Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

[LisaA]

I think you misunderstand me. I said the black family and black societies were decimated before the industrial revolution. Forced mass migration by way of the slave trade and separation of families according to the labor needs of plantations rather than according to kinship, caused social breakdown. Even apart from slavery, land use policies and the needs of industry (e.g. in Africa and elsewhere) led to mass movements of men from the countryside to the areas where there labor was required. The result? In multiple, post-colonial countries (the Caribbean comes to mind) households were headed by women and the pursuit of employment for economic survival, tore men from their families until such living arrangements became part of the culture. There were, of course, other contributory factors but the historical train of events is clear. Limiting the scope to present conditions here, it may seem that welfare is to blame, but what explains similar family dynamics in countries where government assistance is practically zero?

Except that what happened in post colonial countries isn’t relevante to the discussion. There have been many horrible regimes in other countries and there is precious little we can do about it. And nothing can be done to change history. Our own history isn’t without some disgraceful episodes but thankfully slavery has been against the law for nearly 200 years. Despite the horrors experienced, the black family proved to be very reslient to the forces of racism, Jim Crow, limited opportunities, poverty and segregated schooling. I think if you were to look at statistics of marriage, there wasn’t the huge racial divide that exists today. It’s a credit to the strength of the family that it withstood all of the assaults resulting from our history of slavery.

However in America, where I live and I assume you live as well, we can look at the destruction of the black family and point to the rise of welfare benefits and the reduction of social stigma for unwed births as the reason 70% of black babies are born to unmarried women. The family unit, instead of being a self giving team of two married parents working together is now often a single female with multiple children from multiple relationships. There is no father in the home. No one is working full time. In effect the State has become the husband and father of these women and children. Each subsequent generation having never seen a cohesive family unit becomes more and more detached from that structure. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy but instead of changing our methodology we simply demand more money, more programs, and no results.

It’s a bit far afield to be discussing the demise of the black family but the common thread is that the outside forces that have damaged families (secularism, materialism, socialism feminism, etc) have been particularly destructive in the black community.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

You’re off the mark on tobacco… having traveled to other countries, they’re well aware of cigarettes and various types of tobacco. It’s not like “French Cigarettes” were frozen tobacco leaves dropped into boiling oil at McDonalds and later exported to unsuspecting lungs.

How am I off the mark? I’m not saying that foreign countries never knew tobacco products but I am saying that globalization of trade has been used as an excuse to market these products to the most vulnerable population segments of low-income countries specifically. Here is one perspective on tobacco marketing in the third world; there are many others involved in that debate. As regulations get tightened in developed countries, companies seek their markets among the world’s poor.

Per the questionable food/seed- this is an issue conservatives and liberals alike should be able to agree on. Monsanto and similar are outright evil and they’re doing nothing but genetic experimentation at the level of seeds. Where does it end? From India to Iraq to the good old USA, farmers are not happy with this.

I find this very interesting:

I find it interesting because it could just as easily be said of totalitarian/socialist systems. You’ve done nothing more than describe the human condition of “haves” and “have not’s”, a situation which will never be resolved outside of Christ’s return and even then it carries into eternity: have beatific vision or view Hell; I believe the Good Lord, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed such a system to show His mercy to all. No man is greater than the starving man with nothing to his name but Jesus Christ. We should all be so lucky for that opportunity to count on God only in the throes of life and death; from there- charity, true charity, can take place.

I’m not saying we should exacerbate the condition of the poor to maintain a “grateful” caste, but that we shouldn’t immediately think that any system is HQed in Shangri-La, nor should we buy into the notion that any system forthcoming is such a paradise in its strictest practice because the #1 failing of any and all systems is morality.

I agree. As per a preceding post: it is part of man’s imperfect human condition to take advantage of others. I don’t really see it as being the fault of a particular economic system.

When morals go, love goes, and when love goes, the most ardent attempts at affecting a proper society and system go to pot.

I agree here also, with the qualification that sexual morality is not the only (or even the initial) morality whose decline leads to decline of the family. There are places I know, where transactional sex is a common coping mechanism for the unemployed (be it due to age, lack of skills or a poor economy), but that strategy may persist as a way of advancement in the work place; so it becomes a chicken or egg question.

