Re: Re: POLITICS economics and subsidizing baby-making (was Gender)

[Guest guest]

>> and the financial hit is on her ... and the system basically ensures

>> that most kids will not be raised the way humans were traditionally

>> raised (by their Mom, and a Mom who is not under social or financial

>> stress).

>

>I don't see how that is a function of the " society " as if there is a

>collective choice being made. It seems that there are several

>choices being made by the woman that can determine whether she winds

>up in this scenario or not. The first is the choice not to be a

>farmer, or to hunt and gather food. (I suppose she might do this by

>default rather than deliberation, since we live in a society in which

>most people don't do either, but nevertheless they are both doable.)

>The second is the choice to become pregnant, or the choice to engage

>in activity which would lead to pregnancy, without a husband, or some

>other arrangement with a mate that offers similar security,

>stability, and support.

This assumes that the woman is can make, and is making, these choices. Really,

pregnancy isn't that controllable. One in ten women are raped at some point

in their lives, and even " consensual sex " is often not all that consensual.

Birth

control fails. Relying on " choice " to make a " good " society just doesn't work.

I'm not saying there is a " choice " being made at all .. a " functional " society

is one that WORKS, even tho individuals make mistakes and aren't all that

organized and usually have sex when they shouldn't. Sure, if we had perfect

and organized and intelligent women there would be no mistakes etc.

(what about perfect men too?). But in earlier times, we had the same imperfect

women, and the kids still got raised better, because society was more

supportive.

The woman nursed the kid, the kid bonded to the mother.

>I can only see two ways to remove the financial responsibility from

>the woman. One is for her to have a husband who supports her

>financially (or other family). The second is for " society " to

>collectively appropriate some kind of " pregnancy insurance " benefits

>to her, which would amount to subsidizing procreation, and I had

>initially accused.

>

>> You can say " well, she should do something different! " but I say,

>the

>> system is out of whack. The old system worked, for raising babies.

>> The new system works for making automobiles, but it doesn't make

>> great babies. The kids today are like the monkeys raised on wire

>> " mommies " ... very neurotic, not properly bonded.

>

>It seems that that's primarily the aspects of the " system " that have

>led to the decline in family structure.

?? I'm not sure I understand that.

>> And a breastfeeding Mom doesn't overpopulate .. breastfeeding tends

>> to ensure that babies are spaced further apart.

>

>And having to forgo personal consumption or personal income when one

>has a baby, ensures an incentive for people to wait to have babies

>until they can afford to raise them properly, and to have only as

>many babies as they can afford.

>

>Besides, breastfeeding doesn't work if you are supplementing it with

>other food, formula, etc, from what I've read, and most women don't

>seem to like doing it for more than six months or so.

I'm not sure that " like " is the main issue .. " most " women are working which

makes

breastfeeding really difficult. I can't speak from personal experience much

because

I just didn't make enough milk, but breastfeeding was a LOT easier than making

bottles.

As for as forgoing personal consumption and income ... again, this is a modern

paradigm. A mother in previous eras (or a goat out on the field) doesn't think

that

way. And neither does the body .. even if the mother is smart and organized

enough to use birth control, and has control over sex (many women don't,

in the world as it exists, they have sex when the man wants it) ... she may find

herself with a baby she neither wanted nor can afford. This was no big deal in

previous eras ... another family could take it, or grandma, and if no one could

take it, infanticide was the usual solution. Today she is saddled with 18 years

of

bills. (and you don't even mention the father, where does he fit in here?).

>> That you bring up " subsidizing " is the whole point: today's

>> paradigm is all about *economics* which is sort of a male

>> invention.

>

>A " paradigm of the day " can not be more or less about economics.

>Obviously, there are many paradigms that are currently popular. No

>one would say, " today's paradigm about the molecular mechanisms of

>gene expression are all about economics, " even though there are quite

>clearly popular paradigms about said subject. Rather, one can say

>that " today's economic paradigm is all about such-and-such, " and then

>you can disagree and offer a different economic paradigm. Economics

>is the study of human behavior, and it is not limited to monetary

>studies, to business affairs, or even to material goods. It is

>merely the study of human choice and action (but not how we arrive at

>values or desires). So, ANY paradigm addressing said issues is

>necessarily economic. There may be different SCHOOLS of economics

>that are obsessed with, say, subsidization, or monetary affairs, or

>whathaveyou, but one cannot make a blanket statement

>about " economics " as an entire science based on a specific theory

>within the science, and certain of these schools may be more popular

>at the moment or any other given moment.

If you look at society thru the glass of " economics " then everything is

economics. That isn't the only way to view society though.

>When life was about cattle eating grass and

>> babies drinking Mommy milk, " economics " meant how much

>> work you put into the cattle and if the weather made the grass

>> grow right, and if Mommy made enough milk (and most women did,

>> it seems, in those days). Whole societies lived and thrived without

>> ever minting a coin or opening a bank. For millions of years.

>> Today a teenage Mom can't even nurse her baby, which is just

>> WIERD from an historical point of view.

>

>Which societies thrived without a form of money?

Well, the paleoithic people, for starters. They were around for a lot longer

than we have been (a million years or so, by some reckonings). No sign of

" money " .

>You're the one who initially framed the discussion in financial

>terms. (See the text I originall quoted). The only clear

>implication of your statement in terms of a collective choice (you'd

>framed it that way when you mentioned the sustainability of a

>society, rather than, say, a family unit) would be one to subsidize

>or insure pregnancies.

