ought to force adulterers to wear scarlet letters.

No they aren't. They just think they are. Any real historical investigation of this mythical past would show that most of what "family values" people claim to want by pointing to the past never actually existed in the past. And often times it was only for a fleeting moment before another era of family values swept in to overtake it.

For example, teenage pregnancy rates are lower now than they've almost ever been. Lower than in both colonial times and the much touted 1950s. The past that these people are referring to is a constructed idea, along the lines of American Exceptionalism or the White Man's Burden of something that doesn't exist, but a lot of people want to believe we can "get back to," because that sounds easier than confronting the truth.

Posts: 21416 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I remember my grandmother laughing about the look on one of her friends' faces when, in response to the friend talking about wanton kids are these days, she said "Well Edith*, how is what they do any different than what you and Bill Russell* used to do in his Model T?"


*I have no idea what the real names of the people involved were.

Posts: 990 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My favorite anecdote about my grandmother and family values is that I once asked her why she had married my grandfather so young (she was a teenager) and after knowing him for a very short period of time.

"Well, dear, I wanted to have sex. And that was what you did first, back then."

It seems to have worked out for my grandparents, but I can't help but picture how my life would have gone if I had married my teenage boyfriend after a couple months of dating--and be very glad I had other options. (My grandmother's sister also married as a teen--flippant comments from my grandmother aside, part of the reason they were in such a hurry to get married was that my great-grandmother was poor and single and could not easily support them--and it did not work out nearly so happily for her.)

Posts: 649 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Well, this ought to make those weekends where 19 year olds from boarder states head to Canada to get drunk all the more interesting.

You know before the 1920s, the number one way young men lost their virginity was with a prostitute. I'll bet conservatives don't think of that when they're calling for a return to the family values of the past.

Believing that traditional values are of worth does not mean one also believes everything everyone was doing in the past was better morally speaking.

Most people when they talk about traditional values are focusing on ideals espoused by their forefathers, or in some cases societal norms from the past. It doesn't mean that if one points out the Puritans were right to eschew adultery, that they must also believe we should burn witches, or even that we ought to force adulterers to wear scarlet letters.

No they aren't. They just think they are. Any real historical investigation of this mythical past would show that most of what "family values" people claim to want by pointing to the past never actually existed in the past. And often times it was only for a fleeting moment before another era of family values swept in to overtake it.

For example, teenage pregnancy rates are lower now than they've almost ever been. Lower than in both colonial times and the much touted 1950s. The past that these people are referring to is a constructed idea, along the lines of American Exceptionalism or the White Man's Burden of something that doesn't exist, but a lot of people want to believe we can "get back to," because that sounds easier than confronting the truth.

You don't have to persuade me that history is actually much more diverse than people expect, or that there are plenty of myths people eat along with their historical facts.

You are right many people do want to get society back to conception they have of it, because it was manageable for them. But it's ludicrous (and I'm not saying you were making this point) to suggest that whenever people want to turn back a developing trend that it's either impossible because developments are irreversible, or that the future is a march ever towards progress. So, there being nothing for us in the past, it would be unethical to try.

Posts: 14185 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No they aren't. They just think they are. Any real historical investigation of this mythical past would show that most of what "family values" people claim to want by pointing to the past never actually existed in the past. And often times it was only for a fleeting moment before another era of family values swept in to overtake it.
It's anecdotal so take it for what it's worth, but I can't remember how many times when someone begins to talk about how the world is getting worse, or things were better then, so on and so forth-things that smack of 'the good old days', in other words-so often the person longing for that doesn't have a clear, accurate idea of what they're wishing for (they simply imagine things that aren't true), or the things they're wishing for are actually kind of bad, but haven't been thought through.

Dig a little deeper, and often you'll find or at least I have that, for example, admiring remarks about our culture in the 1950s will have thinly veiled remarks about how women used to raise the kids full time, for example. Or we weren't so politically correct. Or we didn't have all these angry feminists and environmentalists. Or people didn't care about race so much. Or people respected America back then. So on and so forth.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ambyr:

"Well, dear, I wanted to have sex. And that was what you did first, back then."


Heh. Not in my family. We have a proud tradition of knocked up brides that goes back generations. Interestingly, though, once they did marry they tended to stay very happily married.

Blackblade, an almost inevitable element of "traditional family values" is a devaluation of women.

Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Blackblade, an almost inevitable element of "traditional family values" is a devaluation of women.
I wouldn't say that's the intent very often at all, some thought longing for a time when women weren't so uppity. It is, however, necessarily a component of what is actually being said, since you can't wish for the good old days without it, since that's the way things were.
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's just another one of those things people say without really thinking it all the way through.
Posts: 21416 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by ambyr:

"Well, dear, I wanted to have sex. And that was what you did first, back then."


Heh. Not in my family. We have a proud tradition of knocked up brides that goes back generations. Interestingly, though, once they did marry they tended to stay very happily married.

Blackblade, an almost inevitable element of "traditional family values" is a devaluation of women.

Again, you seem to be stating that for a person to think a certain thing was better in the past, we have to also subscribe to everything else.
Posts: 14185 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not really. Just the related things. The "family values" agenda generally means fewer rights for women. A desire to go "back" to when women had fewer options and rights.
Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Again, you seem to be stating that for a person to think a certain thing was better in the past, we have to also subscribe to everything else.
Well, to be fair you (appear to be) stating that when a person talks about how things were better in the past, they usually mean only that specific thing, and only those good things that it entails. That certainly hasn't been my experience.
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Full auto firearms where legal for private civilian use/ownership until 1934.

Just saying.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots: Sure, there are people who mean "Lets lock up women in the kitchen" when they use the phrase "family values". That's certainly how my grandmother means it. But I'm not willing to concede the phrase "family values" to those people, (no offense Gran, you're splendid in many other ways) just as I'm sure you wouldn't concede "Christian" to white supremacists.

Rakeesh: I take it on a case by case basis. The original contention I had is that when anybody says "I miss the good old days, where we had 'values' " that that means the person believes everything about the past was better, and everything now sucks. Even if they are basing it on an idealistic and somewhat inaccurate memory, that's still what they are talking about.

If I say, "Things were better when I was a boy, we spent more time outside than kids do these days." The correct response isn't, "Yeah well parents weren't putting their kids in seatbelts, cars were death traps!" or "Yeah well when you were a boy, gay men were being told they couldn't play with "girls toys" and having heterosexuality/gender roles crammed down their throat. It was hell for them!"

A man talking about families being more in harmony, is not tacitly condoning relationships where the women silently suffered at home unfulfilled, and the man was boss. Some are, but if you lump everybody together and respond to the soupy mess the people who don't mean those things don't feel taken seriously, and the person scorning them just sounds like a jerk.

The fact is our society *is* changing, and definitely not always for the good. The past rightly should be understood in the best context we can give it, but if we just keep convoluting the discussion with what sucks with the past, when we are trying to identify what was better in the past, then we are doomed to repeat the past in the future because forgetting the good things, is just as bad as ignoring the bad.

Posts: 14185 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BlackBlade, whether we want them to be or not, phrases like "family values" are already pretty well co-opted. And all of those things have repercussions. For example, kids could play outside because there were generally adults "around" who the kids could go to if something happened. Those adults who were around were usually moms without jobs outside the homes.
Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A man talking about families being more in harmony, is not tacitly condoning relationships where the women silently suffered at home unfulfilled, and the man was boss. Some are, but if you lump everybody together and respond to the soupy mess the people who don't mean those things don't feel taken seriously, and the person scorning them just sounds like a jerk.
But families weren't more in harmony. That's a fantasy that is built at least in part on men being in a dominant position. It's another one of the "things were better when white adult males didn't have to care so much about other people's problems and the world was more explicitly set up to favor them."

Valuing harmonious families is, I think, a good thing. When people go beyond that to espouse a wish to return to the fantasy version they have of the past, it comes with the baggage associated with it. Because they were doing it wrong in the past. There wasn't more family harmony and to the extent that this appeared to be the case to white adult males, it was a consequence of white adult males dominating things.

So, to achieve actual family harmony, we specifically don't want to return to the past. Approaching the issue that way is counterproductive at best and an active attempt to link family harmony with white male dominance at worst.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Full auto firearms were legal for private civilian use/ownership until 1934.

Just saying.

Indeed, and until 1908 you could drive a car with no theoretical or practical testing to get your license, and indeed before 1903 there were no licenses. You have to wonder how all those centuries could go by before people realised the need.

Also, the first fully-automatic personal weapons (as opposed to crew-served machine guns) became practical in the Great War. Curious coincidence, that.

