Strict Father, Nanny State, And Toddlers Running Wild

[bloom]

Some of you probably remember Lakoff's model - where you have the Strict Father (the Authoritarian, Conservative) or the Nurturing Parent (Liberal).

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust


The Strict Father is the idea of the embodied in Right-Wing churches - where God and/or the Father tells everybody what to do and they are supposed to do it. He is against feminism, against multiculturalism, against anything that goes against male authority. Concern is for the rights of the individual (esp. white men - those in power).

The Nurturing Parent Model is the idea of shared responsibilities. The idea that children are brought up with ideas of equality, and community responsibility. It is based on education, looking for solutions to problems. Has an interest in the public good.


The Nanny State idea - seems to take this and give it a new twist (I think the concept pre-dated Lakoffs model). So the idea is presumably you have the people, the nannies, who want to protect people - with the presumption that those people are essentially toddlers running loose who need protection. People don't want to be seen as toddlers - so they don't like it. People rebelling against the Rule makers and enforcers. The implication seems to be that Nannies (unlike Strict Fathers who would be sensible) are capricious and create rules and regulations for no reason.


If you look at how this is put into practice - you have the right-wingers yelling "Nanny State, Nanny State" over things like people who would like to regulate industry for the most part. Things like regulating pollution, for instance. This could easily be seen as Toddlers (industry) who want to be able to poop whenever and wherever they please. IOW - they haven't been potty trained.

Another example is the restaurant lobby being outraged that some people who want to legislate them from using trans fat. That could also be seen as the Toddler who wants to put anything in his or her mouth and everyone else's mouth - regardless of whether it is food or just something lying around on the floor. How dare those Nannies not let him/her do that?!?

The Nanny State idea came up yesterday with the case of the father driving 103mph in a construction zone with his son in the car - possibly while driving. The insinuation was that the police were acting in a Nanny State manner. But it sounds like an infantile argument to suggest that someone drive a car that irresponsibly - without regard to safety - the well-being of himself or anyone else. Very Toddler like.

It also came up with the idea of smoking bans. That could also be like the trans fat issue. It seems like the implication for that is also something along the lines of "well Daddy lets us" - so what's the matter with the Nanny? - doesn't she know that Daddy lets us do unhealthy things? She must be a bad Nanny - to go against Daddy, like that. At any rate - the argument for smoking is pretty much from the infantile, oral fixation stage and has nothing to do with the community or public good.

As matter of fact - I am for more regulations. I'm not for regulating people's behavior that doesn't adversely affect others - the way it is, though, a lot of people won't admit when their behavior adversely affects others. I would come down hard on pollution and the destruction of resources, on the wasting of resources. I would pretty much require that people conserve - somehow or other. Instead of letting the Toddler mentality run wild.

Our country has been run by a bunch of Toddlers who are mad at their nannies and/or mommies and/or daddies. They want to poop where and when they want, bully others when and where they want, steal from others when and where they want, take everything for themselves and not share with others. And basically create a mess and not clean up after themselves. And of course - the lies. It will take some nurturing adults to straighten things out.


Some people tried to argue that to think of the Nanny as a woman - is sexist - in regards to my accusation that the Nanny State argument is sexist. But that sounds like an infantile argument as well. As if the toddlers can lie to the Nanny and she won't know it. That's part of the fun of the whole Nanny State thing. Whether people want to admit it or not - it's the argument for the right to be seen as an toddler (interest in private rights) instead of as an adult who is responsible and honest (interest in the public good).

P.S. nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/ has an image of Mary Poppins with a NO symbol across her. People know what the Nanny image is.


Also - from lwfern

"men apparently occupy one to two percent of domestic childcare positions." http://www.themanny.com/faq.htm#howlong

It's funny it's only used for negative associations; not sure (other than females = bad) why it isn't used when we're talking about positive things that protect us. Nobody complains about safety regulations that they LIKE as being part of a nanny state. So corporate pollution rules that protect us, or FDA drug testing, or testing for mad cow disease or universal health care isn't referred to in those terms (except by neocons who oppose those things). Imagine someone referring to getting body armor for the troops as being part of a nanny state - it wouldn't happen, eh? Why is that?

________________________________

Nanny state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

The term nanny state, used especially in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, is a derogatory term for state protectionism, interventionism, or regulation policies as they are perceived as being institutionalized as common practice. Its usage varies by political context, but in general it is used in reference to policies where the state is characterized as being excessive in its desire to protect ("nanny"), govern or control particular aspects of society. Which particular aspects are considered or claimed to be excessively protected depends on usage. Political usage of the term confines itself in accordance with scope, referring to:
• national economic and social policies (regulation and intervention) that affect large and state-favored businesses, or
• international trade policies that favor native corporate industries (protectionism).

nanny state
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nanny%20state

n. Informal
A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.