I'm not sure I remember the initial quote, but I don't see how anything I said

had to do with subsidizing or insuring pregnancies. In a hunter-gatherer

society,

a pregnant woman isn't " subsidized " any more than any other member of the

society. She works, so do the men. The men work at more dangerous jobs,

which are not child-friendly, and the women work at jobs that allow kids to

be around. That society was " functional " in the sense that it worked .. the

babies

got breast milk and got mothers to bond to.

In our society, most babies go to daycare and get formula. 1/5 of the kids have

some identifiable mental illness (according to an article on NPR last week) and

suicide

is a leading cause of death among kids. Depression and bipolar disorder are

common

among kids. THAT is dysfunctional! Mental problems and health problems are very

linked to nutrition (meaning someone with time to prepare food) and

breastfeeding.

HOW that choice is made I'm not sure ... some of it is collective, some is

individral,

but it's pretty clear to me that the kids are suffering.

>Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> This assumes that the woman is can make, and is making, these

>choices. Really,

>> pregnancy isn't that controllable.

>

>I could have sworn you were arguing the opposite recently, when

>suggesting that education would make pregnancy much more reliable.

" More " reliable, sure. But I'm one of the few women I know who hasn't

had an " accident " ... and one of the recent casualties was a doctor.

All I'm arguing for is that when a woman DOES get pregnant, or has

a baby, it shouldn't make a drastic change in her life, in a functional

society.

>> One in ten women are raped at some point

>> in their lives,

>

>But violence is a part of human nature that transcends the structure

>of society, so, while this is tragic, it's not something that can be

>eliminated to form a more sustainable society.

No, but you were arguing that a woman shouldn't get pregnant

if she can't afford the kid. That is assuming that she has that much

control, which isn't real life.

I'm not sure how a society can be build that *doesn't* utilize

>choice. As for relying on choices, I think you mean relying on the

>sustenance of natural consequences of choices, in which case I

>believe that that would be superior to one in which those

>consequences were modified by means of forms of insurance, which can

>be beneficial in some respects but always modify behavior negatively

>but distorting incentives.

>

>The main way this broad point specifically relates to our topic is

>whether or not someone who becomes pregnant should suffer

>financially. Since raising a child presents an economic cost, namely

>that of demanding time that could otherwise be spent earning money

>that could supply the consumption of present goods, and monetary

>costs directly that could likewise otherwise be spent on consumption,

>removing that economic cost from the individual responsible for the

>action and placing it rather on a collective body that is not

>involved in engaging in the behaviors that led to the pregnancy

>erases any incentive to

>-- wait until the pregnancy can be afforded by the individual

>-- limit the frequency or number of pregnancies to what can be

>afforded by the individual

>-- become more productive in anticipation of future pregnancy

>-- save more in anticipation of future pregnancy (and thereby,

>incidentally, contribute to the wellbeing of the rest of society by

>savings and investment which increases total wealth).

Again, all this assumes that the person getting pregnant had so much

control in the first place. Someday, I assure you, some wife or girlfriend

of yours will inform you that you are soon to be a father. Probably at

a time you can't afford it!

In most animal societies, a female having offspring doesn't majorly change

her life, or the life of the society. That is also true of most human societies.

Therefore NO ONE has to " bear the cost " because there isn't any ... she doesn't

have to " save " for it. That we have to " wait until we can afford a kid " is a

sign

of how off-track our society is.

As for society bearing the burden however, society ALWAYS bears the burden

of each new life. If the life is properly nurtured and loved, that new life

will be an addition and a joy. If it is not nourished correctly or loved

correctly, it could end up being a sociopathic murderer, and everyone

pays the price for that. Or somewhere in between. It is in everyone's

best interest that children be cared for well. In a functional society, that

is no big deal.

>Right, but the revolution in this respect came from the banning of

>child labor, which turned children from an economic asset to an

>economic cost. In an agrarian society, the cost of a child was

>offset by the fact that children, rather than playing with toys and

>watching tv all day long, worked very hard for the family.

>

>The other fundamental change here is the falling apart of the family,

>which is an obvious consequence, it seems to me, of the socialization

>of pregnancy-related responsibility that you seem to be suggesting.

>(I know you haven't made specific recommendations, but, you aren't

>advocating the abolition of technology and the return to an

>agricultural society, so I'm not sure what else you could mean

>besides further socialization of this burden.)

Well, the main problem happened when people went to work in

" factories " which were mainly designed for the efficient production

of goods, with no regard to families or people in general. I do work

in a technological field, but I raised my kid while I worked. I employ

people, and I make the workplace as kid-friendly as I can. There is no

real barrier to women working and raising kids, except attitude and maybe

some laws. One good example is " The Baby Book " ... one of the authors

is a mother of 10 children, and a doctor. She carried her babies in a sling

(or had someone else do it) while she worked, gave lectures, etc. She even

nursed while giving lectures ...

You can also look at some of the Asian families. Somehow, even in our

culture, they manage to have the kids around while, say, running a

restaurant or a store. I saw some footage of the woman who wrote

the Continuum Concept, of women at work in some other countries,

with the kids kind of " around " . The kids weren't working, they were

playing and watching, but came around to breastfeed or make sure Mom

was still there. Women have worked and watched kids for a long time ...

as long as the workplace isn't really dangerous, it works. If the workplace

is dangerous, someone can watch the kids nearby so Mom can go visit.

>We live under competing systems. One is a system of free exchange

>that works great for automobiles, and the other is a system of, well,

>socialism, that has contributed to the decline in stable family

>structure. I'm suggesting that these are two competing systems in

>existence now, rather than the same. IOW, automobiles and babies do

>not have such disparate interests as you are suggesting.

