Does Dental Irrigator Replace Flossing

The family as a system of interaction. 2 nd Comment Wotam

To begin with I apologize for using technical language. From now on I will try to simplify it to the fullest.
But I also want to make a precision: what I intend to propose a different way of thinking about domestic relations and all that entails and why I use some concepts rather than technical I would say are specific.
I would also like to point out that all this discussion and its conceptual basis is explained in my book The solitude of Mae.
I invite you to read it to satisfy all your curiosity and find explanations.
(Also, many issues are discussed more extensively in other entries in this blog, simply "click" and search).

In this speech I will answer the questions raised by Wotan after exposure. All my answer will be in normal font, and text of Wotan in bold:

Ha tocado un tema muy controvertido y difícil de analizar sin aspectos subjetivos realmente relevantes.
-Estoy totalmente de acuerdo que la institución de la familia "como persona jurídica" es una construcción cultural, ¿pero cuál es el origen y la finalidad de la familia? y en un sentido más delimitado: de la familia occidental moderna. ¿Qué concepto tiene usted de familia? Por supuesto que podríamos modificar las estructuras familiares, es más, podríamos legalizar el incesto, el abuso sexual a menores y la necrofilia, podríamos reconocer como legítimamente único el "matrimonio homosexual" o la poligamia como sistema matrimonial, pero, ¿cree que estaríamos hablando of a society "stable", or more stable than the current you are interested in stability or anarchy? What gives stability to the social system? I think this question is interesting for discussion.

First of all, a couple of small details or explanations.
examples you put remove the conditions of possibility of an argument, because it contains a tremendous burden prevalores. Why make an example of incest, sexual abuse and necrophilia, rather than external emotional education of individuals, the domain of women or marriage contract marriage only ...?
is as if we planteásemos the issue of legality or otherwise of euthanasia, and we took as a starting point to discuss that is comparable to murder. And would be all that ...
But I guess this is not the case.
On the other hand, do not think it appropriate to raise the debate in terms of stability or anarchy, assuming that in the present case, the additional nuclear family, which is our model, which provides stability to the system and all others lead to anarchy. There are societies, or earlier periods of our own tradition, which are organized through other forms of family and are more volatile than our current society.

With respect to the family, can be defined as emotional system and / or rational reproductive relations / educational and social / endoculturadoras, whose functions are:
- Provide individuals living material.
- Control access of young men to women.
- Establish partnerships with other groups (extended families).
- Establish networks of kinship / solidarity.
- To conform to socially fit individuals as subjects (learning and emotional learning and rational modes-of-being intersubjective): Education and enculturation.
The first and the last two are the roles that continue today in our culture, or at least should be.

Is the only model of family available?
No. At present there are many forms of family, as well as nuclear. The guys that I mentioned in the previous post are not theoretical, but still existing relationship, for example, the typical family china is extensive, as families Rajputs of northern India ... Female-centered families are the prototypical in Latin America; black families in American cities and society in the West Indies, among others. Female-centered families are also large as those of African Nayar; ... (In general, African domestic organizations are extensive).
addition, polygamy is given "at least in 90% of all cultures ", mainly in the form polygynous (several women and a husband).

- From a historical perspective, the first human organizations (hunter-gatherers), maintained a nuclear household organization, but (as noted by Gamble) were placed inside large breeding groups, moreover, is ultimately organized through large regional groups.
Our culture originally organized through extended families, but the development of states, did that become nuclear, legitimizing (Turning into law) the decision of the children when choosing their partners in marriage. Why? Because States have no interest in large corporate groups within it, and that became very active groups of power. The great patrician families, or families are typical mafia ...
Moreover, Christianity was interested in having the monopoly of marriage as a source of social control, and I had to take him away from extended families ...
The examples are endless ...
It is also true that the nuclear family is widespread in all types monogamous (and polygamous).
Labour mobility, typical of the whole process of industrialization, social mobility processes and constitution of the cities, the meager wages that hamper the survival, etc., favor the development of such households.
The conclusion: the nuclear family is neither more nor less natural than others. All issues are due to cultural, political, economic, ...

- Difficult question that's what gives stability to a social system.
We can say that stability is a dynamic balance of all elements of the social system. This includes values, norms, principles, institutions and material conditions, etc. .., including how they fit all these elements to the social reality in general and individuals in particular.
I live well, I brought up in a nuclear family and I have no complaints ... But I know people who have been educated in matrifocal families (widows) and they are people like me do not carry any particular brand. Do you happen to anyone taking a law requiring widows or widowers with children under age to marry again? It would be absurd right?
addition, two-parent nuclear family model and is rejected by many women: why do they have to carry a man? And what about homosexuals are not human ...?
1. No need to develop nuclear family functions endocuturación and education ... In fact, the vaunted crisis of the Western family is not from of value relativism and alternative models that undermine the structure of what should be (in what concerns us and there is no crisis of values, nor is there must be), but by the abandonment of the functions and their transfer to institutions State.
In a society like ours (of information and the welfare state), one person can perform all the functions of the family, especially in the emotional dimension. All you have to do is redefine the powers of the state.
therefore should not be imposed nuclear model in any way. If it is for ideological reasons and to maintain status privileges (Church).
2. It is very important to note that in Latin America the two-parent nuclear family model is a real failure, and children are educated in environments matrifocal extensive (grandmother, mother, aunts ...). The parents? Unknown.
3. Moreover, domestic violence statistics in Europe and U.S., for example, are tremendous (scary to think of them). The victims: women. The perpetrators: their husbands, unmarried couples, ex-boyfriends, ex-domestic partners, boyfriends and ex-spouses, in that order (in Spain, from 2002 to 2006 nearly 46% of murders of women committed them their husbands).
Most two-parent nuclear families
complementary
there really think that this is a model provides social stability?
If so, we must recognize that the stability of our society is built on the suffering and the "blood" of many women.
I sincerely believe that we must seek an alternative.