OPINION: San Francisco Is Nanny State U.S.A.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/02/08/cstillwell.DTL

Those who favor smaller government will likely be familiar with the term "nanny state." A nanny state is defined as "a government which tries to give too much advice or make too many laws about how people should live, especially about eating, smoking or drinking alcohol." Perhaps not coincidentally, nanny states and blue states tend to go hand in hand.
Indeed, if you're searching for the epitome of the ultimate nanny state, look no farther than San Francisco....

Myth of the Liberal Nanny State
http://www.alternet.org/story/36895/

Our economic arrangements, and the political discourse that supports them, balance precariously on some deeply held myths.
Among the most fanciful is the notion that conservatives are self-reliant actors who embrace a private sector free from government meddling. Supposedly, the right is content to take on the free-market with strength and skill, and let the chips fall where they may, while liberals look to the state to be their protective nanny, there to iron out the wrinkles of a dynamic, entrepreneurial society....

Britain needs the nanny state now more than ever
http://society.guardian.co.uk/futureforpublicservices/comment/0,,1114555,00.html

Our politicians have a duty to protect citizens from global predators

Jackie Ashley
Thursday January 1, 2004
The Guardian

The "nanny state" is a strange, snobby, fusty phrase. In the minds of well-off male politicians of the post-war era, it was a straightforward sneer. "Nanny" was a bossy, female authoritarian figure they half-remembered telling them to drink their castor oil and wash behind their ears before bedtime.

The tens of millions of people for whom state intervention was most needed would have never come across "nanny" in their lives, except perhaps as "nan", as in granny....Despite all this, the cobwebbed phrase has stuck with rightwing politicians and commentators. Like the 1922 committee and whipping, it is political jargon that has long outlived its origins. Unlike them, it is loaded and always hostile. The target is government meddling and interference in private lives. And it is interesting that meddling is given a female form. The nanny state wears skirts....

The crucial point which critics of the nanny state fail to mention is that individuals and families don't stand alone. None of us lives in a neutral social space, unharassed, and free to make wise long-term choices. Whatever the philosophical ideal, in the real world we are bombarded by corporate messages cajoling us and our children to consume and borrow. We are inhabitants of the more, now, spend-it, eat-it society, which - let us not forget - boosts the profits of the multinationals...
But this is only half the story. Affluent families have more freedom to deal with the consequences. They buy the fresh food which isn't loaded with sugar and salt. They buy mounds of expensive fruit for their children. They pay subscriptions for gyms and health clubs, and go on pricey diets. They are better-educated about health issues and they buy the parenting books. They can respond to the latest "must-have" (always a lie) advertising for electronic goodies without falling into crippling debt. Oh yes, and they can buy in domestic help - nannies and their successors....

[wtmusic]

1. Although you say "I'm not for regulating people's behavior

that doesn't adversely affect others" you go on to list behavior which most certainly does affect others:

"They want to poop where and when they want, bully others when and where they want, steal from others when and where they want, take everything for themselves and not share with others."

Isn't that where the line should be drawn, and not at free choice issues? Like whether you like your food with trans-fats, or like to smoke cigarettes away from other people? :shrug:

[bloom]

4. I had a response

and then my computer crashed. I'll try again.


I like having an FDA which requires food to be food - to not be poisonous or diseased, etc. (Japan inspects their meat a lot more than we do - for instance). It's mostly the restaurant business that is pushing the idea that people should be free to die from trans fat if they wish. Several chains have gotten rid of using trans fat - so it's not like it's necessary. And I really don't believe that the public "likes" trans fat. If they do - it's probably all from propaganda anyway.

see this guys rant: http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/tom_feran/index.ssf?/base/living/116107410383550.xml&coll=2&thispage=1


Propaganda/advertising is the problem with a lot of these issues. It ends up being a sort of discrimination against people who fall for all that crap.


And really - when it's a matter of defending these companies right to sell people crap (or pollute or whatever)? It's not really much of a stand. It's mostly a defense of fraudulent, criminal companies.

As far as the smoking thing goes - I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE being able to go out to bars and restaurants that are smoke-free. Because of the smoking ban. I would be concerned that limiting people to their homes could be a hazard to children. So I'm not against bans - I do think they should be well thought out.