I have no idea what a “black perspective” is but a joke. It’s just as much of a joke as a “white” perspective. Well, which white guy/woman? Which Latino? Asian? Indian? Arab? Muslim? Christian? Jew?

I fail to see the joke. One poster may be completely correct in portraying women working outside the home as a consequence of women’s liberation. I would also be perfectly accurate in portraying it as a legacy of socioeconomic disadvantage. We are both speaking from the experiences of our families/communities - which happen to be quite different, i.e. we have two different perspectives, often because of distinct racial backgrounds. That is not to say race is the only characteristic which defines a perspective, but it is a major defining factor.

Whatever happened to humanity? Can’t we just step back and say, “well, as humans, what is best?”? No, not until sin is rid from this world.

Acknowledging the history of why things are the way they are, is in no way an argument for moving forward in the same vein. However, to properly address a problem it is usually necessary to first identify its cause and the drivers which allow it to persist.

 

[BlindManWalking]

How am I off the mark? I’m not saying that foreign countries never knew tobacco products but I am saying that globalization of trade has been used as an excuse to market these products to the most vulnerable population segments of low-income countries specifically. Here is one perspective on tobacco marketing in the third world; there are many others involved in that debate. As regulations get tightened in developed countries, companies seek their markets among the world’s poor.

The foundational problem with such a charge is that the “poor” and “undeveloped” actually developed tobacco agriculture and have always used tobacco.

The irony of “bringing up the poor” to a rich standard is that now they actually do eat cake, in terms of actual food.

Just like women’s lib actually contributed to the full on objectification of women.

Eschewing tradition in lieu of some misguided attempt at improvement, without full consideration of the consequences, results in half-baked societies.

 

[seekerz]

Except that what happened in post colonial countries isn’t relevante to the discussion. There have been many horrible regimes in other countries and there is precious little we can do about it. And nothing can be done to change history. Our own history isn’t without some disgraceful episodes but thankfully slavery has been against the law for nearly 200 years. Despite the horrors experienced, the black family proved to be very reslient to the forces of racism, Jim Crow, limited opportunities, poverty and segregated schooling. I think if you were to look at statistics of marriage, there wasn’t the huge racial divide that exists today. It’s a credit to the strength of the family that it withstood all of the assaults resulting from our history of slavery.

However in America, where I live and I assume you live as well, we can look at the destruction of the black family and point to the rise of welfare benefits and the reduction of social stigma for unwed births as the reason 70% of black babies are born to unmarried women. The family unit, instead of being a self giving team of two married parents working together is now often a single female with multiple children from multiple relationships. There is no father in the home. No one is working full time. In effect the State has become the husband and father of these women and children. Each subsequent generation having never seen a cohesive family unit becomes more and more detached from that structure. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy but instead of changing our methodology we simply demand more money, more programs, and no results.

It’s a bit far afield to be discussing the demise of the black family but the common thread is that the outside forces that have damaged families (secularism, materialism, socialism feminism, etc) have been particularly destructive in the black community.

Lisa

Your posts make me chuckle, Lisa. You seem so quick to define what is and is not relevant to a discussion.

I’m black - I’ve spent considerable time in the third world. When I hear people who are neither black nor in possession of the world perspective on this issue, try to blame family patterns which are virtually identical in different spots of the globe, on the welfare system in one spot, forgive me if I find that ludicrous.

 

[BlindManWalking]

Your posts make me chuckle, Lisa. You seem so quick to define what is and is not relevant to a discussion.

I’m black - I’ve spent considerable time in the third world. When I hear people who are neither black nor in possession of the world perspective on this issue, try to blame family patterns which are virtually identical in different spots of the globe, on the welfare system in one spot, forgive me if I find that ludicrous.

So what of blacks with a world perspective?

What about a black man with a perspective of a former slave?

What about a black man who is educated beyond the level of many of the white idiots espousing welfare?

Your insistence to bring race into the issue as a defining factor allows race to be brought into the issue. It’s like opening a can of worms. You do not really want to do that as suddenly race becomes something other than culture and mere aesthetics.

There’s plenty of evidence that in the West, Lisa is in fact correct.

What happens in other countries must be examined from those perspectives, but race?

Seems like you’re trying to take two steps forward, and four back while calling it progress…

 

[seekerz]

The foundational problem with such a charge is that the “poor” and “undeveloped” actually developed tobacco agriculture and have always used tobacco.

