Servants - yes or no?

[4consideration]

Unchecked social engineering in this way leads to disaster, the decay of society, and ultimately national dysfunction.

Martin, you really seem to overlooking that -- if there is a problem with the way that people think -- and you are offering "social engineering" as the solution -- what you are advocating is only placing the control over physical activity of a situation in the hands of A DIFFERENT PERSON, who cannot be assumed to magically NOT have the same flaws that people have -- and it is IMO mistakenly assuming the government has the power and the ability to cause a person to feel the way you think they should feel by controlling what they do.

You seem to be advocating allowing some agent of the government to lord it over everyone, in order to stop them from WANTING to lord it over other people, or for using something external as a means of status seeking. I see a problem there. This position is likely to attract the biggest lord it over everyone type of personality in the area.

Too often establishing policies for the purpose of "social engineering" is in danger of simply being: I (We) have determined that I (We) am smarter (or more loving, or more noble) than you. Therefore, the only smart, or loving, or noble thing for us to conclude is that I (We) ought to control every aspect of your life. If you disagree with me (Us) that is evidence that you are not as smart (or loving, or noble) as us and that justifies Us using force against you because of it.

I do not see you arguing in favor of individuals being more loving, tolerant, accepting, caring, etc. on a personal basis. On the individual level, I would suport a person looking deeply at motivation, potential outcome of action, etc -- as long as we are talking about one doing so by their own choice, understanding, and agreement about what is right action in a situation. What I see is you arguing for the use of force (by way of policies) to implement what you think other people ought to do, think and feel. Sorry, but I cannoot agree with you in support of attitudes/ideas that I have a right to lord it over other people -- especially inside their own heads -- and especially in areas of another person's life that has little to NOTHING to do with me.

 

[blackout]

A lot of this is also about status.

The lawnmower or landscaper may well be doing a job that the housewife cannot, thus he is needed specifically.

Also let's not forget that in some instances having a young hunk working in the yard topless is another kind of master/slave situation for the housewife.
Having an alpha male tend her lawn so to speak!

in this instance I may be inclined to allow it, and this may well be a true example of a win-win situation!

What is your fixation with 'housewives'.
It seems to me you have a gender status problem of your own.

First off most women are perfectly capable of mowing their own lawn,
pulling and wacking their own weeds, planting their own greenery and flower, etc etc.
Secondly why on earth do you assume that the female home owner isn't out working just like the male one?
If the woman of the house is out working all week,
making an income
does that somehow trump your so called 'status' problem.

And if we must confine ourSelves to your stereotype,
why isn't it a status issue that there is a male lawn service tending to the yard,
so that the 'man' in the house can have free time with his kids and for himSelf on the weekend?

And me? Forget the shirtless landscapers.
I want a French maid.:flirt:
The one that exists in my dreams........

 

[Kathryn]

What is your fixation with 'housewives'.
It seems to me you have a gender status problem of your own.

First off most women are perfectly capable of mowing their own lawn,
pulling and wacking their own weeds, planting their own greenery and flower, etc etc.
Secondly why on earth do you assume that the female home owner isn't out working just like the male one?
If the woman of the house is out working all week,
making an income
does that somehow trump your so called 'status' problem.

And if we must confine ourSelves to your stereotype,
why isn't it a status issue that there is a male lawn service tending to the yard,
so that the 'man' in the house can have free time with his kids and for himSelf on the weekend?

And me? Forget the shirtless landscapers.
I want a French maid.:flirt:
The one that exists in my dreams........

LOL I nearly died laughing!

This is so ironic. Today is Yard Day here. This means specifically that I - a housewife - gets to go outside, fill up the push lawnmower with gas, and mow our acre lot by myself. Then I get to weed all my flower beds, move sprinklers around, etc. This will take me all day.

Believe me, I wish I had a maid to clean the house while I'm busting my *** in the yard.

Now - for Martin's sake, I want to clarify that I could AFFORD to have both the yard and the house done by someone else. I choose not to, because I don't work outside the home and I've got plenty of time to do it myself. But that's too bad in a way, because I'm sure there are local landscapers and maids who really do need the work.

 

[4consideration]

And me? Forget the shirtless landscapers.

I'll take the shirtless landscapers!