Posts: 10589 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
A man talking about families being more in harmony, is not tacitly condoning relationships where the women silently suffered at home unfulfilled, and the man was boss. Some are, but if you lump everybody together and respond to the soupy mess the people who don't mean those things don't feel taken seriously, and the person scorning them just sounds like a jerk.
But families weren't more in harmony. That's a fantasy that is built at least in part on men being in a dominant position.
That is certainly true in many, maybe even most instances. But my family certainly wasn't in harmony because my mother kept her peace while my father bossed her around. That isn't true as far as I can reasonably tell for any of my extended family, with the aforementioned exception of my grandmother and grandfather. It wasn't true of my friend's families by and large growing up. Again this is personal observation, I'm not going to act like there aren't myriad variables that affect that observation. But if we are going to observe the nuances that give the appearance of serenity when there really isn't any, we also have to observe the nuances that hid beneath the appearance of discord.

That's really the only point I'm trying to get across, as usually the conversation goes,

"I miss the time when people tried to work out their differences instead of going straight to divorce."

"Actually most of the time women faced shame and exile from the community if they got a divorce, and before that women couldn't even obtain a divorce without the husband's permission. Divorce rates were artificially low as a result of these unhealthy trends. Marriage being important was all a myth in the past!"

Posts: 14185 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess the beef I've got with what you're saying, BlackBlade, and I suspect others as well, is that while I don't doubt your words about your own family-and not just because I'm in no position to know one way or another-is that the first sentence in your typical conversation...

Well, it's just wrong. It's badly incomplete, in ways the following paragraph addresses. It cannot truthfully be said that in the good old days, people tried to work out their differences instead of going straight to divorce because not only is that not the way things are now, the reasons people didn't go straight to divorce were, as you say, as much attributable to social pressures as a higher willingness to compromise and respect one's spouse.

Your example about kids playing outside was rock solid, I like that one. Having thought about it carefully, I think it's probably true. Kids did used to spend more time outside being physically active and engaging in less passive entertainment. It's not something that needs further analysis, like gauging past willingness to compromise: they either did, or they didn't.

But what's wrong when if someone expresses a desire to return to an element of the past they clearly don't understand very well, with pointing that out to them? With saying, "Before you make that example your model for behavior, bear in mind that..."? Not claiming they're espousing a secret desire to thwart the sovereignty of women.

Now for more straightforward examples about things less murky and more clear cut, my personal patience is thin. Such as when someone talks about how we're too politically correct, and things were better when.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That is certainly true in many, maybe even most instances. But my family certainly wasn't in harmony because my mother kept her peace while my father bossed her around. That isn't true as far as I can reasonably tell for any of my extended family, with the aforementioned exception of my grandmother and grandfather. It wasn't true of my friend's families by and large growing up. Again this is personal observation, I'm not going to act like there aren't myriad variables that affect that observation. But if we are going to observe the nuances that give the appearance of serenity when there really isn't any, we also have to observe the nuances that hid beneath the appearance of discord.
I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that this sort of harmony is less prevalent now?

I don't think anyone is saying that everything in the past (or barely past, you grew up in the 80s/90s, right?) was all bad.

What I'm saying is that most of the "Things were better back in the day." that I've heard fall into mostly "Things were better when white adult men held an unquestioned dominant position in society." with a fair bit of "Here's a completely unrealistic fantasy I have about how the past was." and sometimes a side helping of nostalgia of the "The music kids listen today is crap. Not like in my day."

Are there things to be learned from the past? Definitely. But was it better? Perhaps in some areas, but as whole no freaking way.

By and large the problems that plague society today were present in the past, usually more so. And when they weren't, it is often because they were masked by other, more serious problems. So, in a very large number of cases where people (almost uniformly white men) present "things were better back then" in attempts to explain and address current day problems, it is at best counterproductive and often is part of a conscious agenda to get white men back into an even more dominant position.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But what's wrong when if someone expresses a desire to return to an element of the past they clearly don't understand very well, with pointing that out to them? With saying, "Before you make that example your model for behavior, bear in mind that..."?

There's nothing wrong with it, except when it becomes a barrier for further discussion.

