3 ms·

>Agreed 100% + add publicly backed financial support. That's where you go off the rails. A girl from an impoverished background, whose only fault is that she

>Agreed 100% + add publicly backed financial support. That's where you go off the rails. A girl from an impoverished background, whose only fault is that she is not a mom, has far more need of "publicly backed financial support" of her education than an upper middle class mom. Publicly backed financial support should be either restricted based on need for everyone, or it should be unrestricted and given to everyone as a matter of course. But telling a girl that she has to have a child before she gets access to this particular pot of money sets up the same restrictive environment and lack of "choice" that you decry in the "evil patriarchy".

danans 8y ago
> But telling a girl that she has to have a child before she gets access to this particular pot of money sets up the same restrictive environment and lack of "choice" that you decry in the "evil patriarchy". I never said that financial support should be restricted to moms. There's no reason why we can't help both types of individuals in the situation that they are in. More help for girls before they have kids means they have lower needs later when they have children, and children of financially stable, educated moms are probably not going to have children before getting educated themselves. Financing both is a societal win-win. If we manage to finance a Navy and an Air Force at the same time, we can figure out how to finance both poor girls' and moms' education.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I never said that financial support should be restricted to moms. Endorsing it in the specific context of a “mommy track” without an explicit expabsit does naturally lead to that conclusion.
  - danans 8y ago
    Why does endorsing a "mommy track" for education imply an exclusion of endorsement of other tracks (i.e. for poor children)?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Because enumerating a specific case without explicit generalization or inclusion of non-enumerated options implies (weakly; it is a natural but not necessary conclusion) the exclusion of others. It's a fairly common way people naturally read things; in legal contexts is also one of the canons of statutory interpretation, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    For the record, I used quotes on "mommy track" specifically to avoid that conclusion. It doesn't have to be gender specific. It doesn't even have to require one to be a parent per se. It would require that we set up a track that is friendly to people in that exact position, one where going to school part-time was financially feasible without having a well-heeled spouse or parents, in essence. And I intend for this to be my last comment in this discussion. The uncharitable reading of my remark and the degree to which I am being personally attacked* and dismissed makes it nigh impossible to keep my cool and try to engage in good faith, especially given that I'm simply exhausted at the moment. So I'm just not at my best today. Please consider the fact that I chose to respond to this comment to be an expression of my personal respect for you. Because otherwise I would likely just downvote it and flag it. * At least one ugly remark appears to have been deleted. So if you think I'm overreacting, consider the possibility that you haven't seen some of the comments I've seen.
danans 8y ago
> has far more need of "publicly backed financial support" of her education than an upper middle class mom. I never said that the benefit should be available to upper-middle class moms. It's easy enough to phase out the benefit based on income. In fact, I gave the example of upper middle class people already having this kind of privilege (attending college paid for by their spouse).
- philipov 8y ago
  Means testing is a time-proven method of discouraging work and stripping people of dignity.
  - danans 8y ago
    Then make the benefit universal (like UBI), and adjust tax brackets of the wealthy to ensure they don't directly benefit.
  - taysic 8y ago
    Stripping of dignity? Don't agree with that. I think means testing has its issues but its far more fair than lottery type support such as rent control or fixed property taxes which can help the top 1% for no real reason. The big question mark over UBI - is can society afford it?

danans 8y ago

> But telling a girl that she has to have a child before she gets access to this particular pot of money sets up the same restrictive environment and lack of "choice" that you decry in the "evil patriarchy". I never said that financial support should be restricted to moms. There's no reason why we can't help both types of individuals in the situation that they are in. More help for girls before they have kids means they have lower needs later when they have children, and children of financially stable, educated moms are probably not going to have children before getting educated themselves. Financing both is a societal win-win. If we manage to finance a Navy and an Air Force at the same time, we can figure out how to finance both poor girls' and moms' education.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I never said that financial support should be restricted to moms. Endorsing it in the specific context of a “mommy track” without an explicit expabsit does naturally lead to that conclusion.
- danans 8y ago
  Why does endorsing a "mommy track" for education imply an exclusion of endorsement of other tracks (i.e. for poor children)?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Because enumerating a specific case without explicit generalization or inclusion of non-enumerated options implies (weakly; it is a natural but not necessary conclusion) the exclusion of others. It's a fairly common way people naturally read things; in legal contexts is also one of the canons of statutory interpretation, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  For the record, I used quotes on "mommy track" specifically to avoid that conclusion. It doesn't have to be gender specific. It doesn't even have to require one to be a parent per se. It would require that we set up a track that is friendly to people in that exact position, one where going to school part-time was financially feasible without having a well-heeled spouse or parents, in essence. And I intend for this to be my last comment in this discussion. The uncharitable reading of my remark and the degree to which I am being personally attacked* and dismissed makes it nigh impossible to keep my cool and try to engage in good faith, especially given that I'm simply exhausted at the moment. So I'm just not at my best today. Please consider the fact that I chose to respond to this comment to be an expression of my personal respect for you. Because otherwise I would likely just downvote it and flag it. * At least one ugly remark appears to have been deleted. So if you think I'm overreacting, consider the possibility that you haven't seen some of the comments I've seen.

danans 8y ago

> has far more need of "publicly backed financial support" of her education than an upper middle class mom. I never said that the benefit should be available to upper-middle class moms. It's easy enough to phase out the benefit based on income. In fact, I gave the example of upper middle class people already having this kind of privilege (attending college paid for by their spouse).

philipov 8y ago
Means testing is a time-proven method of discouraging work and stripping people of dignity.
- danans 8y ago
  Then make the benefit universal (like UBI), and adjust tax brackets of the wealthy to ensure they don't directly benefit.
- taysic 8y ago
  Stripping of dignity? Don't agree with that. I think means testing has its issues but its far more fair than lottery type support such as rent control or fixed property taxes which can help the top 1% for no real reason. The big question mark over UBI - is can society afford it?