Both capitalism and socialism are modern inventions, I think. What

" system " would you call, say, an Inuit tribe? Every hunter hunts

for his family and competes ... but they also cooperate, so I guess it is

socialistic

and capitalistic? But with no monetary exchange, the main " currency "

is probably " status " ... what is really being traded is " how much worth

I have to everyone else " . A really good hunter who gives away extra

meat has lots of status. So does a woman who raises good kids.

> As for as forgoing personal consumption and income ... again, this

>is a modern

>> paradigm.

>

>No it isn't. People have considered how to consume and produce as

>long as they have been doing so, which is as long as people have been

>existing. Since the entire human existence exists as being a

>productive being that secures what is necessary for survival and

>leisure, these are definitional to the human existence.

See above. I agree consumption and production are important.

But like I said above, neither was really relevant in previous times when it

came

to having babies. A pregnant woman might be a little less productive,

and maybe so while recovering for a bit, but mainly her life

didn't change much when she had a baby on her back (except she

got more status). Now a woman with a baby faces the choice of

staying home (and losing the money and status if a job) or putting

her baby in daycare (and losing the joy of knowing her child, and

of raising him with a real mother). For a woman, that is a horrid

choice, and one she should not be forced to make.

>

>That simply represents the transition of children from an economic

>asset to a cost. There's no " system " that " mandates " that if one has

>a child there are " such-and-such costs, " but rather, those costs are

>a natural consequence of the child, not mandated by anything except

>nature, and the situations within which the parents find themselves.

>The child needs to eat, for which resources are needed. The child

>needs a roof, for which resources are needed. The child needs

>warmth, for which resources are needed. There are more bills because

>in the previous eras you are speaking of the child had a shoddier

>roof and less heat, and food that had to be produced by the family

>rather than bought. Furthermore, due to cultural standards and the

>prohibition of child labor, that child cannot contribute to her or

>his own material existence for nearly those 18 years, unlike the

>child of previous ages, who was required to work on the farm, or work

>for someone else to contribute to the material wellbeing of the

>family.

That is one way of looking at it, but really, the first 3 years are the

main issue here. A baby doesn't take much space, or food, during

that time. In previous eras, it was breastfed mainly, and a 3-year-old

doesn't eat much. Nor can it work (in any society). The issue is DAYCARE!

It costs a LOT to babysit the little thing. While the baby would be quite

happy in a sling by Mom, it has to go to daycare for $500 a month or so,

where it is set in a crib and maybe handled once in awhile. And it gets

exposed to lots of germs from the other kids, and gets sicker than it

would otherwise, AND it gets no breastmilk.

A baby costs next to nothing if it is raised traditionally. Consider

Saqagawea (S. for short!). She was hired by and while preggers.

Had a hard time of delivery, almost died. But she survived, put the baby

in a pack, and carried it for the whole trip. Made a little pack for it out

of stuff she found on the trail, breastfed it. There was some burden

because of her illness at first, but mainly the kid was just one more

thing to haul on the journey, less cost than a dog (you have to find

food for the dog!). At one point she was living off tallow candlesticks,

but Pomp did ok.

Now after age 5, the kid can go to school, and Mom is off the hook.

Or the kid can hang around the house ... but really, it doesn't cost much

to feed and house a kid (buying toys is another issue ...we overindulge

them big time!).

>> (and you don't even mention the father, where does he fit in here?).

>

>Actually, I was the first to mention the father, if I recall

>correctly. You'd framed the situation as a fatherless situation in

>which the economic burden is placed squarely on the mother within

>our " system, " disregarding the fact that the woman's lack of any

>financial support is not a function of a governmental or economic

>system so much as a function, or rather, dysfunction, of her familial

>environment, in which this poor child has no active grandparents or

>father.

>

>I do believe I'd suggested that good families, of which the father is

>an implicit part, are essential in this situation.

I don't recall talking about a " fatherless " situation. The question

is that of a mother deciding between " work " and " baby " . I don't

think a mother should have to decide that (regardless of a man

being around or not).

In the case of S. above, her husband was a no-good lout, but

she could live as she was raised, which assumed a mother

could carry around a baby and take care of it, while doing the

things a woman normally did (trekking cross country, in this

case). Her system was functional, in that the kid got raised well.

She raised the kid, AND did her job. and didn't say,

" well, you are obviously pregnant, we can't have a BABY on this

trip!'. They hired her as a guide, and she did her job, baby and all.

>> Well, the paleoithic people, for starters. They were around for a

>lot longer

>> than we have been (a million years or so, by some reckonings). No

>sign of " money " .

>

>Well, for that matter, bacteria have been " thriving " for far longer

>than either of our peoples.

>

>I suppose we'd all be better off if we lived under the constant

>threat of murder or warfare in these thriving societies where 60% or

>so people died from violence.

That is changing the subject, I think!

>> I'm not sure I remember the initial quote, but I don't see how

>anything I said

>> had to do with subsidizing or insuring pregnancies.

>

>You said the financial burden had to be removed from the mother.

See above. There are other ways of doing that besides

handouts. Just giving someone money doesn't give them status ...

status comes from earning your place in society. Besides, staying

home with a baby and doing *nothing* is boring and depressing.

>I agree that's dysfunctional, but I don't see how removing the

>financial burden from the mother would solve the problem (or be

>workable).

