Good Newsweek article

dragonlady wrote:
Absolutely! I am not a linguist, but some of the stuff I've read that
deals with the way language affects thinking has been fascinating.
This turns out to be true for different languages, but even for how we
use our own language: working on using gender neutral language, or
gay-friendly language, can actually change our own perceptions. For
example, in most of my life, I refer to the person with whom I share my
life as my "partner", and I NEVER ask someone if they are married or
have a husband or wife: I may ask if they are dating anyone, or if they
are in a relationship, or if they have a partner, but I don't assume
gender. I believe my committment to this language has helped me along
the way to changed perceptions.

I *am* a linguist, so I just have to chime in here. I think that
language use very much does have an influence on the way we perceive
things -- especially those things that we have lots of social constructs
around or which are purely social constructs (e.g., marriage). Where
people get carried away with these ideas is that language structure
itself constrains the way we think. It's not the structure of the
language (or the vocabulary we have at any given moment, since
we can always invent or co-opt more) but the way we use the language.

Like you, I try not to assume anything about the gender of another's
partner, though once I do know, I tend to make use of it and refer
to them as husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, or partner, following
the lead of whomever I'm talking about.

(The only exception is my very-right-wing fundamentalist Christian
brother, who is annoyed that I place his relationship with his wife on
the same footing as the relationship between my sister and her opposite
sex partner, who have two kids and are in a committed relationship but
declined to get married until very recently, or my brother and his same
sex partner, who have been in a committed relationship for over 15 years
-- and recently got legally married in Mass, by the way.)

And isn't that a nice commentary on nature/nurture and these things.
Now, as non-twins, you don't have the exact same genetic make up,
but surely as siblings, it's close...

Emily

Emily wrote:

I *am* a linguist, so I just have to chime in here. I think that
language use very much does have an influence on the way we perceive
things -- especially those things that we have lots of social constructs
around or which are purely social constructs (e.g., marriage). Where
people get carried away with these ideas is that language structure
itself constrains the way we think. It's not the structure of the
language (or the vocabulary we have at any given moment, since
we can always invent or co-opt more) but the way we use the language.

Hmmm...I'm not sure from that where you're drawing the
line. I don't think that we think exclusively in linguistic terms,
but I am persuaded that language imposes significant constraints
on how we think about things, creating a tendency to think in
certain ways that may theoretically be overcome, but are quite
unlikely to be. It greases the skids in a certain direction,
as it were, and makes it more likely that we will be blind to
certain options.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Emily wrote:

I *am* a linguist, so I just have to chime in here. I think that
language use very much does have an influence on the way we perceive
things -- especially those things that we have lots of social constructs
around or which are purely social constructs (e.g., marriage). Where
people get carried away with these ideas is that language structure
itself constrains the way we think. It's not the structure of the
language (or the vocabulary we have at any given moment, since
we can always invent or co-opt more) but the way we use the language.


Hmmm...I'm not sure from that where you're drawing the
line. I don't think that we think exclusively in linguistic terms,
but I am persuaded that language imposes significant constraints
on how we think about things, creating a tendency to think in
certain ways that may theoretically be overcome, but are quite
unlikely to be. It greases the skids in a certain direction,
as it were, and makes it more likely that we will be blind to
certain options.


Take the famous (and somewhat fictitious) Eskimo snow words
example. If your language had 100 words for snow, but you only
ever used one on any sort of a regular basis, would the other
99 be having any effect?

Emily

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I do think that research into genetic relationships
and such is absolutely fascinating, and I do think there is
much to be learned.

I took a class - I think it was Psychology of Human Development or
Psychology of Child Development... Something like that. Anyway, we
looked at various theories that try to answer the question - how do we
get to be who we are? We looked at biological explanations,
evolutionary explanations, social explanations, etc. etc. etc. nature,
nurture, and everything in between.

Each theory, the professor showed that it was "necessary, but not
sufficient." That your genes, for example, are a necessary or vital
part of who you are, but that they're not sufficient to explain ALL of
who you are. Basically, that every different sort of theory has a
little truth, and that all of these different parts go into making up
the whole. But not a single one was both necessary and sufficient...