(Don't worry Martin. If they are hunky, they won't even notice that I will appreciate them as "God's artwork." I will behave as though viewing them in a museum. I will merely appreciate the beauty that I see. I will not touch, and I have absolutely no intention of taking them home with me.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll take the shirtless landscapers!
(Don't worry Martin. If they are hunky, they won't even notice that I will appreciate them as "God's artwork." I will behave as though viewing them in a museum. I will merely appreciate the beauty that I see. I will not touch, and I have absolutely no intention of taking them home with me.)

Be careful there, lassie....not all groundskeepers are fetch'n wit they shirts off.
Oft I hear the cry "Put it on! Put it back on! Lard Tunderin Jesus, put yer shirt back on! And a burlap sack over yer head wouldn't hurt either!".

 

[nnmartin]

You seem to be advocating allowing some agent of the government to lord it over everyone, in order to stop them from WANTING to lord it over other people, or for using something external as a means of status seeking. I see a problem there. This position is likely to attract the biggest lord it over everyone type of personality in the area.

What I am trying to achieve here is to demonstrate how we need to change the current method of 'thought police' into a more democratic version.

The system we have today, which operates on all levels is the notion the 'we can all get whatever we want, when we want - and that this should be aspired to'. This ends up with the million ways we have for creating artificial status positions, ranging from having maids to owning the latest flat screen tv - which most of the time we don't need anyway.

This kind of thought pattern begins in the home, then continues through school and the media. The mode of thinking in this manner of elevating the ego above all else is foisted onto us in numerous overt and subliminal ways.

Did it ever occur to you that the Law of Supply and Demand is in fact the wrong way around?

So, instead of subjugating ourselves to its supposed mighty power, we ought to challenge it and at least attempt to diminish its dark force of greed and corruption.

One of the ways we can do this is to start teaching people that there is no real benefit in having others subservient to you merely because you can - it leads to the slippery slope of needing more and more subservience and grandeur in order to compete with others of a similar status.

People cannot begin to think and act in this way as they are only concerned with themselves and their instant gratification or attempts to attain it - thus we need an overarching system of Social Action that can start to provide this new ideology for them.

 

[Kathryn]

What I am trying to achieve here is to demonstrate how we need to change the current method of 'thought police' into a more democratic version.

The system we have today, which operates on all levels is the notion the 'we can all get whatever we want, when we want - and that this should be aspired to'. This ends up with the million ways we have for creating artificial status positions, ranging from having maids to owning the latest flat screen tv - which most of the time we don't need anyway.

This kind of thought pattern begins in the home, then continues through school and the media. The mode of thinking in this manner of elevating the ego above all else is foisted onto us in numerous overt and subliminal ways.

Did it ever occur to you that the Law of Supply and Demand is in fact the wrong way around?

So, instead of subjugating ourselves to its supposed mighty power, we ought to challenge it and at least attempt to diminish its dark force of greed and corruption.

One of the ways we can do this is to start teaching people that there is no real benefit in having others subservient to you merely because you can - it leads to the slippery slope of needing more and more subservience and grandeur in order to compete with others of a similar status.

People cannot begin to think and act in this way as they are only concerned with themselves and their instant gratification or attempts to attain it - thus we need an overarching system of Social Action that can start to provide this new ideology for them.

Maybe you've been watching too many '80s movies.

I don't think that the majority of people who employ maids, or who go thru a drive thru, or sit down at a restaurant, or hire someone to put in flower beds, or whatever, are doing so in order to get someone to be subservient to them. They are doing so for a variety of reasons - and one of those reasons is because they're BUSY doing other things and it's for the sake of CONVENIENCE - not a way to lord something over someone else.

My maid probably has a flat screen TV! Which she bought with money she earned honorably.

 

[4consideration]

Be careful there, lassie....not all groundskeepers are fetch'n wit they shirts off.
Oft I hear the cry "Put it on! Put it back on! Lard Tunderin Jesus, put yer shirt back on! And a burlap sack over yer head wouldn't hurt either!".

Whit are yer sayin' to me frein?

All are not hunky, strappin' lads?

Some are chucky strips o' lard?

 

[4consideration]

What I am trying to achieve here is to demonstrate how we need to change the current method of 'thought police' into a more democratic version.

The system we have today, which operates on all levels is the notion the 'we can all get whatever we want, when we want - and that this should be aspired to'. This ends up with the million ways we have for creating artificial status positions, ranging from having maids to owning the latest flat screen tv - which most of the time we don't need anyway.

This kind of thought pattern begins in the home, then continues through school and the media. The mode of thinking in this manner of elevating the ego above all else is foisted onto us in numerous overt and subliminal ways.

