[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 100

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 2:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Donna wrote, "I encounter very many single women, in my courses at a public university within which I teach, "poor" women with limited education and little to no marketable skills, who overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles, who set and achieve goals that they never thought they would or could and who go on to make wonderful lives for themselves and their children."

Teresa replied, "No offense is meant by this inquiry, but how much motivation is there to continue these programs by grant money supplied to them? Does this motivation encourage those in charge to in turn encourage the destructive cycles these programs appear to remedy, or seek to end them outright?"

Teresa, it's pretty clear to me that Donna does not see what it is that you're objecting to, and I'm not so sure I do either. Are you saying that courses designed to help poor women improve their lives and expand their employment opportunities are a bad thing, because they imply a vested interest in keeping people poor just so these courses can continue to be funded? If that is what you're saying, then you need to make that argument a lot more forcefully than you have. And if this is not what you're saying, then you need to clarify.

You've accused Donna of context-dropping, but I think you may have failed to establish the very context that you've accused her of ignoring, which I'd be willing to bet she has little if any knowledge of. If she doesn't have your context to begin with -- and I suspect that she doesn't -- then she can scarcely be accused of dropping it.

What we have here is a simple failure to communicate; people are talking past each other.

- Bill




Post 101

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 2:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Are you saying that courses designed to help poor women improve their lives and expand their employment opportunities are a bad thing, because they imply a vested interest in keeping people poor just so these courses can continue to be funded?
Yes, Bill, that's what I was wondering.
 
If that is what you're saying, then you need to make that argument a lot more forcefully than you have.
I can't do that until I know how it's funded. If government grant money is involved, then chances are it provides more incentive for people to keep it going.
 
Regarding the context dropping -
 
Donna said this about the option of adoption:
 
By the way, Hong, I just don't know, or know OF, many women who are okay with having babies and giving them away...
And then offered this historical context as I took to be a critique of that option:

I hear you.  I think back to a time when Black folks' children were taken away to be sold into slavery, literally wrenched from screaming, crying mothers' arms and when Black slaves were forced to engage in sex for the purposes of "making more babies" to be sold.
And just left it there for me to pick up, which I did, thusly:

Holding on to emotional baggage from 200 years ago, using it promote even more contemporary baggage is beneath you. I know the tremendous pull identity from guilt can have on an individual. Breaking away from historical chains can be difficult, but to use those chains as justification for even more wrong doing is so egregious an error, it can't be overlooked.  It means those bound by the past can never overcome it.

Looking at the histories of other maligned and oppressed peoples in America, European Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and others, isn't it clear that the values they maintained led to their successes, and not their failures?  A value that leads to failure isn't a value at all.
For which Donna promptly dropped the context here:

"they, huh?...

Which group do you belong to?

Or are you the expert or self-proclaimed authority on the lives, histories, failures and achievements of others?

Cause you sure ain't no expert on values... yours ain't sounding too kosher up in here.

Mayhaps you should take a good LOOK at yourself.

Using history as a context for the idea that adoption shouldn't be a viable option, and then dropping it when it's called out frustrated me. 

I shouldn't be so rushed. You're right, I could have been more clear. I completely jumped from one topic to another, and didn't do a very good job of tying it all together.  

At any rate, I give up on anyone who thinks women should be encouraged to keep unwanted children so they can be supported by an uwilling male and/or the government.









 
 
 
 

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/22, 3:00pm)




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 102

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 4:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Donna,
I didn't meant to get into the minority issue at all. The case here is much more universal than that.

"Where you and I disagree, primarily, here is that I don't have a problem with my tax dollars assisting her to that end."

Yes, we indeed disagree on this.

I also have a question regarding what you said here:
"A mother who wants her baby, in my opinion, should keep it and do all and everything she can to provide the best life possible for it". 

What do you mean exactly by "everything she can"? When the wannabe mother has no steady income, no medical insurance (how much does child birth and infant medical care cost?), how can *she* provide a good life for her child? I have no problem with people relying on their family support or private charities, but tax money? hell, no.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/22, 5:43pm)




Post 103

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 4:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,
Everything in your posts is crystal clear to me. My sentiments are exactly the same.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/22, 5:41pm)




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 104

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 6:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Hong.