It's not a matter of " removing the financial burden " but rather of

making it so a mother can be a mother. In my case, that involved

quitting my job, because they wanted me to put my baby in daycare

and go onsite to a client to take over a project. I refused. Instead

I sat at my computer, baby on lap, and did work. I've known other

women who did similar things. They worked AND they were mothers.

Like I said, in a functional society, a woman can breastfeed a baby.

THAT is the bottom line. HOW it happens I think, needs to be re-invented,

because we've bought into the idea that you can schlep the baby off

to daycare and feed it formula and it will turn out ok. THAT is as weird

an idea as soymilk.

-- Heidi Jean

>Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>>> One in ten women are raped at some point

>>> in their lives,

>>

>> But violence is a part of human nature that transcends the structure

>> of society, so, while this is tragic, it's not something that can be

>> eliminated to form a more sustainable society.

>

> No, but you were arguing that a woman shouldn't get pregnant

> if she can't afford the kid. That is assuming that she has that much

> control, which isn't real life.

Yes, it *is* real life. First of all, the claim that 10% of women are

raped at some point in their lives sounds like a NOWism to me. But let's

assume it's true. Given that the odds of getting pregnant from having

sex once are fairly low, and that many or most women are likely to be

using some form of birth control when it happens, I'm willing to bet

that the number of women who become pregnant as a result of rape is

statistically insignificant.

The part about consensual sex not being " all that consensual " is, I

think, another NOWism, but let's assume that that's true, as well. If

you're in a situation where you're regularly pressured into having sex,

and you don't want to become pregnant, you should use birth control.

This isn't rocket science.

Yes, birth control fails occasionally, but it's rare if you do it

correctly. Implant methods are 99.9% effective. Oral contraceptives are

99% effective. The failure rate of sterilization approaches 100%. If all

else fails, abortion is 100% effective. If you're unwilling to use an

effective method of birth control, and if you're unwilling or unable to

bear the costs of having children, then you shouldn't be having sex.

Certainly you have no right to force others to bear the cost of your bad

choices.

I don't have time to respond, but rest assured that I have similar

objections to everything else you said.

[Guest guest]

,

The rape statistic Heidi cited is not far off. In fact, according to

National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

study, 1 in 6 women will be a victim of an attempted or completed rape in

her lifetime. This definitely gels with my anecdotal, personal

experience--of my close female friends, about 30% are survivors of rape or

incest. Most of them knew their aggressors. The fact that the majority of

women are raped by men they know may account for the low rate that the crime

is reported (estimated at 39%).

see http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html

Re: Re: POLITICS economics and subsidizing baby-making (was

Gender)

First of all, the claim that 10% of women are

> raped at some point in their lives sounds like a NOWism to me.

[Guest guest]

> Re: Re: POLITICS economics and subsidizing baby-making

>(was Gender)

>

>

>,

>

>The rape statistic Heidi cited is not far off. In fact, according to

>National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and

>Prevention

>study, 1 in 6 women will be a victim of an attempted or completed rape in

>her lifetime. This definitely gels with my anecdotal, personal

>experience--of my close female friends, about 30% are survivors of rape or

>incest. Most of them knew their aggressors. The fact that the majority of

>women are raped by men they know may account for the low rate that

>the crime

>is reported (estimated at 39%).

I know this has little to do with 's point about unwanted

pregnancies, but I'll just add that I had read this report and passed it on

to someone else recently AND that it also gels with my experience and the

experiences of some other women whom I've known. I don't know that the

survey wasn't flawed, but it sure seems to gel with my experience (and

others) and I'm guessing it's not far off the mark. In my own experience

I've been sexually molested (assaulted? don't know the proper parlance) more

often in other countries rather than in the US, and these statistics are for

the US, I believe. Although I don't know if the surveyors asked the men and

women they surveyed whether their experiences of sexual assault only took

place on US soil. Had they asked me I would've reported one attempted rape

(by a stranger) outside the country and one *possibly* attempted rape by an

acquaintance inside the country (I fought him off and was able to persuade

him to stop).

Luckily, attempted rape doesn't result in unwanted pregnancy, though!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Suze,

Thank goodness! My god, I'm sorry you endured those attacks. I too had to

fight off a molester on a train while traveling in Europe (I was only 16!)

and it wasn't an experience I'd like to repeat. Yes, the stats are for US

only--I shudder to think of the sexual assault rates in war-torn countries

like Iraq where chaos reigns.

I know we've gotten off subject, but I don't take this issue lightly as I've

seen first hand the damage that sexual assault causes. I even have a male

friend who was raped and now is HIV positive. Now THAT'S scary. Especially

when women who convince their attackers to use a condom can't prosecute

because the offer of the condom implies " consent " --OK, I'm getting riled up

again. I started knitting so I didn't have to read the paper...better start

another sweater.

RE: Re: POLITICS economics and subsidizing baby-making (was

Gender)

>

> Luckily, attempted rape doesn't result in unwanted pregnancy, though!

>

[Guest guest]

:

>Yes, it *is* real life. First of all, the claim that 10% of women are

>raped at some point in their lives sounds like a NOWism to me. But let's

>assume it's true. Given that the odds of getting pregnant from having

>sex once are fairly low, and that many or most women are likely to be

>using some form of birth control when it happens, I'm willing to bet

>that the number of women who become pregnant as a result of rape is

>statistically insignificant.

That's a lot of assumptions! First of all, a woman who isn't planning on having

sex probably ISN'T using birth control. If she is young, she may be highly

fertile, and a whole lot of women get pregnant from " just once " . Her fertile

period is, say, 5 days out of the month, so that's a 1/6 chance. I would not say

it is statistically insignificant at all .. and if it happened to you or your

daughter,

I daresay you would be totally incensed! Given how you like your liberty and

all.