Certainly bans can go overboard - like Prohibition.

I lived in Kentucky for awhile and it was funny to me how these things like smoking and gambling and drinking were embraced - on the one hand. And then you had dry counties on the other. I don't believe in such extremes. I do believe that there can and should be regulation of various things for the public good, though.

[wtmusic]

7. Good points, all.

:thumbsup:

[noamnety]

6. If I read it right

The focus of this particular OP is not on which behaviors should or shouldn't be regulated; that's a side note. The focus here is on the implications of the language we use when we sum up the idea of regulation.

[seabeyond]

2. are you kidding. i am watching post after post, adults equivalent to child

potential dangers.... good of whole.....

the nanny threat is totaly opposed to reason and logic and if there is the slightest of possibly that a danger may exist regardless of odds and chance, slap a law on them for the good of the whole and taking care of a stupid person that wont take care of self.

i am as disgusted with this attitude as i am with the right. justify validate all you want.... but repugs ignored their self righteousness just as much as those promoting it on this board.... to their own peril, as we saw just a week ago.

[seabeyond]

3. the fundies want s carolina.... give calif to the nannys and let the

rest of us alone to live our life in an adult, responsible manner of competence... getting along with our neighbors without need of camera or bible to dictate every move

[Der Blaue Engel]

5. I'll take California any day, thanks

So, after reading the entire post about the sexism inherent in the term "nanny state" you only see the evil, bossy nanny. Interesting.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. So, Everything With Which You Disagree Is Infantile?

Now, isn't that convenient? Sort of blots out any room for debate, doesn't it?
The Professor

[mongo]

16. It's sad to see

a progressive that can only be described using terms of the right. Liberal elitist comes to mind...

[bloom]

22. No - I disagree with a lot of things

and everything I disagree with is not infantile.


It is the "Nanny Staters" who are painting themselves into a nursery through their use of language. I just figured that I would follow it through.


I don't think that most people would have a problem with this statement:

Our country has been run by a bunch of Toddlers who are mad at their nannies and/or mommies and/or daddies. They want to poop where and when they want, bully others when and where they want, steal from others when and where they want, take everything for themselves and not share with others. And basically create a mess and not clean up after themselves. And of course - the lies. It will take some nurturing adults to straighten things out.


It's fine as long as we see only the Freepers and Neocon types as being self-interested people. The problem we are having is people who want to identify with some of that:


"I'm sorry to sound like a Freeper, but this sounds like Leftist Nanny Statism"


...admittedly using the same frames that the Freepers are using.


The undoing of regulations that protect us - the people - has been one of the disasters of BushCo. I think that people who are making the arguments against the so-called "Nanny State" have been sold the same bill of goods - maybe with different packaging.

If people don't want identify with Toddlers - I think it's up to them to use different language. It would also be a good thing if people saw the Freeper/Neocons as the private rights type - selfish people that they are. Not as people who have some sort of clear insights about the public good.

[piedmont]

9. I don't want a strict father or a nanny

I don't give a rip if the symbology is masculine or feminine. Government interference in the private lives of individuals should be kept to a minimum. Idiots who yell "nanny state!!" about pollution laws are using the term incorrectly, imo, and dilute its usefulness. Legislation that outlaws acts that harm others is sensible. Legislation that outlaws actions that harm no one but the person committing the act, or that outlaws all means of committing the act, is unrealistic nanny-stateism or father state-ism or whatever you want to call it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Arguing about language is pointless.

Nanny state is sexist, rebelling against excessively intrusive laws is infantile?

Bah.

I don't smoke. I don't own a gun. I do wear a motorcycle helmet. I don't do drugs, I don't drink to excess, I don't drive fast with my kids in the car and I don't run with scissors or other pointy objects.

Nevertheless, in every one of those personal choices the alternative isn't harm but potential harm. The discussions on these topics are not about punishing the harm that actions have caused but limiting personal autonomy because society knows better than I what is an appropriate calculated risk.

In the OP, conveniently omitted is the primary issue of the guy driving fast, not that he was ticketed for reckless driving, but that he was charged with a crime of violence as a result of the risk that fast driving caused. I once saw a pregant woman jogging, is she similarly guilty of child endangerment?

Preventing mass harm due to a pursuit of profit (the job of the Food and Drug administration) is a good thing. Preventing individual harm by limiting personal freedom is something else.

At one time, this was a country of inventors. People could try new things. Experiment. We could fix our stuff. We could build our own homes. We could be self-reliant. This is a thing of the past due to the unhealthy partnership between social paranoia and professional self-interest.