Bet me there's no educational programs for poor fathers forced to support children they didn't really want.  Shit, they can't even deduct a portion of paid child support from their taxes! Income from support doesn't have to be claimed on your tax forms either. So, custodial parents get the kid, tax deductions for the kid, money support for the kid tax free, the satisfaction of knowing they're making the kid's other parent miserable, and a whole host of other free goodies (housing, food, education, mountains of sympathy, etc.) And the non custodial parent gets the blame.

Good enough for government work, I guess. I still can't figure out why people fight over the kids so much in divorce and breakups....it's such a mystery.  




Post 105

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 8:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You've accused Donna of context-dropping, but I think you may have failed to establish the very context that you've accused her of ignoring, which I'd be willing to bet she has little if any knowledge of.
 

Oh, hello Bill Dwyer

Are you taking shots at me because you don't like my posts?

That's not nice.

And you have no idea what I know; thus, I know you'd Bet-ter keep ya money in your pocket...*s*

Also, because somebody doesn't offer the answer or response that you're looking for doesn't mean you need to repeat, restate or attempt to fix or change the question.  (It was a question, Bill.)

(Bet you didn't know that I know that about you, huh?...that that is what you like to do.)
  
Seems to me, if you really wanted to help Teresa out, you might have begun with her vague (amongst other appropriate descriptioins) reference to "these programs".

Or do you speak "these", "those", "they" speak too?

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/22, 9:42pm)




Post 106

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 8:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Donna,

 you're not Roger Bissel pretending to be Donna are you?

Had to ask :-)




Post 107

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 8:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 
Are you saying that courses designed to help poor women improve their lives and expand their employment opportunities are a bad thing, because they imply a vested interest in keeping people poor just so these courses can continue to be funded?
Yes, Bill, that's what I was wondering.
 


What the hell courses are yall talking about?

and wait, I thought we were talking about programs - the "these programs"

or was it "those programs"?

or "those people"?

or "those people's programs?

*shrug*


I'm confused...

yall are way too advanced in your knowledge and contexting and stuff for me.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/22, 9:21pm)




Post 108

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 9:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

YOU SAY: 

Using history as a context for the idea that adoption shouldn't be a viable option, and then dropping it when it's called out frustrated me. 

and

YOU SAY:

At any rate, I give up on anyone who thinks women should be encouraged to keep unwanted children so they can be supported by an uwilling male and/or the government.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Teresa, if a woman wants her baby, then it's not "unwanted".

and the rest is of your post is BS.

Hong offered a bit of her history and I offered a bit of mine in return....what it was that what she posted brought to mind for me.

What is it about that post that frustrates you?  No, really.

Cause you took that post and twisted and turned it all inside out and threw it back at me sideways...

I had to duck to get out the way...
..

*s*

.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/22, 9:56pm)




Post 109

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Donna,

 you're not Roger Bissel pretending to be Donna are you?

Had to ask :-)

________________________________________________________________________________

No Ethan

Who's that?

Tell me about him.

He must be a delightful fellow.

*s*




Post 110

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 9:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote to Teresa, "You've accused Donna of context-dropping, but I think you may have failed to establish the very context that you've accused her of ignoring, which I'd be willing to bet she has little if any knowledge of."

Donna replied,
Oh, hello Bill Dwyer

Are you taking shots at me because you don't like my posts?

That's not nice.
Oh, for Pete's sake, Donna, I wasn't take shots at you! I was simply trying to help clarify the issues, because it seemed to me that you may not have been aware of where Teresa was coming from. I myself wasn't sure, so why would I be taking shots at you??
And you have no idea what I know; thus, I know you'd Bet-ter keep ya money in your pocket...*s*
(Sigh) I was speculating that you may not have had Teresa's context (because even I wasn't sure of the point she was making), and that this may have accounted, at least in part, for the disagreement. Don't be so defensive!
Also, because somebody doesn't offer the answer you're looking for doesn't mean you need to repeat, restate or attempt to fix or change the question.
Look, it seemed to me that you and Teresa may have been talking past each other. I was simply trying to set the discussion on a firmer footing. Aren't you interested in bringing further clarity and understanding to the discussion?
(Bet you didn't know that I know that about you, huh?...that that is what you like to do.)