>The part about consensual sex not being " all that consensual " is, I

>think, another NOWism, but let's assume that that's true, as well. If

>you're in a situation where you're regularly pressured into having sex,

>and you don't want to become pregnant, you should use birth control.

>This isn't rocket science.

>

>Yes, birth control fails occasionally, but it's rare if you do it

>correctly. Implant methods are 99.9% effective. Oral contraceptives are

>99% effective. The failure rate of sterilization approaches 100%. If all

>else fails, abortion is 100% effective. If you're unwilling to use an

>effective method of birth control, and if you're unwilling or unable to

>bear the costs of having children, then you shouldn't be having sex.

>Certainly you have no right to force others to bear the cost of your bad

>choices.

Goodness. Like I said, MOST women I know have had at least one unwanted

pregnancy.

In one case, the woman was 43, and her husband had a vasectomy. All the women I

know use birth control, and I think most of them use it correctly (tho with the

Pill it

is really easy to foul up). I tend to hang around very intelligent and

responsible

women too. If it takes " perfection " to not get preggers, then I submit there

are few perfect women around.

But again, my main point was that if a woman has a kid, it shouldn't mess up

her entire life, if she is living in a *functional* society. Your argument seems

to be something

like:

A. A smart and responsible woman can make it in our society.

my argument is basically:

B. An average, not so smart woman can make it ok in a properly functioning

society.

The two arguments don't conflict. Like you say, someone sufficiently smart and

in control CAN make it in our society, raise a family, breastfeed, and have a

career.

Some of us have done it. However, I would say that your average African or Inuit

tribal

woman, even a dumb one, has an easier time raising kids in the tribal

environment

because it is more kid-friendly (and yeah, some of the tribes have high homicide

rates, but that isn't the woman's fault and isn't relevant to the argument).

>I don't have time to respond, but rest assured that I have similar

>objections to everything else you said.

>

>

I'm sure you do. If I ever need to hear the male perspective I'll know where to

go!

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>But isn't that drastic change mostly a function of one's

>expectations? In other words, if you grow up in a farm town, and

>plan on marrying early, and doing the same thing everyone else does--

>be a farmer-- than there isn't much for a baby to interfere with.

>But if you have grand plans about your career that requires years of

>schooling, you don't plan on marrying until your 30, etc, then having

>a baby will interfere big time with your plans, and thus, drastically

>change your life.

Expectations certainly have something to do with it, and attitude.

But a lot of it is social structure. Have you read the Continuum Concept?

Or anything about contact parenting? Having a baby doesn't mean you

have to drop out of college or quit your job .. unless your job or

your college say you must.

And a lot of it is education. Like, no one forces folks in the US to

eat at Mc's, and some of us (thru reading the right books)

tend not to do that and we do eat better food. The culture doesn't

support us, in general, so it is harder to eat well than it would be if

we lived in, say a small Swiss village with better food habits. But

if more and more people eat our way, eventually the culture will

change (people ARE the culture!) and it will be easier.

>I don't see how you can change that without drilling the hopes and

>expectations out of the heads of young women who grow up in a culture

>that values personal freedom and fun over marriage, education over

>non-education, and affords so many choices to the people who live

>within it.

I can't change the fact people live off McFood either. But I do

share my food and my ideas with a lot of people, and a lot of

people change eventually. Things ARE changing, as people become

more aware. As for changing how people rear babies, I do the

same thing as I do with NT ... give my favorite books for shower

presents, talk about what we did, serve as one example, make it

" less weird " for the next person.

> In any case, I wasn't so much arguing what the woman should do, but

>was rather arguing that the incentives of a society should encourage

>responsibility rather than irresponsibility, or else the social

>network falls apart, along with individual character.

And I tend to agree, society should encourage responsibility. But that

is a different question than the question of " how to raise a baby well

and still be economically viable " .

And yeah, all societies have problems. Just like all families have problems.

There is no perfect family, but when a family is dysfunctional, we have

no problem saying " That man beats his wife and children, and both

parents are always drunk. That family is dysfunctional. " A really smart

kid can still survive such a family, but no one would recommend

living in such a family.

>It just assumes that the person getting pregnant has SOME control...

>and she does (and the other party to the equation). Birth control

>isn't entirely effective, but if used properly it's mostly

>effective. And obviously abstinence is 100% effective. So, even if

>the people involved only had 20% control, proper incentives

>encouraging responsible behavior would still lead to a

>proportionately more positive result in behavior. But, the control

>is really much higher than that, since birth control methods tend to

>run mid to high 90's % effectiveness when used properly.

That would be nice, but again, in my long experience, very

few women have that kind of control. Babies happen .. our

biology seems to work against us.

> Sure... if you live to reproduce, then its not a deviation from the

>purpose of your life. Likewise, if you have no other intentions in

>your life but to have babies, it not a deviation from the purpose of

>your human life. If you expect lots of other things and have lots of

>other plans, it becomes a big deviation. So, these " drastic changes "

>you speak of, like suddenly can't manage to get through college very

>easily, are a function of all those extra things we expect as part of

>our lives-- like going through college. The way to eliminate this

>effect is to get rid of all these " extra concerns " and engineer a

>culture that exists solely for the purpose of procreation.