The irony of “bringing up the poor” to a rich standard is that now they actually do eat cake, in terms of actual food.

Just like women’s lib actually contributed to the full on objectification of women.

Eschewing tradition in lieu of some misguided attempt at improvement, without full consideration of the consequences, results in half-baked societies.

The tobacco companies benefiting from the trade and aid rules of globalization (where in some cases it is anathema for either women or children to smoke) are international ones, pushed out of their own countries by increasingly restrictive legislation. It’s a fairly easy topic to research.

 

[seekerz]

So what of blacks with a world perspective?

What about a black man with a perspective of a former slave?

What about a black man who is educated beyond the level of many of the white idiots espousing welfare?

Your insistence to bring race into the issue as a defining factor allows race to be brought into the issue. It’s like opening a can of worms. You do not really want to do that as suddenly race becomes something other than culture and mere aesthetics.

There’s plenty of evidence that in the West, Lisa is in fact correct.

What happens in other countries must be examined from those perspectives, but race?

Seems like you’re trying to take two steps forward, and four back while calling it progress…

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I acknowledge the welfare system as a contributing factor but not as the main or instigating one. I don’t understand the passion in these arguments; these are for the most part historical facts of life that people have found ways of coping with - sometimes pretty well too.

 

[LisaA]

Your posts make me chuckle, Lisa. You seem so quick to define what is and is not relevant to a discussion.

I’m black - I’ve spent considerable time in the third world. When I hear people who are neither black nor in possession of the world perspective on this issue, try to blame family patterns which are virtually identical in different spots of the globe, on the welfare system in one spot, forgive me if I find that ludicrous.

Well you are mistaken in thinking I was blaming breakdown of the family in “post colonial societies” on American welfare practices. I maintain if you look at the thread, whether tobacco or junk food is being foisted off on Kenyans isn’t particularly relevant to “Why is the USCCB So Big on Women Working.” I can’t quite connect the dots between evil agricultural practices in Africa and whether the US Bishops want women to work but maybe you can help.

At any rate the only conclusion I mentioned in my post is that the welfare system and the lack of social stigma regarding unwed mothers in the USA has been a source of destruction in the black community and increasingly in the lower income white and Hispanic communities. Any system that DISCOURAGES marriage while simultaneously providing multiple types of financial support of women who have babies out of wedlock is going to result in more of the same. Reward a behavior, get more of it. Give an incentive for a behavior, get more of it. Daniel Patrick Moynihan sounded the alarm decades ago and no one listened.

I don’t think statistics support the theory that the black family in the USA was destroyed by the Industrial Revolution or capitalism. I think our social services system, the promotion of victimhood and entitlement has been the real cause.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Well you are mistaken in thinking I was blaming breakdown of the family in “post colonial societies” on American welfare practices. I maintain if you look at the thread, whether tobacco or junk food is being foisted off on Kenyans isn’t particularly relevant to “Why is the USCCB So Big on Women Working.” I can’t quite connect the dots between evil agricultural practices in Africa and whether the US Bishops want women to work but maybe you can help.

If you followed the thread, which I assume you have, there was a discussion on the effects of capitalism on the family/society. That’s how globalization came in, if you really need an explanation of why we thought it an appropriate topic of conversation for this thread. Didn’t think we needed approval to expand the scope of the discussion. Knowledge is a good thing if well used and ideas are not threats unless manipulated toward bad ends.

At any rate the only conclusion I mentioned in my post is that the welfare system and the lack of social stigma regarding unwed mothers in the USA has been a source of destruction in the black community and increasingly in the lower income white and Hispanic communities. Any system that DISCOURAGES marriage while simultaneously providing multiple types of financial support of women who have babies out of wedlock is going to result in more of the same. Reward a behavior, get more of it. Give an incentive for a behavior, get more of it. Daniel Patrick Moynihan sounded the alarm decades ago and no one listened.

I don’t think statistics support the theory that the black family in the USA was destroyed by the Industrial Revolution or capitalism. I think our social services system, the promotion of victimhood and entitlement has been the real cause.

We differ in opinions and that’s okay too. I respect your right to see things that way and agree that many people do, not just you.