Did it ever occur to you that the Law of Supply and Demand is in fact the wrong way around?

So, instead of subjugating ourselves to its supposed mighty power, we ought to challenge it and at least attempt to diminish its dark force of greed and corruption.

One of the ways we can do this is to start teaching people that there is no real benefit in having others subservient to you merely because you can - it leads to the slippery slope of needing more and more subservience and grandeur in order to compete with others of a similar status.

People cannot begin to think and act in this way as they are only concerned with themselves and their instant gratification or attempts to attain it - thus we need an overarching system of Social Action that can start to provide this new ideology for them.

Martin, we don't need thought police. Police use force. They are currently necessary to protect people from the harmful action of other people. What you trying to do, I think, is change people's motivation.

IMO there is a huge difference between approaching a situation that we would like to affect change from the perspective of promoting a change of heart/change of attitude about something by revealing a better way or a new perspective on the situtation -- and seeking to force an action or enforce an idea as though change can only be done through the use of pressure. The application of pressure provides for a push-back response, and I just see that as often more harmful than necessary.

I agree that there is much about our current society that is ego-based -- things are marketed to the ego, ego-driven action, etc...we can certainly discuss issues from that perspective. But first, IMO we are talking about something (Ego) that is simply a false identity. It is a mental image that we hold about ourselves and try to make real by providing constant affirmation of it's existence. I think that is what you are trying to address here. The ego isn't just about the stuff and images we feel good about, though. The ego can also be an image that you are less than, or unworthy -- and therefore, need to do something or buy something to make up for what is lacking. The ego is equally willing to make a person miserable as to make a person feel swelled up. It's just trying to empower itself and survive.

As I see it, you are not really going to disempower the ego through methods of enforcement that simply place another version of ego in place of the one we have. The belief that I (we) are so much smarter than another person, that we ought to force our own will upon that person, when it does not directly affect our lives -- is an ego driven belief. Society needs to place some restrictions upon behavior in order to protect people's life and property from the attack of others. But, society is not capable of being the source of Love. Love as a motivator must come from the individual. BUT, Love CANNOT be forced from the individual. A group of individuals motivated by Love can do wonderfully, miraculous things. The power does not really come from the sheer numbers, but from the love present that is multiplied.

Love wants things to work. With proper understanding of the benefits of certain action, most people will choose the action that benefits the most. Guilt can be used as a motivator (and feelings of guilt can be our internal alarm system) but the big drawback there is that guilt requires a villian, a guilty party. It is an approach that often involves harshness and punishment, rather than simple elevation of understanding. The use of guilt and force, rather than understanding, to bring about change often ends tragically in some way. That may have been the way it's been done for much of history. But, I don't think it is the only way.

If we talk about what we can do to change the world, I would love to talk to you about what we can do to change our own behavior or attitudes from a new or deeper level of understanding. But I will not support forcing my ideas upon someone else, except I reserve the right to act in protection of what I consider to be right -- if I perceive their intentions to be attempting to apply force in a way that I forsee a negative result likely.

There is more that I would like to say on this matter, but this post is getting long and I am sleepy and would like to go to bed before it is time to get up.

 

[nnmartin]

ok, that is an interesting post.

how do you feel we can deal with the ego issue in a more positive manner and really try to change people's attitudes?

Most systems in the past that have been tried have simply not come up to scratch.

 

[LongGe123]

I have a part-time maid who comes twice a week. I don't see what the issue with having servants would be. I mean, if you pay them a fair wage and treat them right, then where's the point of contention? The OP sounded a bit like it was a moral dilemma or something. I think if you posed the question "would you have slaves if it was legal?" would spark a more...spirited...discussion.

If I had the money, I'd get a full-time butler. I'd probably also get a cook. At the very least though, having someone to come and clean your house is always cool. I love getting home from work and seeing the apartment looking all **** and span. It's a good thing! haha

 

[LongGe123]

just realizeed that part of the phrase i used to mean clean and tidy may have been taken as a racial slur, hahahahaha, never thought of that before!

 

[nnmartin]

how about if you don't treat them right and only give them a very low wage - would that be acceptable?

Let's say that there was mass unemployment and people were prepared to work for subsistence wages only - how would you feel then?

how would you feel about being a maid yourself?

 

[Kathryn]

how about if you don't treat them right and only give them a very low wage - would that be acceptable?

Let's say that there was mass unemployment and people were prepared to work for subsistence wages only - how would you feel then?

how would you feel about being a maid yourself?

