From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech according to Nilges
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:38:04 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Oct4.180300.15909@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
|> In article <183703@pyramid.pyramid.com>
pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
|> >Fitch) writes:
|> >|> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):
|> >|> | prelevance of divorce in the era of many posters' childhoods
(1960-1980)
|> >|> | and the fact that even before 1960 "organization man" fathers were
|> >|> | excluded from meaningful family participation.  Since boys,
especially,
|> >     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >
|> >Just to pick a few nits here.....  "Were excluded from" suggests that
|> >men had no choice in their relationships with their family.  But who
|> >excluded them?  The Fatherly Exclusion Police.  You get the idea.  It is
|> >true that fathers excluded themselves, de facto, by choosing to assume
|> >the role of breadwinner in a way which took them out of the house.  
|> 
|> Yes, fathers chose to exclude themselves from their families. Nobody
|> forced them to do this.
|> 
|> But you have to look at what other options they had.
|> 
|> [...thoughtful observations deleted...]
|> 
|> So yes, men chose to exclude themselves from their families. But 
|> as I see it, the alternative was to live a life of poverty and
|> solitude. Not much of a choice really. 
|> 
|> We all make choices. We all choose how we live our life.

This is the important observation, really.  I have no intention to
"judge" men based on their choice, but simply to point out that "true"
choice exists, and to share and re-affirm a world view in which we are
seen as being creators of our lives, via choice, and not its victims. 
If we make "bad" choices, choices whose consequences don't work, then we
can correct and make new choices.

Secondly, I wished to introduce the notion that one facet of
industrialization, namely "the division of labor" in which men left the
homestead and the farm, in favor of the factory was destructive.  Or at
least it had long term consequences which were not envisioned at the
time.  I use this example to rebutt the notion of "technological
progress."  I question whether such a thing really exists, and attempt
to point out the consequences of "progress" in an era when not too many
seem to question it anymore.

It seems to me an irony that Dan Quayle is a symbol both for industrial
progress and the family structure which industrialization has played a
part in destroying.  Apparently Dan doesn't understand that, in part,
one "caused" the other.  The thesis is being advanced now that since
women are leaving the home in greater numbers, the bond between
mother-daughter and mother-son will also be destroyed.  Who knows what
effect this will have on "family systems."


|>But I wonder
|> something. Would you have focussed on the choice aspect if someone
|> had posted about how women in the 50s were forced into a gilded cage, 
|> were forced to stay home and raise their children instead of making 
|> their mark on the world? These women made their choices exactly as 
|> the men of that period did. 
|>

I think the point is:  "Am I upholding a double-standard?  One which is
unfairly harsh toward men." I don't know.  That's why feedback is useful.
I do hold a similar vision for each, namely that both men and women are
empowered to make choices and create lives that fit.  What fits for any
is unique to each.  I also believe that men and women are, en masse, at
different points in their respective journeys, I think that they each
have different social evolutionary journeys to make.  Being "fair"
doesn't necessarily mean "acting the same" but being appropriate to the
individual and the situation.

Paul Collacchi  
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17960 rec.arts.books:17438