Well no ... the fact it is a " big deviation " has to do with the

way we raise kids and the way we organize our lives. Other

cultures don't do it the same way. For starters, we like to live

on our own (go to college, live in a dorm ...) rather than part of

an extended family. We like 2 parent households, max. We like to

not have babies at work. We don't want to see women breastfeeding.

The whole point of the Continuum Concept is that babies should

be part of life, a thing to be enjoyed, not a burden to be " afforded " .

Really, it works.

>That is also true of most human societies.

>> Therefore NO ONE has to " bear the cost " because there isn't any ...

>she doesn't

>> have to " save " for it.

>

>That's absolutely preposterous. Please explain how a child can be

>born or raised who consumes no resources.

For the first 3 years ... you wear the baby in a sling or a pack. It sleeps in

your bed. You feed it breast milk. Yeah, you are eating more (in our

culture, that is hardly an issue) and you have to wear a baby sling, and

stop once in awhile to feed the kid. But the extra " costs " are minimal ...

less than to feed your average dog.

>> That we have to " wait until we can afford a kid " is a sign

>> of how off-track our society is.

>

>Right. Instead of wanting our kid to have a comfortable life, live

>in a home with good heat in a good neighborhood, go through a good

>school, be educated, have a computer, be able to enjoy the pleasures

>of modern life like watching movies and reading books printed on

>presses and playing video games, and then have a college education,

>we should instead rearrange society so that all of these things that

>cost vast amounts of resources relative to bare subsistence can be

>eliminated from the minds and desires of people, that way we can have

>lots of children whenever, paying no mind to what we can afford, so

>we can raise them at bare subsistence and they can live with no

>expectations in their life except survival and procreation.

How about this: a baby is born. It sleeps with it's mother and drinks

breast milk. It eats bits off her plate. It watches what she does

and starts learning how to do stuff she does. When it gets old

enough, it starts playing with other kids, and going to school (however

society defines school). If the family has a TV, it watches TV. It

learns how to be an adult. I didn't say anything about subsistance

living. That's like saying that because I don't eat processed food,

I'm eating subsistence food. Really ... we eat well! And having a baby

live it's life with Mom doesn't mean it is living a subsistence life, quite

the contrary. Do you really think a kid that goes to daycare has a BETTER

life than one raised by it's mother?

As for lots of kids ... if a Mom is breastfeeding, she is not apt to

have lots of kids, esp. if she goes for 3-4 years (which tribal cultures

do). And I specifically said that the Mom should NOT be marginalized

with no career etc ... that's what started this. Ideally the mother is doing

something worthwhile and profitable, which her kids will see by example.

>> Well, the main problem happened when people went to work in

>> " factories " which were mainly designed for the efficient production

>> of goods, with no regard to families or people in general.

>

>Afterall, it wasn't " people " who were using those goods, and it

>wasn't " families " who chose to work there so they could better their

>material lives.

But why can't we produce goods AND have good families? I don't think

the two are mutually exclusive. I've seen plenty of examples, esp. in

the small business arena.

>> You can also look at some of the Asian families. Somehow, even in

>our

>> culture, they manage to have the kids around while, say, running a

>> restaurant or a store.

>

>Then it isn't the " system, " but is the culture and choices of the

>families and individuals within them that is the variable.

Right! Human beings make " the system " and " the culture " ... as people

change what they want, the system changes. I.e. if a lot of people

want raw milk, eventually it will become available. And steak tartare.

>

>Socialism and capitalism are not respectively correspondent to

>competition and cooperation at ALL, but are rather respectively

>correspondent to force and freedom. Competition exists in socialism

>and cooperation exists in capitalism. So, I guess, in what manner

>does the cooperation and competition take place? Do they cooperate

>voluntarily, because the parties involve see the cooperation to their

>advantage? Or do they cooperate forcibly. Are there redistributive

>mechanisms that have implicit punishments to them, like exile or

>whathaveyou?

In small groups, I think it is kind of a group Oujii board experience,

some kind of consensus. In larger nations there is a lot of force

(i.e. laws) in both socialism and capitalism, tho some would argue

there wasn't much flexibility in your average tribal culture either.

But it's a side issue ... good baby rearing with an active working

mother can happen in any culture, and usually did, until recently.

>

>It does especially when they get older (especially if boys), and it

>does assuming you don't already have a house big enough for them,

>etc.

>

>In any case, since you keep referring to times where societies and

>tribes lacked modern comforts and lacked most of the things we pursue

>in our lives, how do you propose to modify our system so that we keep

>the best of both?

Well, THAT is the big question, isn't it? It's like asking " how can we modify

our modern diets so we can be as healthy as Price's natives " . They lacked

modern comforts too, but they had good health. A similar issue exists

for child rearing. I can't say I know " the " answer ... we are still inventing

an answer (as we are for food!). I've seen several families succeed though,

and I think we are succeeding, albeit with many errors because we have

few role models.

The book " the Continuum Concept " has a lot of good ideas, as does

" the Baby Book " . What I did was to start working from home (having

an employer who wasn't amenable), joined by my dh and eventually

others, so our workplace became a family workplace. My relatives in

Germany did something similar ... they lived upstairs, ran a bakery

downstairs (how ironic is that! A WHEAT bakery!). My sisters did

something similar ... they didn't quit work, but they modified it

to be baby friendly. My housekeeper did it too ... she would show up,

daughter in tow, and clean the house. The kids raised this way are far

better than average, happier, calmer, more bonded, more successful in

general.