 

[LisaA]

If you followed the thread, which I assume you have, there was a discussion on the effects of capitalism on the family/society. That’s how globalization came in, if you really need an explanation of why we thought it an appropriate topic of conversation for this thread. Didn’t think we needed approval to expand the scope of the discussion. Knowledge is a good thing if well used and ideas are not threats unless manipulated toward bad ends.

We differ in opinions and that’s okay too. I respect your right to see things that way and agree that many people do, not just you.

No once again, you have misunderstood. I didn’t think the globalization issue was relevant and thus didn’t speak to it until you claimed I was blaming third world problems on the US welfare system. Frankly I was trying to stay OUT of that part of the discussion since I thought it irrelevant. You can discuss whatever you want on this thread and I can respond to what is relevant to me. No harm no foul.

So you don’t believe the welfare system and our lack of social stigma regarding unwed mothers is the reason for the demise of the black family? Just want some clarification.

Lisa

 

[Captain_America]

The problem is that, unless you are personally biased, uncaring or non-understanding, gender issues need to be seen from the societal aspect rather than simply from the individual perspective. There are very many men who will go overboard to be fair, caring and open - there is no reason for them to personalize the observations that many things in society still need to change for there to be true gender equality.

I rather disagree. It seems an easy thing to simply tell a person “ah, you just don’t understand,” or “your view is limited (and not as high and intellectual as mine)”.

I think the “gender equality” notion is a chimera, a made up thing, a false goal. I’m just not as Kantian as you! I have a hard time even understanding how this is a very compelling idea, unless one prizes individuality above all else, and is antihuman to the extent of granting political citizenship only to those eligible to be equals.

 

[seekerz]

I rather disagree. It seems an easy thing to simply tell a person “ah, you just don’t understand,” or “your view is limited (and not as high and intellectual as mine)”.

I think the “gender equality” notion is a chimera, a made up thing, a false goal. I’m just not as Kantian as you! I have a hard time even understanding how this is a very compelling idea, unless one prizes individuality above all else, and is antihuman to the extent of granting political citizenship only to those eligible to be equals.

I had to look up Kant; not familiar with him at all. I simply speak from what I observe and believe. Understanding people, to me, has very little to do with intellect and everything to do with being open to the views of others; so yes, it does kind of irk when I see people trying to limit the views aired on a matter.

Truth is objective, but perception is not; 3 or 4 different people may look up at the same sky and describe it in different, equally valid ways - blue, sunny, bright, clear. All are correct and and all contribute to a more complete concept of the same object of discussion. Which is why I am not at all surprised to see different views being expressed on the equality of the sexes.

I respect your views on gender equality even while I see things quite differently. To me there are two things important in understanding any phenomenon: absolute truth and reality; while the former is indispensable, the latter must be recognized. While I believe the truth is that God created man and woman equal, the reality (in my view) is that in real life, there remain obstacles to people living out that equality the way we were meant to.

 

[seekerz]

No once again, you have misunderstood. I didn’t think the globalization issue was relevant and thus didn’t speak to it until you claimed I was blaming third world problems on the US welfare system. Frankly I was trying to stay OUT of that part of the discussion since I thought it irrelevant. You can discuss whatever you want on this thread and I can respond to what is relevant to me. No harm no foul.

So you don’t believe the welfare system and our lack of social stigma regarding unwed mothers is the reason for the demise of the black family? Just want some clarification.

Lisa

I believe it is far from being a straightforward issue. Looking at the US yes, one might be tempted to blame the welfare system, and I have seen people (black and white) use that explanation; there are also those who see family breakdown as a cause rather than as a result of welfare dependence. No doubt it is a problem of complex basis, but single women heading families (usually poor or struggling ones), several dads exhibiting varying degrees of responsibility (Baby Daddy is far from being a new concept), children taking the path trod by their parents from a young age…these patterns are not unique to the US or even to the post-60s generations. Which is why I favor a common explanation: the effects of labor patterns, be it slavery or industrial era employment, on black families.

 

[BlindManWalking]

I believe it is far from being a straightforward issue. Looking at the US yes, one might be tempted to blame the welfare system, and I have seen people (black and white) use that explanation; there are also those who see family breakdown as a cause rather than as a result of welfare dependence. No doubt it is a problem of complex basis, but single women heading families (usually poor or struggling ones), several dads exhibiting varying degrees of responsibility (Baby Daddy is far from being a new concept), children taking the path trod by their parents from a young age…these patterns are not unique to the US or even to the post-60s generations. Which is why I favor a common explanation: the effects of labor patterns, be it slavery or industrial era employment, on black families.