It got so that you could fall asleep in class, and if you got called on
you could say, "Necessary, but not sufficient!" and the prof would
think that you were brilliant, but other than that it was a really
interesting class!

Amy

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Emily wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Emily wrote:

I *am* a linguist, so I just have to chime in here. I think that
language use very much does have an influence on the way we perceive
things -- especially those things that we have lots of social
constructs
around or which are purely social constructs (e.g., marriage). Where
people get carried away with these ideas is that language structure
itself constrains the way we think. It's not the structure of the
language (or the vocabulary we have at any given moment, since
we can always invent or co-opt more) but the way we use the language.




Hmmm...I'm not sure from that where you're drawing the
line. I don't think that we think exclusively in linguistic terms,
but I am persuaded that language imposes significant constraints
on how we think about things, creating a tendency to think in
certain ways that may theoretically be overcome, but are quite
unlikely to be. It greases the skids in a certain direction,
as it were, and makes it more likely that we will be blind to
certain options.


Take the famous (and somewhat fictitious) Eskimo snow words
example. If your language had 100 words for snow, but you only
ever used one on any sort of a regular basis, would the other
99 be having any effect?


Sure, and there's a chicken and egg effect too (why
have the 100 snow words in the first place, unless you've
had a need for them?). I don't think that having only
one word for snow means that I can't perceive differences
in snow, but if you actually use 100 different words for
snow, betcha dollars to doughnuts that you know more about
snow than I do or that snow has played a pretty important
role in your culture (at some point, anyway ;-)

Right -- I think we agree, really. I'm saying it's not the
mere existence of the words (or a past pluperfect form of
the verbs or whatever), but the extent to which they get
used (and the ways in which they get used) that counts.

Emily

Emily wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Emily wrote:

I *am* a linguist, so I just have to chime in here. I think that
language use very much does have an influence on the way we perceive
things -- especially those things that we have lots of social constructs
around or which are purely social constructs (e.g., marriage). Where
people get carried away with these ideas is that language structure
itself constrains the way we think. It's not the structure of the
language (or the vocabulary we have at any given moment, since
we can always invent or co-opt more) but the way we use the language.



Hmmm...I'm not sure from that where you're drawing the
line. I don't think that we think exclusively in linguistic terms,
but I am persuaded that language imposes significant constraints
on how we think about things, creating a tendency to think in
certain ways that may theoretically be overcome, but are quite
unlikely to be. It greases the skids in a certain direction,
as it were, and makes it more likely that we will be blind to
certain options.


Take the famous (and somewhat fictitious) Eskimo snow words
example. If your language had 100 words for snow, but you only
ever used one on any sort of a regular basis, would the other
99 be having any effect?

Sure, and there's a chicken and egg effect too (why
have the 100 snow words in the first place, unless you've
had a need for them?). I don't think that having only
one word for snow means that I can't perceive differences
in snow, but if you actually use 100 different words for
snow, betcha dollars to doughnuts that you know more about
snow than I do or that snow has played a pretty important
role in your culture (at some point, anyway ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Emily wrote:


Right -- I think we agree, really. I'm saying it's not the
mere existence of the words (or a past pluperfect form of
the verbs or whatever), but the extent to which they get
used (and the ways in which they get used) that counts.

Gotcha--yeah, I'll agree with that ;-) I'm very
pragmatic....

Best wishes,
Ericka

Okay, so it's not like this thread needs any more
fodder, but I noticed something relevant in the March
issue of _Parenting_, which I thought I'd post.

The did an online poll (no scientific sampling, just
whomever chose to respond). The question was "Is it
okay for moms to work if they don't need the money?"
71% of 22,000 respondents replied "yes", and 29% "no".
In the magazing, they included three explanations for
each side, each signed by their authors (presumably
just ordinary readers):

On the Yes side:

"For some, working outside the house makes actually
makes them better moms. (It's true for some dads, too.)
And working sets a good example for the children."

"Being a mom is the most important and rewarding
job any woman could have. However, a woman is not just
a mother. She's also an individual with dreams and
goals. Kids benefit most when Mom is fulfilled
and satisfied."

"I love bing home with my boys, but I appreciate them
even more on the days I work. Not only does it help
my sanity, it's also important social development for
them to be around others."