I suspect some simple changes to some of the laws would make

this lifestyle far more accessible to more people. Making it easier

to work from home, for example, or to run a small business in

a neighborhood (my relative's bakery would be illegal in the US,

because it combines a business with a residence).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I haven't read the CC book, or anything on... well, parenting. In my

>school experience, whether kids can be brought is a function of the

>teacher... some will allow it. But they tend to be disruptive. A

>law that required schools to allow kids in the classroom would be an

>utter disaster. It's one thing to have the kid in the classroom a

>couple times in a semester because no one could watch him; it's

>another to have them every day, or worse, to have lots of them.

Some campuses have drop in daycare ... most classes only last an

hour or two, so dropping off a kid is one option. Shoot, my

local Fred Meyer's has drop in daycare! (I preferred to keep my dd

with me, but she always begged and begged to be dropped off, so

I did once or twice, she loved it).

Little babies that are carried in a sling are rarely disruptive ... they

sleep most of the time. And if a kid starts out like that, they

tend to be quiet and calm (esp. if they are GF!). Mine never

cried, ever ... unless she got sick or she was put down. We carried

her constantly until she was 6 months or so old, and she just slept

or watched, and gurgled a little when she was hungry. She never got

colic and we never had to work to put her to sleep at night. If we

had a babysitter, the sitter was instructed to carry her also. The only

problem was when grandma came ... grandma said we were " spoiling'

the kid and refused to carry her, put her on the couch, and of course

she cried then!

Way back when, theaters used to have a " cry room " so Moms could

bring babies to the theater. That isn't done so much now, but

the concept was good (I preferred to leave the kids at home when

I actually got out to a movie, but we had a good sitter).

> I think that's already happening. Have you been to Mc's or

>Burger King lately? I went to BK because I was with a friend and we

>stopped, and their menu is far healthier than the last time I was in

>a fast food joint. They have an entire low-carb menu, more salad

>stuff, etc. The low-carb menu is low-trans fat too, because there's

>no fries, no buns, etc.

I've noticed that. They really DO respond to what people want!

McD's had a thing out that they were going to start buying beef

from Australia because it is grass fed there ... I don't know if that

ever came to pass, but it is interesting.

> That would be nice, but again, in my long experience, very

>> few women have that kind of control. Babies happen .. our

>> biology seems to work against us.

>

>Nevertheless, responsible sex is widely practiced. If it wasn't, the

>condom folks would be out of business. The point isn't so much

>whether the incentives ensure perfect behavior. The point is that if

>they are artificially removed you get lots more irresponsible

>behavior.

I am ALL in favor of responsible sex! And monagomy, for that

matter. I would say though, that in my experience, " incentives'

have little to do with family size. The folks that have LOTS of

kids usually do so out of idealogical reasons, and without regard

sometimes for the practical aspects (like how to afford an

education). In my circle of friends, most folks wanted 2 kids,

and some ended up with an extra (the " accident " )., and sometimes

the first was an accident too. But they were trying to be

responsible. The point is, when you have that " accidental kid "

how does it affect your life? It's going to be work to raise a kid

(or raise a dog or sheep, for that matter) but it shouldn't toss

you out of your career and ruin your earning potential etc.

>Maybe it costs less than a dog, but it still has a cost, is all I was

>saying. However you're leaving out parts of the equation. For

>example, future-oriented future parents in our society might decide

>they want to own a house before they have kids, or at least they will

>decide they need to live in a place where the kid(s) can have their

>own bedroom(s). That's an enormous expenditure in addition to what

>you've mentioned.

Certainly, there can be lots of expenses, esp. in our society.

But the original discussion had to do with the choice between " career "

and " kid " .

Little babies do not have to cost much at all. Older children do need

a room maybe (tho mine prefer to sleep in the livingroom if they can

get away with it). They don't *need* as much as we usually give them

though. I buy way too much for mine, I'm scaling back. What they

really WANT is " mommy time " ... playing games, baking in the kitchen, drawing.

(When I was a kid we spent hours playing games .. mostly with some dice

and a deck of cards, though Scrabble and a few board games were also

winners, and I think our abilities at math came from that). Or going to

the library or the park.

They would prefer to sleep all piled up in one room (weekends we " camp "

upstairs, all together, and they'd do that every day if they could). At

some point they'll need privacy etc. But most houses are big enough for

a couple of kids ... the pioneers made do with one-room log cabins and

a few curtains, and some folks I knew raised 6 kids in a single-wide

trailer (the kids turned out really well too).

>I'm not so sure that typical 19th century families were " bad

>families, " if you are still referring to the beginning of factories.

>In any case, I think that's great if people find ways to work, earn

>an income, *and* raise kids well at the same time. I was initially

>just objecting to the idea that the financial burden of child bearing

>should be artificially removed, which I interpreted as some sort of

>subsidy.

When factories started out, they typically employed single girls

or kids or men ... so they didn't impact the family so much. But

we've kept the same paradigm even though the workforce is

different, and the work is different. One book I read said the

whole " factory " concept was largely based on the military paradigm,

since most men had military background and it was the organization

they knew. But it is an artificial paradigm in terms of human history ...

the " tribal " paradigm is more built-in to human nature, and even at

at that, the men and women in a tribe tend to use different paradigms

for living.

And yeah, I think you interpreted me not as I intended. Good discussion

though.

>What kind of laws make it difficult to work from home? I would

>support any easing of these laws... the bakery setup is common in

>these parts. Actually, the restaruant I work at has the father

>living upstairs.