You don't like the term "nanny state". Fine - let's talk about the topic of unhealthy public intrusion into personal autonomy and not sidetrack the very real issue into gender language demagoguery.

[noamnety]

12. disagreeing here

Language has impact.

Language that consistently and systemically casts women as lesser, trivial, shrew-like, etc. has impact. Language that consistently casts men as all-powerful and heroic has impact.

I suspect women are more aware of that then men. It's easy to look past things that don't affect your own class of people.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Be clear: you're disagreeing with a point...

... which I specifically avoided addressing.

I suspect most of "my own class of people", could care less what term is used as synonymous with "excessively-intrusive law".

This kind of gender-language deflection does not befit the importance of the topic.

Geez. Can't we discuss anything without it degenerating into a debate on how the generally-understood terminology demeans someone? It's wierd.

(disclaimer: I hope I didn't just offend any people afflicted with off-putting or highly-unusual patterns of dress, hygiene, language or behavior. "Wierd" is just a generally-accepted term. Describing this conversation as weird is not intended to promulgate hurtful stereotypes ingrained in the normal-centric society, etc., etc.)
:sarcasm:

[noamnety]

17. This is a thread partly about linguistics

There are other threads that focus more exclusively on the issue that you seem to be concerned with.

DU is large enough to support a conversation on both topics. It's not an either-or issue.

Saying that gender-language discussions are inappropriate if they are related to a topic of importance doesn't make a lot of sense. Gender is wrapped up in all kinds of huge issues like the attitudes that lead us into war, environmental damage, etc. I can't see a legitimate purpose in trying to force gender-linguistic issues to stay in a little place where they focus on the trivial.

[seabeyond]

18. wow... could be be more profound? exact? on point?

perfectly said

above and beyond me. i have been struggling with this for a couple days now. not nearly so clear and precise

[Gormy Cuss]

11. A link to an opinion piece by Cinnamon Stillwell?

(the sfgate link)
She's the token clueless conservative on that site. She is a good writer but she doesn't seem to be a deep thinker.
:rofl:

[bloom]

23. It's not like I linked to her because of her insights.

I linked to her more as an example of the Freeper type mentality - which I figured she pretty aptly demonstrated.

[Gormy Cuss]

24. Yes, an excellent choice.

When she replaced the guy who was incoherent most of the time I had hoped that she would be more thoughtful, but no such luck.

[mongo]

14. ..

:popcorn:

Gee, bloom you almost make me wish this was one of my LONG work days...

See ya tomorrow.

[Pithlet]

15. It's enough for me

That people who use that term seriously sound like right wing petulant children. Even when it's a law that I also strongly disagree with. It's getting to the point where I'm considering making it an auto-ignore offense. No matter what the argument is against, if someone uses it seriously? *click* It will be a shame if I have to ignore people I genuinely like otherwise, but that's the price to pay for my sanity. Yes, there are people who suggest ridiculously restricting laws. But lumping them in with all liberals using a right wing talking point just may an an ignore from me.

[madmusic]

19. You're missing something vital here, bloom

First, no one is asking for permission to be a toddler. You think an alcoholic drunk driver is so satisfied with his life that he wants to make it a categorical imperative? Do you really think he thinks everyone should do it?

But let's take a look at the good Nanny State/Strict Father marriage back in the old days: The Progressive Era. They were happily married then and bore many children, some good, some naughty. There is room for debate but maybe we could agree that child labor laws was a good child of theirs. That's also when the precursor to the FDA was born, and far less people died from tainted drugs and food since then. They were obsessed with hygiene - mental, social and the more basic bodily functions type. Germs were new, and they were http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-supp/text/holbo.html">EVERYWHERE. The corporate bully kids on the block were put in check and all children in their neighborhood were a little safer. It was wild times with progress everywhere, and it happened fast. Everything was an emergency because change was so drastic: population explosions in the cities, businesses and factories multiplying over night. Vice everywhere. So Regulation City was the order of the day.

But they had a couple of not so good children: Prohibition and Eugenics. We know what these kids grew up to be. Baby Face Nelson and Hitler. The law of unintended consequences.

Was the Nanny State/Strict Father marriage a necessary and sufficient condition for prohibition/organized crime and the Holocaust? I think so. Aren't the greatest evils done for the moral good? The Holocaust, the witch hunts, the Inquisition and on and on.

I think our Forefathers knew this well. They knew that England thought itself superior, and through moral judgments and laws, England suppressed them. Our Forefathers may have created a patriarchal society when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or maybe not. But we do know one thing for sure: the flipped the big bird to the English patriarchal society and said, "Not here!"