Seems to me, if you really wanted to help Teresa out, you might have begun with her vague (amongst other descriptions) reference to "these programs".

Or do you speak "these", "those", "they" speak too?
Amazing!

- Bill




Post 111

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I didn't meant to get into the minority issue at all...
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Hong,

Who said anything about minorities?

What are the minority issues you're referring to?

And if Teresa's post is crystal clear to you and your sentiments are exactly the same, as you say,

perhaps you can tell me what the "these programs" are?

And are you familiar with them there university courses she and Bill Dwyer are talking about?

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/22, 10:09pm)




Post 112

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 9:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What the hell courses are yall talking about?
and wait, I thought you were talkinga bout programs...the "these programs"
or was it "those programs"?
or "those people"?
or "those people's programs? 

LOL!  Sorry, maybe I'm hypersensitive to symptoms of  "Public Trough Syndome", like:

 
On the other hand, I encounter very many single women, in my courses at a public university within which I teach, "poor" women with limited education and little to no marketable skills, who overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles, who set and achieve goals that they never thought they would or could and who go on to make wonderful lives for themselves and their children.
Perhaps not....

Isn't it great that women with "limited" education, no skills, or money (but with a child or two, or three) can get into college at the expense of those who did?  Either that or tuition rates have miraculously sunk to minimum wage levels, which is doubtful.  

Face it, if these women, those taking advantage of the trough by virtue of bad choices, stopped putting themselves into poverty by having and keeping children they cannot afford,  it's possible you might be out of a job.  These fine ladies could get a very similar education for free at the public library.




Post 113

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Donna,
You first said  "I think back to a time when Black folks' children..." etc., I guess Teresa and I detected a undertone here specific for Black folks. But if that's not what you intended, my mistake then.

I take your programs just as what you said:
And I think of all the history that took place from that time to my first year of teaching, when 25% of my students were in the foster care system.  As well, I think of the program I assistant direct today, an academic and behavior modification program for foster children (created and implemented by me and a friend of mine)


Given that you'd be willing to use tax money to help these children and their mothers, one naturally would assume that those programs are supported by the tax money or government grants. But - you are more than welcome to correct us if we are indeed wrong.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/22, 10:16pm)




Post 114

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 11:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

I don't refer to Black people as minorites, nor Latinos/Hispanics, Asians

and

I wasn't seriously asking for you to attempt to clarify for Teresa

I was teasing because you said her post is crystal clear and your sentiments are exactly the same

now you're guessing at what she was talking about, using a different quote and all...

It's humorous...I got a few chuckles tonight...

*s*

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/22, 11:45pm)




Post 115

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 11:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 Donna: I don't refer to Black people as minorities, nor Latinos/Hispanics, Asians

 

?

 

Just curious, Donna, but why is that?

 

Although I sometimes use it in reference to others, and myself, personally I don't care for the term either. But I suspect my reasoning for disliking the term is probably different than yours.

 
George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/23, 12:03am)




Post 116

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 8:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wasn't seriously asking for you to attempt to clarify for Teresa

But, Donna, I would seriously appreciate if you can clarify it for us - but, if you are not incline to do so, fine with me. We can drop the whole thing. 

The programs I quoted are in addition to what Teresa quoted. If they are completely different things, then my mistake again. Dwell on details instead of addressing the main issue will not help the dialogue.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/23, 8:48am)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 117

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Donna said:

I am in disagreement with those who say women should abort babies or give them up for the reasons that the mother doesn't have money or because the father doesn't want the baby.

A mother who wants her baby, in my opinion, should keep it and do all and everything she can to provide the best life possible for it.  Where you and I disagree, primarily, here is that I don't have a problem with my tax dollars assisting her to that end.