I'm not that familiar with the laws etc. except the ones that impacted

me. (like having to buy acreage to have employees). It varies from

city to city, which doesn't help. Someone wrote a great book about

city layout (an architect), the name escapes me. He said that with

a few zoning changes, cities and suburbs could be MUCH more

livable ... that the current zoning was mainly to make life car-friendly

but that the older zoning, as in old European towns, was much more

people-friendly, which is why folks like to travel there for vacations.

He had lots of specific ideas, and many of them related to having

home life closer to work life, and being able to walk to most of the

places you need to go. You are in New England, I think? A lot of older

towns ARE like that ... but not on the west coast.

>What I wouldn't support, which I thought you were hinting at but

>maybe not, would be laws requiring schools and businesses to allow

>mothers to have their children with them at all times.

" Having laws " is kind of a top-down approach ... most of these things

end up being a " paradigm shift " if they are to be successful. Which

may end up changing some laws. But probably the laws that would

need to be changed have to do with liability etc. Big factories aren't

usually kid friendly anyway, but some are starting day cares on

the same floor as Mom, so Mom can visit the kid, and even " sick care "

places. And more places are letting Moms work from home ... many of

the salespeople I deal with now are semi-independent. It saves the

company money (no desk or floorspace) so it's a win-win.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>

>

>Oh, right, I was thinking of older little kids. Never had someone

>with an infant in class. Oh, but they sound so cute!

Actually, to me she looked kind of lumpy. I called her " the lump " . Did

nothing but sleep and eat. She got more interesting later <G>.

>

>You learnt math from Scrabble?

Sure. You have to add up all those letters, and multiply too. But

it is REALLY good for spelling, and for building vocabulary (our rules

allowed looking thru the dictionary to find weird words ...)

>

>Work in a NE town? LOL! I know people out here that commute 1.5 hrs

>to Boston every day (3 hrs round trip).

>

>This job and my last one I had less than a five minute drive to work,

>and that's the case for a lot of people who work in town, but many

>people have to commute just becuase there's not enough work out

>here. (There used to be a few factories, but most are gone). I

>don't know what it's like in the city, but I imagine it's a bit

>different.

OUCH! I used to commute into Seattle, but sheesh, that was horrid.

You probably realize that at the turn of the LAST century, most

folks (95%) were farmers, they never commuted at all. When I was

in Europe, some folks commuted, but they mostly did it by train,

which is rather nice in comparison (sit, read a book, drink some

wine ...).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>The other fundamental change here is the falling apart of the family,

>which is an obvious consequence, it seems to me, of the socialization

>of pregnancy-related responsibility that you seem to be suggesting.

Nonsense. Examine any tribal society and you'll see that socialization,

per se, is not the problem.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I suppose you could say the same thing about an extended family in a

>modern society. Clearly, sharing the burden between a group of

>people makes for a better and stronger social network, not a weaker

>one. However, there is a clear qualitative difference between

>sharing the burden personally and socializing the burden anonymously

>and impersonally. Are tribal groups very small states or very large

>families? Probably more like the latter.

Perhaps they are more like very or extremely large families, though I'd

suggest they're more like communities, but socialization is clearly not by

itself the problem.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I've never studied the economics of tribal societies, but I'd guess

>that

>1) They aren't socialist (though may have socialist elements)

I think your terminology here is confusing things. Socializing doesn't

always imply socialism. A child, for example, can be described as poorly

socialized if he is violent, doesn't play well with others, etc. Also, man

is a social creature, and so socialization can be considered as the

opposite of atomization.

>2) They aren't an ideal model anyway, in part due to lack of property

>and other elements we'd generally consider of a socialist nature (for

>example, they have much higher murder rates than we do).

The murder rate is, of course, an important factor to consider, but the

other aspects are not necessarily bad, at least not automatically. You

just have an aversion to them. But aversion or no, they should be

considered objectively in the context of evolution and pragmatism.

>That said, I can't do much more than guess without any detailed

>knowledge of their economics.

Why reduce everything strictly to economics?

-

[Guest guest]

<<I'm not that familiar with the laws etc. except the ones that impacted

me. (like having to buy acreage to have employees). It varies from

city to city, which doesn't help. Someone wrote a great book about

city layout (an architect), the name escapes me. He said that with

a few zoning changes, cities and suburbs could be MUCH more

livable ... that the current zoning was mainly to make life car-friendly

but that the older zoning, as in old European towns, was much more

people-friendly, which is why folks like to travel there for vacations.

He had lots of specific ideas, and many of them related to having

home life closer to work life, and being able to walk to most of the

places you need to go. You are in New England, I think? A lot of older

towns ARE like that ... but not on the west coast.>>

Are you referring to the book “Save Our Lands, Save Our Towns”?

Kay

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release Date: 6/23/2004

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release Date: 6/23/2004

[Guest guest]

:

><<I'm not that familiar with the laws etc. except the ones that impacted

>me. (like having to buy acreage to have employees). It varies from

>city to city, which doesn't help. Someone wrote a great book about

>city layout (an architect), the name escapes me. He said that with

>a few zoning changes, cities and suburbs could be MUCH more

>livable ... that the current zoning was mainly to make life car-friendly

>but that the older zoning, as in old European towns, was much more

>people-friendly, which is why folks like to travel there for vacations.

>He had lots of specific ideas, and many of them related to having

>home life closer to work life, and being able to walk to most of the

>places you need to go. You are in New England, I think? A lot of older

>towns ARE like that ... but not on the west coast.>>

>

>Are you referring to the book “Save Our Lands, Save Our Towns”?

>

>Kay

I don't recall the name of the book, sorry. It was a long time ago.

I'd expect there is more than one on the topic though!

-- Heidi Jean