Look, there are definitely concepts that are historical myths. "What the founding fathers intended" for example. Or, "Obama's Apology Tour". They are fabricated because one can use them as convenient stepping stones in a discussion. They are neat packaged falsehood that make discussing deeper inaccuracies easier. Or your example about people being too politically correct. I believe in being accurate, but I have little patience with people who'd (and I mean this when it's 100% accurate) would rather discuss semantics and get into contentious arguments rather than actually discuss a topic like racism. Or when somebody is trying to discuss racism, instead of being patiently discussed with, the person ridicules them or treats them scornfully because they aren't up on the current terminology. That doesn't mean you don't tell a racist off when they hide behind their neighbors from Jamaica (sorry couldn't resist), and in the same breath keep talking about how African Americans are disproportionately represented in the prison populace, so maybe it's something to do with genetics.

It just gets old (and I say this as a history lover) when all we do is talk context, and don't talk concepts.

Posts: 14185 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Actually most of the time women faced shame and exile from the community if they got a divorce, and before that women couldn't even obtain a divorce without the husband's permission. Divorce rates were artificially low as a result of these unhealthy trends. Marriage being important was all a myth in the past!"
That sounds about right as a slice of the marriage situation in the past. I'd also add to it that marriage rates were artificially high. Lots of people were in marriages they wouldn't have chosen if not for societal pressures.

We also need to keep in mind just how fluid the American family is. It changes every couple decades. So when we say "good old days," what are we referring to? Colonial times? Victorian? Progressive era? the 40s-60s?

These times they are a changin. Each of these periods, with some overlap, had distinctive role changes for men, women, and children as far as social pressure, employment, education, etc. This lack of specificity is tricky, because a lot of people like to look to the past and cherry pick data. They might like the role of women in colonial times (arguably better in a lot of ways than it was in the 50s), or the role of men in the 60s, or the role of children in the 20s. But none of those things ever co-existed in history. History is a package deal, especially when we're discussing families and gender roles.

I think, like Rakeesh, that most people who say historical sentences that start with "I wish _______ was more like it used to be," are simply speaking either out of a lack of information, or aren't really thinking through the full weight of what they're suggesting. Maybe they do just want to cherry pick some aspects of history, but they need to be more specific, and they need to realize the pitfalls of that kind of thinking. In other words, they just really need to know what they are talking about. They also need to realize that personal anecdotes do not a historical trend make (this isn't a shot at you BB). History of the Family is a pretty big historical genre. We've been looking at this stuff for decades (though I'd argue it didn't really get good until the last 20 years) and we have a good idea on what period trends look like.

Things change whenever a new study comes out, but for the most part, the scholarship is driving at making children and women look even MORE put depressed and oppressed than we thought before. And even men. Male-studies is sort of a new field of scholarship. We tend to look at history and say "Um, isn't ALL of this male history?" But this obscures a lot of the reality of what it meant to by an American man in the home sphere, because for so long we assumed men were lords of the castle and obviously happy, but come to find that a lot of what is causing a generation shift in male culture in America today was forces at play throughout history, the stresses of having a family, being in loveless marriages, disconnected from children, and having to worry about family finances. A lot of this is coming out now, and we're realizing more and more that Leave it to Beaver is more and more of an idyllic myth.

Posts: 21416 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BlackBlade, if you want a textbook example of the kind of thing I am talking about, check the Marriage Thread at Sake.
Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lyr & Rakeesh:

As a disclaimer, I don't actually think the iconic 50's idea of family structure is a good thing regardless.

However, speaking broadly, it is possible to identify positive ideas from traditions that also include bad ideas, and specifically want to cut out those positive ideas and apply them and them alone.

Heck, it's even possible to do this when the tradition in question is a post-hoc fictitious tradition that we are ascribing to the past. The ideas, whether they were truly implemented in the past or not, are still real ideas, so they can be assessed and criticized and, if deemed valuable, implemented today.

So, the part of wistfully looking back on the good old days that includes identifying good parts of traditions (even traditions we've constructed and only think existed) is, in my opinion, perfectly worthwhile.

Again, in the case of 50's marriage/family structure, even our constructed fiction of how that functioned is, I think, not terribly valuable or worthy of emulation. That tradition doesn't include a lot of valuable ideas, that I can see.

But the principle BlackBlade is applying seems sound, to me.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heck, lamenting about "the good ol' days" is a tradition in and of itself.

If you can not apply rose colored filters to your past a little bit then it is quite possible it would make living in the current world all but unlivable. The real gift is that with the distance of time and perspective change we can really look back and see goodnesses we likely missed the first time around.