I've been a maid before. I felt fine about it. In fact, I enjoyed the work.

 

[Draka]

I've been a maid before. I felt fine about it. In fact, I enjoyed the work.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times you have pointed that out, he seems to ignore it every time.

I've actually been thinking of applying to a local maid service once both the kids are in school. It's a possibility.

 

[4consideration]

ok, that is an interesting post.

how do you feel we can deal with the ego issue in a more positive manner and really try to change people's attitudes?

Most systems in the past that have been tried have simply not come up to scratch.

Gandhi said it beautifully: "You must be the change you want to see in the world."

This isn't just nice sounding words. It is practical. Actually being that change is something you do have control over. It is one of the few things within your own immediate sphere of influence for change. Wanting, wishing for, being angry over and fretting about things will not do anything to change the situation if it is far removed from your sphere of influence.

We can start with what we can personally change.

You (a person) CAN CHANGE what you do, what you think, what your attitudes are, what issues, ideas or perspective you support. You can change what you do with your time, how you view and treat other people. You can change whether or not your actions come from a place of love, one that considers the right course of action to be that which respects the well-being of all concerned.

There are some things that involve other people that you can influence indirectly. And, those would be the causes that you support, ideas and attitudes that you share with other, like those presented in discussions. But, it is important to remember that we can only possibly influence another person, we cannot make their internal changes or decisions for them. But, I think we have a better chance of influencing another for positive change if we come from a place of honesty, respect and love than if we try to verbally beat them over the head with our ego-based assertions about how right we are.

There is a sense of steadfastness involved in supporting what one believes in his heart to be right and correct that is different from the rigid, unyielding position of the ego. That is when we are strong enough to be gentle.

It is easier to focus upon the tragedies and injustices that occur in some other area of the world, than it is to work on your own attitudes and behavior. (This is so for all of us, IMO, and not directed at you personally.) We may think we are doing something good there, but really if we can't actually do anything about the situation, we may simply be focusing on what we cannot affect, and overlooking (or avoiding) what we can affect.

So, the way to affect ego-domination in the world is to stop being dominated by one's own ego. Once a person can see one's own ego domination and simply choose to reclaim authority from it in a given situation, it becomes much easier to see it and cease to be dominated by someone else's ego (or opinion) in situations of life. Actually interacting with other people through the medium of love, rather than through the ego will have a ripple affect, even if you don't personally see how far the ripples travel.

Does that adequately answer your question?

 

[nnmartin]

ok, thanks - I'll get back to you on that later, a bit pushed for time right now.

 

[nnmartin]

I
I've actually been thinking of applying to a local maid service once both the kids are in school. It's a possibility.

do you mean to be a maid, or to hire one?

 

[Draka]

do you mean to be a maid, or to hire one?

Be one, of course. Once my kids are in school I'd like to have a job that would allow me part-time work where I could both drop off my kids at school and pick them up afterwards. I don't like the idea of putting my kids in daycare or some other after-school care program when they are so little. Being a maid would allow for flexibility in my schedule, bring in extra income, and still be able to care for my children the way I want. Not to mention that as a maid I might have opportunity to talk with more affluent people in the community that, once they know me and my education, might be able to lend a hand in finding perhaps an even better job once I am ready to enter the workforce full-time. If I do a good job for them, show them how reliable I am and personable, then they may make for good references in later job pursuits. Not to mention, when I set my mind to it, I can make a place shine and shimmer like new.

 

[nnmartin]

Gandhi said it beautifully: "You must be the change you want to see in the world."

So, the way to affect ego-domination in the world is to stop being dominated by one's own ego. Once a person can see one's own ego domination and simply choose to reclaim authority from it in a given situation, it becomes much easier to see it and cease to be dominated by someone else's ego (or opinion) in situations of life. Actually interacting with other people through the medium of love, rather than through the ego will have a ripple affect, even if you don't personally see how far the ripples travel.

Does that adequately answer your question?

Well , it all sounds good in theory - and if we could all attain this then the world would be a better place for sure.

Unfortunately though, most people don't really take on board this way of thinking and so just carry on in their own manner, and choose to do whatever suits them best.

How can we expect people to change when all the artificial capitalist wants are forced into their minds from the youngest of ages?

I believe I was actually almost laughed out of the classroom when I suggested that the supply and demand law ought to be inversed so that we could all help each other out, and that was some time ago.

Nowadays, someone saying something like that would be considered an absolute joke!

Perhaps nihilism is the way forward...