On the No side:

"I think it's selfish for couples to have children
and then both go back to work. If the child is with
a stranger all day long, why did you have him? Babies
weren't meant to be left at kid-care super-centers for
ten-hour days so that Mommy can feel 'fulfilled'."

"I don't believe we should bring children into this world
and expect someone else to raise them. It makes me sad
to think of everything I would have missed had I been
working."

"What good is a stressed out, exhausted mom after a hard
day at work? If she's put all her energy, creativity,
and more into a job when the family doesn't need the money,
it's a waste."


Now, it's impossible to say how representative those
explanations were (they don't say how they picked them).
One thing that's striking is that all of them speak in
generalities: even when the authors that refer to their
own experiences still generalize to other mothers/familes/kids.
Some of that is probably due to the way the question is
phrased. "Is it okay" pretty much means "Is it okay in general".

I WOH, and that's the right choice for me (though our
family could certainly get by on DH's salary). I'm
an academic, I worked hard to get my PhD and my assistant
professor position. Teaching and research are important
to me and to who I am. (This isn't to say that every
woman with a PhD has to stay in the career track -- I
can certainly see someone making the choice to SAHM.)
Stepping out of the workforce for a few years while my
kids are small would be career suicide in my case. I
had DS when I had finished my PhD but hadn't yet landed
a tenure track job -- decided to take advantage of the career
lull I seemed to be facing anyway, but stayed very much
connected to my field, submitting papers, etc, even while
unemployed. Then I had a great opportunity land in my lap:
a 1/2 time teaching position starting when DS was 4.5mo.
That worked well. This time around, I'm in a tenure track
job. My colleague who went on maternity leave last year
tried to come back half time in the quarter after her leave.
Turns out that what with advising students etc, etc there
was no realistic "half time" for her.

Some things that bother me about the "no" arguments:

-- In what sense is a day-care provided a "stranger"?
Sure, they're not (usually) relatives, but all of the day
care providers that Toby has had are people that we have
come to know well and appreciate deeply. We work with
them, and learn from them.

-- Most of the arguments seem to center on babyhood, but
what about the other 16-17 years a child typically lives
with her parents? I think the system found in some European
countries (where the standard maternity leave is 12 months)
might be ideal. My experience with DS, at least, was that
he was a great deal more independent past 12 months, and
started to really benefit from his daycare center. (Up to
13 months, he was in one-on-one care, at 13 months, he
started at a center.) By stringing together leaves this
time, DH and I might be able to collectively manage 6 months,
at least, before needing daycare (thanks to the FMLA).

-- It's clear to me that DH and I are the primary caregivers
in DS's life. He orients to us in a way that he doesn't
orient to other adults. At the same time, he has bonded
very well with grandparents and his daycare teachers. Many
of the "no" arguments seem to discount the value of having
multiple caring adults in a child's life. "... expect
someone else to raise them" I don't, but I do think it
"takes a village".

Emily

"Emily" wrote in message
...

Now, it's impossible to say how representative those
explanations were (they don't say how they picked them).
One thing that's striking is that all of them speak in
generalities: even when the authors that refer to their
own experiences still generalize to other mothers/familes/kids.

Isn't that inevitable, considering the question involved? One is
being asked, basically, to apply one's philosophy to the rest of
the parents in the world. (One could abstain, but those thoughts
probably wouldn't be published.)

Given that, the "no" responses don't put me off much. If one
is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other
reasons they could give. What "no" rationale could a parent
give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent?



P.
Tierney

P. Tierney wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
...

Now, it's impossible to say how representative those
explanations were (they don't say how they picked them).
One thing that's striking is that all of them speak in
generalities: even when the authors that refer to their
own experiences still generalize to other mothers/familes/kids.


Isn't that inevitable, considering the question involved? One is
being asked, basically, to apply one's philosophy to the rest of
the parents in the world. (One could abstain, but those thoughts
probably wouldn't be published.)

That's what I said, in the first line you snipped.

Given that, the "no" responses don't put me off much. If one
is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other
reasons they could give. What "no" rationale could a parent
give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent?

Yeah, given the question. If it were a personal question:
would it be best for *your* family for both parents to work,
then all kinds of reasons would be logically acceptable.

Emily