I think it likely better to look back with nostalgia and fondness then hatred and bitterness.

Of course the above is not wholly applicable to the discussion at hand, but having a fondness for false memories truly is a coping mechanism which can make life a little better if not taken to unhealthy extremes.

My point is this...not all "it was better then" is a bad thing...it isn't all white males yearning for the days when they had dominance over everyone else or some barely concealed longing to enslave others into unfair class/gender roles. Sometimes it's just wishing for a simpler time within the wisher's life, a time when things were not so shaded in grey and the world made sense, even if it only seemed that way at the time.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
BlackBlade, if you want a textbook example of the kind of thing I am talking about, check the Marriage Thread at Sake.

We don't disagree on what that guy is saying being odious and disgusting. I don't agree that I should let him describe his work as "family values" work.
Posts: 14185 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Heck, it's even possible to do this when the tradition in question is a post-hoc fictitious tradition that we are ascribing to the past. The ideas, whether they were truly implemented in the past or not, are still real ideas, so they can be assessed and criticized and, if deemed valuable, implemented today.
Well, sure, good ideas should be considered regardless of their source. But not spoken in favor of as though they actually worked in a setting when they, y'know, didn't exactly. They shouldn't be given credibility akin to 'We used to do this, but have since drifted away from it. We did it before, so we should do it again.' No. That makes it sound easier and more credible than it actually is on its own merits.

----------

quote:
Sometimes it's just wishing for a simpler time within the wisher's life, a time when things were not so shaded in grey and the world made sense, even if it only seemed that way at the time.
I'm not sure why an incorrect belief that the world made sense when it actually didn't, is something to be desired-it means you were making (general 'you') bad assumptions about the world around you, and probably bad decisions stemming from it, however comfortable you felt at the time.

What it's not is ill-willed, but that's not the same thing as being a good thing.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm more speaking to the intent behind "good ol' days" sentiment then to any judgement call about the content of said statements.

I agree with Dan about judging ideas on their own merit, and I agree with you about the false representation associated with linking ideas with bogus past results.

I also agree with BB that the phrase "family values" shouldn't be associated the nut jobs who are pushing some deplorable agenda.

I'm all around agreeable.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
BlackBlade, if you want a textbook example of the kind of thing I am talking about, check the Marriage Thread at Sake.

It's your fault I ended up reading that pissfest, haha
Posts: 14065 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Heck, it's even possible to do this when the tradition in question is a post-hoc fictitious tradition that we are ascribing to the past. The ideas, whether they were truly implemented in the past or not, are still real ideas, so they can be assessed and criticized and, if deemed valuable, implemented today.
Well, sure, good ideas should be considered regardless of their source. But not spoken in favor of as though they actually worked in a setting when they, y'know, didn't exactly. They shouldn't be given credibility akin to 'We used to do this, but have since drifted away from it. We did it before, so we should do it again.' No. That makes it sound easier and more credible than it actually is on its own merits.

Yep, no arguments here.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
BlackBlade, if you want a textbook example of the kind of thing I am talking about, check the Marriage Thread at Sake.

It's your fault I ended up reading that pissfest, haha
Me too. Kinda wish I hadn't.

Also not sure how it related to the conversation here. Must be missing something.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah. Sorry about that. I posted before it became all about how we all need to express our opinions in Dag approved ways or he gets pissy and the everyone defends him. (Why I no longer post there, BTW.)

I was referring to this: http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/wisconsin-lawmaker-says-women-stay-abusive-marriages-232700220.html

quote:
Wisconsin Lawmaker Says Women Should Stay in Abusive Marriages

In Wisconsin -- yes, the same state where lawmakers have introduced a bill penalizing single mothers for being unmarried -- a Republican state representative has come out against divorce for any reason -- even domestic abuse.

Instead of leaving an abusive situation, women should try to remember the things they love about their husbands, Representative Don Pridemore said. "If they can re-find those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help," he told a local news station.

Pridemore -- who, coincidentally, is a co-sponsor of Republican state Senator Glenn Grothman's "being single causes child abuse" bill as well as a controversial voter ID bill that was ruled unconstitutional earlier this week -- also said that while he thinks women are capable of caring for a family "in certain situations," fathers are the only ones who provide structure and discipline. If they don't grow up with married biological parents, Pridemore says, "kids tend to go astray."

Grothman, for his part, continues to defend his controversial bill. Now, though, not only is single parenthood a factor in child abuse, women in particular are to blame for it.