See, they saw the dangers of the Nanny State/Strict Father state, and didn't like what they saw. The sad story is that despite their vision, America sterilized over 60,000 people and exported eugenics to Germany just in time for Hitler to come to power. Their daughter, Eugenics, is still alive and well, but hidden in a back room. If you listen closely, you can her scream and cackle now and then. As to their other child, Prohibition, well, he's still growing strong and has many children of his own. The grandchildren keep Nanny State/Strict Father state busy enough to ensure they are still in control. Grandma and grandpa are just waiting for the day when they can set their daughter free.

[bloom]

20. "Aren't the greatest evils done for the moral good?"

No - and you missed the point. I was not arguing for having the Strict Father/Nanny State (The Strict Father being concerned about everyone's morality) - but for the Nurturing Adult model (whether they are parents or not).

"The Holocaust, the witch hunts, the Inquisition" were sold on Nationalistic and moral/religious superiority grounds, sure - that isn't what I'm talking about. Actually - I think they were also sold on people being worried about their own self - more of a private rights thing. People were convinced that Jews and others were a threat to them and their livelihood. Witches were a threat to them. So it wasn't a concern for others civil rights - but a self-interest that made those atrocities possible. Just like the slavery arguments in this country. Just like the arguments for torture today. The appeal is to people's self-interest. I've even heard people justify torture and the whole war in the interests of our "standard of living". That is all selfishness. And frankly - I would have thought that people around here understood that.


Being interested in the public good, public health, education and welfare are not based on the Moralist Strict Father Image.

Painting such things as being the domain as the Nannies is a right-wing Freeper type trick - which is why another poster wrote:

"I'm sorry to sound like a Freeper, but this sounds like Leftist Nanny Statism"


People know that the Nanny State thing is a favorite of Freeper types. (And while some leftists use it - I think it just confuses things and it ignores the sexist aspect).


I think that it's the people who use the Nanny State term - that put themselves in the position of being Toddlers - who else would be so concerned about how "Nannies" are restricting their lives. If people want to make arguments for people responsible adults - they aren't whining about Nannies.

What I think is a danger to society are people who are arguing for being irresponsible. That is how products are sold to us - irresponsibility is glorified. That is great for corporatism and fascism and all those sorts of isms that people here hate.

You would blame the holocaust on people who are interested in the Public Good (I think that is nuts and unsupported) - I think that the argument against the public good is the argument for the oppression of others.

[madmusic]

21. Oh, ok.

[mongo]

25. "Being interested in the public good, public health, education and welfare...

Being interested in the public good, public health, education and welfare are not based on the Moralist Strict Father Image.

The FDA, which above you give as a great example of an agency working for the "public good", dragged their feet on Plan B for over a year -- one reason I heard given is that they "didn't want to promote promiscuitiy". Not that I want to get rid of the FDA -- just pointing out that "public good" is defined by whoever is in power.

I think that it's the people who use the Nanny State term - that put themselves in the position of being Toddlers - who else would be so concerned about how "Nannies" are restricting their lives. If people want to make arguments for people responsible adults - they aren't whining about Nannies.
Wow. So is anyone concerned by warrentless wiretapping restricting their lives a "whining toddler" too?


Bloom, you are the whining toddler here, who cannot respect other peoples decisions in their own lives.

If you care about the public good so much, then:

Work for universal health care
Work for the regulation of the oil, electric and natural gas industries.
Work at reducing emissions of large industry.
Etc...

There are a ton of things that desperately need to be done in America, that don't involve sticking your nose into other Americans private lives.

But what I see as your pet projects:

Telling everyone what kind of entertainment they should or should not be veiwing.
Telling your fellow DU'ers what language they should or should not use.

That's not the "public good". That's the actions of the strict moralistic father model telling us all how we should run our lives. You have become the very thing you rail against.

[Jed Dilligan]

26. Nice try

However, you have now completely alienated me. I am just fed up with this argument. "If you think drunk driving laws are too harsh, you must be a drunk driver. If you think smoking shouldn't be illegal, you must be a smoker. If you think terrorists shouldn't be tortured, you must be a terrorist." And so on. Has it ever occurred to you that people fight for civil liberties out of anything besides selfishness?

I'm not a "Toddler." I am an adult American. I think speeders should be charged with speeding, not child abuse. And I don't care what sex you are--if you want the government to be deeper in the ass of the average citizen, I'm not on your side.

[seabeyond]

27. yes