Instead of us just continuing to all go around in a circle saying the same things with different phrasing, jumping on one sentence from multiple ones, usually out of context, and all the other stuff- let’s just sit back, and let someone explain their ideal:

1. why are you participating in the thread? What drew you to espouse your view, a particular post or the thread title/OP? Is there a utopia/ideal to be achieved in all this? If so, what is it?
2. If the USCCB were to, in the theoretical future, come out with a position directly contrary to your view, how would you react? What if the Vatican came out with that view as, perhaps, dogma?

Seekerz, would you like to go first?

 

[seekerz]

Instead of us just continuing to all go around in a circle saying the same things with different phrasing, jumping on one sentence from multiple ones, usually out of context, and all the other stuff- let’s just sit back, and let someone explain their ideal:

1. why are you participating in the thread? What drew you to espouse your view, a particular post or the thread title/OP? Is there a utopia/ideal to be achieved in all this? If so, what is it?
2. If the USCCB were to, in the theoretical future, come out with a position directly contrary to your view, how would you react? What if the Vatican came out with that view as, perhaps, dogma?

Seekerz, would you like to go first?

Sure.

1. I love discussions on substantial matters issues (particularly those of a philosophical nature) and find that there is usually something to learn from them. This one has been very instructive so far, both in understanding diverse viewpoints and in better defining mine.
2. If the USCCB comes out with a directive binding on Catholics I would be obliged to follow it.

One of concepts of our Church which I highly value is the freedom allowed for differing opinions on matters non-essential to faith. Since I don’t see much of what we have discussed to date on this thread as essential to faith, I highly doubt that definitive statements on these matters would ever be enjoined on Catholics.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

1. why are you participating in the thread? What drew you to espouse your view, a particular post or the thread title/OP? Is there a utopia/ideal to be achieved in all this? If so, what is it?

The answer to the OP’s question is rather straight forward: the USCCB supports fair employment practices. The ideal in that is rather evident, I should think.

1. If the USCCB were to, in the theoretical future, come out with a position directly contrary to your view, how would you react? What if the Vatican came out with that view as, perhaps, dogma?

I highly doubt the USCCB would announce a directive against fair employment practices, so until they do I’m not going to waste what little mental energy I have worrying about it.

Luna

 

[LisaA]

I believe it is far from being a straightforward issue. Looking at the US yes, one might be tempted to blame the welfare system, and I have seen people (black and white) use that explanation; there are also those who see family breakdown as a cause rather than as a result of welfare dependence. No doubt it is a problem of complex basis, but single women heading families (usually poor or struggling ones), several dads exhibiting varying degrees of responsibility (Baby Daddy is far from being a new concept), children taking the path trod by their parents from a young age…these patterns are not unique to the US or even to the post-60s generations. Which is why I favor a common explanation: the effects of labor patterns, be it slavery or industrial era employment, on black families.

Of course there are multiple causes for everything. While you cannot always claim that correlation means cause, I think statistics and studies have demonstrated that family breakdown resulted from government inserting itself ever increasingly as the provider and protector vs married parents being responsible for their family. I also think the 60s and the departure of sexual and social mores ALLOWED this to happen. There was a day when being an unwed mother was quite a scandal. A young man having gotten a girl “in trouble” was pressured by family and society to marry her and provide for the child. I am not a hundred years old and I remember this pretty well. In my high school class there were a few pregnancies and in all cases but one, the couple got married. Did they all stay married? No. But clearly society wanted to see men (and women) take responsibility for their actions.

I think in a bass-ackwards attempt to be compasionate (with other people’s money!) we no longer look down on a woman who has a child out of wedlock. Nor is the irresponsible “sperm donor” considered a pariah. Sometimes I miss good old fashioned shame. It certainly inspired more responsible behavior in my generation.

But for whatever reason, this dynamic has hit the black family harder than the white family as evidenced by the huge disparity in out of wedlock births. Maybe you can speak to the reasons that this disparity exists. Maybe job prospects for young black men were not as good and it seemed preferable to let Uncle Sam take care of the child. Given that most welfare and state provided benefits provides more to the unmarried than to the married parents, the system continues to reward this behavior.