"There's been a huge change over the last 30 years, and a lot of that change has been the choice of the women," Grothman said.

I should have just posted this here but was being lazy and assumed that BB had read it there.
Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I posted before it became all about how we all need to express our opinions in Dag approved ways or he gets pissy and the everyone defends him. (Why I no longer post there, BTW.)

Wow. That's quite the summary.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Especially when you note that 'defend' apparently means 'most people say he's equally at fault'. Sheesh. (And no, I'd rather not that discussion happen here too, but I'm not a fan of such blatant one-off editorializing either.)
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since I don't actually have to conform to your approved manner of expression either. You are both free to provide your own characterization.
Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots: I actually had read the link before you posted, but thanks for thinking of me when you pointed it out. I would have wanted to read it had I missed it.
Posts: 14185 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No problem. I agree that folks like that shouldn't get to define "family values" but that ship may have sailed.
Posts: 10609 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I also agree with BB that the phrase "family values" shouldn't be associated the nut jobs who are pushing some deplorable agenda.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with that. Especially with how they have been and are being used, I think these sort of umbrella shortcut terms should generally be avoided by people looking for a respectful consideration of the issues.

"Family values" is very vague phrase. I see it used mostly for either attacking a politician for not supporting family values or for saying that another (often pretty questionable) one is pro-family values.

It strikes me very much like "pro-American". I consider myself very attached to my country, but a lot of the stuff that is often lumped into "pro-American" offends me and often specifically offends my sense of patriotism. On the opposite side, I haven't seen a use of "anti-American" in reference to domestic issues to be anything but extremely stupid. People - with some extreme exceptions - in this country don't hate the country and want the terrorists to win. If you actually believe that, I don't believe that you are competent to make decisions that will affect me.

Likewise, very few people are anti-"family values". They may be against things like banning gays from marrying or the idea that men are the unquestioned head of the family or that interracial marriage is an abomination. And people will use this to try to evoke a similar emotional reaction to people being "anti-American". It's a popular technique to short-circuit a reasonable consideration of the issues.

I do also think that there are people who don't put as high a value on things related to the family as I do. For example, I think Dan Quayle was pretty much right in his Murphy Brown criticism. But I still think it is much better to discuss those specific issues - perhaps while bringing in the wider context - instead of, as seems the common reaction, to resort to talking about bumper-sticker "family values".

This fits into the original concern here too. I'm a big believer in the idea that if we're going to talk about something, let's talk about it. I don't like it when people take potentially admirable things and group them into emotion-provoking umbrellas that obscure them, being it a myth of the past or "family values", especially there's plenty of room under those umbrellas for some pretty awful stuff.

---

For myself, I think the people who are pushing what I consider deplorable agendas and using shameful tactics currently own the phrase "family values". It's sort of like the general rule that it is pretty safe to assume that any conservative activist organizations with "Family" in the name are liars and bigots. And I say, let them have it. It's really not a good thing to talk about things that way anyway and it's nice to have an easy indication of the character of the people in a conversation.

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm trying to remember when anyone said you had to conform to an approved manner of expression and...*checks*...yup, I'm utterly certain nobody said or suggested that. You took a shot at someone and got called on it. That's all that happened. You can climb down off that cross anytime.
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
[QUOTE] For example, I think Dan Quayle was pretty much right in his Murphy Brown criticism.

Really? You think getting pregnant during a reconciliation with one's ex-husband and considering and then rejecting abortion when he decides he doesn't want to get back together after all equates to "deciding to have a child out of wedlock and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice'"?

I think he used a show he'd never actually seen (which he admitted later) as a throw-away line negative example and got rightfully called on it.

Posts: 9792 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, but I think the deliberate representation of single parenthood as just another valid lifestyle choice, which (edit2: if I am not mistaken, and it is quite possible that I am) was done several times on the show, is a very poor one to send.

---

edit: Although, to be honest, I think I was 14 when that all happened, so maybe my recollection is faulty.

If so, I apologize, but I stand by the underlying point that single parenthood is generally not a choice that is equivalent to a committed (I would prefer married) couple raising a child.

[ March 30, 2012, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10131 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I also agree with the underlying point. The example, however was not valid.

Edit: I think your recollection may have been colored after the fact by Quayle's characterization of it.

[ March 30, 2012, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]

Posts: 9792 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2