Well, Donna, forgive me if I don't believe it is the proper role of government to force me to pay for ignorant people who cannot care for their children yet insist on having them.  Your philosophy makes me a slave to their irresponsibility.  I am not fathering any children and yet I have to pay for the unwed mothers and absentee fathers, and you are fine with that.  I would prefer to provide my money to charities when I choose and in the amount I choose to handle this, but yet my tax money is taken in large amounts to school and help other people's children, making me a partial slave to them.  That is what it amounts to.  Charity must be offered freely or it is theft.




Post 118

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A mother who wants her baby, in my opinion, should keep it and do all and everything she can to provide the best life possible for it.  Where you and I disagree, primarily, here is that I don't have a problem with my tax dollars assisting her to that en


Hi Kurt,

You say:

Well, Donna, forgive me if I don't believe it is the proper role of government to force me to pay for ignorant people who cannot care for their children yet insist on having them.  Your philosophy makes me a slave to their irresponsibility.  I am not fathering any children and yet I have to pay for the unwed mothers and absentee fathers, and you are fine with that.  I would prefer to provide my money to charities when I choose and in the amount I choose to handle this, but yet my tax money is taken in large amounts to school and help other people's children, making me a partial slave to them.  That is what it amounts to.  Charity must be offered freely or it is theft.

 
___________________________________________________________________________________________
 
I understand what you're saying but wouldn't say that MY philosopy makes you a slave.

My philosophy, as far as financial support, includes mothers struggling and securing whatever employment they can, while working at developing skills for increasing their income, utilizing whatever resources they're able from caring family members, and, for sure, having the fathers of the children assume responsibility.

Truth be told, I would prefer the government not help themselves to any part of my income, but I know that's not gonna happen, and of the taxes that I have no choices about paying, I don't have a problem with them going, in part, to others who can use it to better their lives and the lives of their children.

I'm not a supporter of the welfare system which is certainly designed to perpetuate poverty and even encourages single parenthood.  That's why I take opportunities, and create opportunities, to educate others of the same (above) and to encourage and assist folks in getting their asses OFF of the welfare rolls.

I"m not a supporter of the public school system which is designed to train students to stay in their "economic place" and to limit their thinking, yet, I did, in fact, as a graduate student create and develop my own whole hardbody, critical thinking and analysis curriculum, and my plan to storm the system as an innovator and change agent.  It didn't take long for me to understand that "change" ain't gonna cut it, that the system needs to be torn down and built on a whole new foundation.

I'm not a supporter of the modern day slave system, that is the prison system, within which the majority of inmates are not violent criminals and who are more in need of education, skills, job training, treatment for drug and alcohol addictions, etc. than incarceration.  I speak with non-violent offenders in prisons and conduct seminars educating them about the system they allow themselves to fall victim to/within.

Working within the city university system for several years has allowed me associations and learning to create, along with others, programs outside of "the system" - programs more to my liking and more in line with my own agenda.
I don't deal with government grants because government grants mean governmental control, and that would defeat my purpose(s).  I'm committed to the point wherein I've come up out of my own pockets, and they ain't that deep, lemme tell ya.

At any rate, the more I work with people of various races, ethnicities, religions and economic backgrounds, in counseling and education, the deeper my level of awareness and the greater my understanding.  That's why I do what I do and continue learning.  I don't complain much about such matters as my "tax dollars" helping others who may not have had a couple of the opportunities I've had or the loving parents who instilled confidence in me regarding my capabilities to achieve and even excel in most endeavors.

I think there's something about being in my forties too, that lends clarity and understanding to the trite phrase,
"Life's too short."




Post 119

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 9:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Just curious, Donna, but why is that?

 

Although I sometimes use it in reference to others, and myself, personally I don't care for the term either. But I suspect my reasoning for disliking the term is probably different than yours.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

George,

 

One reason is that defining myself, others, myself and/or others, or other groups

as the smaller, or the different or the other of a larger group or THEE larger group

doesn't work for me, George,...nor the lumping together as a bunch of others.

 

Context is relevant however...regarding me using the term and/or how I accept it.

 

i.e., I identified Blacks, Asians, Latinos and Native Americans as a less than 15% minority population of my graduate school, although the school offered higher numbers.

 

 

Why don't you care for the term?

 

 

 

 

 

 




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]