Unfortunately it appears that out of wedlock births are increasing in all ethnic and racial groups. The deciding factor appears to be education and related to that, income. It is becoming increasingly apparent that marriage is becoming a middle and upper class phenomenon while the lower income group has an ever decreasing percentage of married couples. Regardless this is not good news for anyone.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Of course there are multiple causes for everything. While you cannot always claim that correlation means cause, I think statistics and studies have demonstrated that family breakdown resulted from government inserting itself ever increasingly as the provider and protector vs married parents being responsible for their family. I also think the 60s and the departure of sexual and social mores ALLOWED this to happen. There was a day when being an unwed mother was quite a scandal. A young man having gotten a girl “in trouble” was pressured by family and society to marry her and provide for the child. I am not a hundred years old and I remember this pretty well. In my high school class there were a few pregnancies and in all cases but one, the couple got married. Did they all stay married? No. But clearly society wanted to see men (and women) take responsibility for their actions.

I think in a bass-ackwards attempt to be compasionate (with other people’s money!) we no longer look down on a woman who has a child out of wedlock. Nor is the irresponsible “sperm donor” considered a pariah. Sometimes I miss good old fashioned shame. It certainly inspired more responsible behavior in my generation.

But for whatever reason, this dynamic has hit the black family harder than the white family as evidenced by the huge disparity in out of wedlock births. Maybe you can speak to the reasons that this disparity exists. Maybe job prospects for young black men were not as good and it seemed preferable to let Uncle Sam take care of the child. Given that most welfare and state provided benefits provides more to the unmarried than to the married parents, the system continues to reward this behavior.

Unfortunately it appears that out of wedlock births are increasing in all ethnic and racial groups. The deciding factor appears to be education and related to that, income. It is becoming increasingly apparent that marriage is becoming a middle and upper class phenomenon while the lower income group has an ever decreasing percentage of married couples. Regardless this is not good news for anyone.

Lisa

Most women I know of older generations are quite familiar with fragmented, female-headed families. What happened in the 60s-70s was removal of the stigma of a pattern that was already occurring.

Follow the employment trends if you need more explanation, is my advice. Welfare dependence, where it occurs, is associated but cannot be shown to be causative (to my knowledge), of this situation.

 

[BlindManWalking]

Sure.

1. I love discussions on substantial matters issues (particularly those of a philosophical nature) and find that there is usually something to learn from them. This one has been very instructive so far, both in understanding diverse viewpoints and in better defining mine.
2. If the USCCB comes out with a directive binding on Catholics I would be obliged to follow it.

One of concepts of our Church which I highly value is the freedom allowed for differing opinions on matters non-essential to faith. Since I don’t see much of what we have discussed to date on this thread as essential to faith, I highly doubt that definitive statements on these matters would ever be enjoined on Catholics.

The answer to the OP’s question is rather straight forward: the USCCB supports fair employment practices. The ideal in that is rather evident, I should think.

I highly doubt the USCCB would announce a directive against fair employment practices, so until they do I’m not going to waste what little mental energy I have worrying about it.

Luna

I don’t read utopia/ideal anywhere in these.

Can’t people just say what they want so everyone knows exactly where they are coming from?

Let’s pretend, ladies, that our ideas are an outfit.

Show off your outfit and be prepared to get suggestions, etc about it.

I’m tired of 3 page discussions on a thread or missing button.

 

[seekerz]

I don’t read utopia/ideal anywhere in these.

Can’t people just say what they want so everyone knows exactly where they are coming from?

Let’s pretend, ladies, that our ideas are an outfit.

Show off your outfit and be prepared to get suggestions, etc about it.

I’m tired of 3 page discussions on a thread or missing button.

Is this a roundabout way of asking: what do women want?

If so, I would say that it’s too complicated to spell out in a forum post.

If I had to put it simply though, I’d say I want to chance, going forward, to live in a world where people and things (including issues like women’s employment) are deal with on their merits and not on pre-fabricated ideas. That’s my utopia.

That is not to say there should not be objective principles but that these should be applied individually and adapted to the situation. Simply succumbing to habit, common practice or blanket ideologies, is, to me, a lazy way of living.