"" To speak of "natural" aspect of family we are referring specifically to biological ties, which largely determined their formation in early times and will undoubtedly influence the approach still gives the couple the principle to the organization. I have found successful example of incest between chimpanzees and that highlights the natural useful instinct which is established between a male and a female, between a male and its offspring, etc. Formed a natural complementarity on living (living) family from human to keep a relationship, is this a family habit of natural or cultural construction, or both?
Complementarity is a structural mode of interaction interactions and, therefore, is apprehended, forms the current modes of feeling and thinking emotionally the world in all its dimensions, so you could say that ends forming habits.

- The desire to establish and belong to a family is a natural behavior, or apprehended, or both? If
family, is arrested ... There instinct and genes for the formation families.
If reproductive trend, then it is instinctive, but the instinct or nature, it is possible that conforms to cultural organizations through: bilateral affiliation, ambilineales, unilineal, clans cognate, patrilocality, avuncolocalidad, amitialocalidad, matrilocality, ETC. are forms of kinship, residence and affiliation that are manifested in different societies and to determine ways of relating between individuals.
(All this is well in Harris, M., Introduction to general anthropology)

"If you say:" This culture is rooted in our instinctual nature, so that our whole cultural organization is rooted in our biological nature. "and before saying:" As a system of interaction is built, it is natural (if you like, innate) and may be modified. "If the family is a cultural construct that has its roots in natural and instinctive behaviors, how is it possible that the system of interaction that is not natural? Or is it natural or not, or is it all or nothing is natural, and so on. Forgive but do not understand what he says. Use highly technical language. "
is not a contradiction to say that culture as a system rooted in our nature, or whatever it is, say we have a cultural nature ... this means that our responses to reality are not instinctive, but created by us, but there is no need for transcendence and universality ...
For example:
Nobody would say that languages \u200b\u200b(English, Latin, Aramaic, etc..) are natural, but are cultural constructions. But, however, language has a natural origin, as human capacity for communication.
Similarly, it is absolutely necessary to understand that our nature is cultural, or whatever it is, that our culture is rooted in our nature ... In the same way that cheetahs have a natural ability to run very fast and the nature endows them with a very flexible spine and a huge queue, ETC. so they can pursue gazelles on the African savannah, humans have the natural ability to create standards and values \u200b\u200bto build our intersubjective relations and culture gives us build these specific standards: systems monogamous, polygamous, nuclear, extended, ...
why the family is a cultural creation that takes shape from trends or natural ability.
UNIVERSAL WHAT? The household as an organizational interactions and complementarity which serves as a structure. However, as we have seen at first, the ways in which this particular family (extended, nuclear, single parent, matrifocal ...) are private and respond to issues political, economic, axiological, regulations, etc.
addition, if you notice, in the case of cheetahs as ours, there is no linear directionality between the cause (ability to run ...) and effect (having a very flexible spine ...), but a whole system interdependencies.
If we adopt this, we realize that the right family is simply one that meets some specific functions in a given community.

In my previous post I focused on human sexuality as a natural value to the institution of the family, and to be more precise, on different arguments that insist on a plurality of family types supported in marginal sexual practices, do you believe that human sexuality is exclusively oriented to procreation? Why there is sexual pleasure? Homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation or cultural?
Human sexuality is not geared only to procreation.
rituals, mythology, customs, etc., Throughout the world and time, indicate that it has deep connections with community values \u200b\u200band therefore the needs of social systems.
An example:
The tribes of Zambia (New Guinea):
- are at constant war of elimination of other tribes.
- The tribe that today is your ally, maybe it's not tomorrow.
- food resources are scarce and very small areas of survival, so that the existence of a tribe assumes the disappearance of another.
To survive they must:
- Maintain low population growth.
- Have good men to form a battle group and not be removed.
have no UN or international law courts, no potential for movement to other areas, and technology to discover or raise other possibilities ...
How to survive? Favoring
bisexuality among men:
- with women playing only.
- With men, how-to-be.
Their beliefs state that only the semen gives manhood, so what is the most valuable men (only men can do other men and, therefore, warriors). Also, a man born with a limited amount of semen to be continually replenished and can only provide another man (the development of homosexual practices among men who create some badly needed close bonds of solidarity among warriors, and among the group. It prevents, for example, treachery and encourages anyone willing to give life in all times by their peers ...). Men have
groups "secrets" in which children enter just leave childhood.
Thus the Sambia have two birth children: biological, which has no value, and social / masculine ethos that forms its value.
is a summary but I hope to provide an example.
Anyway there are many theories about homosexuality, but all have serious conceptual and explanatory problems.
Perhaps homosexuality is the result of many factors, but what is obvious to the present case is that in relations between individuals, even those that venture into the area of \u200b\u200bsexuality, the elements involved in game are many and have to do with the conditions of existence of groups and individuals.
There is a continuum between Nature-Culture-Community-Individual ...
With regard to sexual pleasure (orgasm) the human male, we must bear in mind that the act of copulation involves:
- Hazards for males: fighting with other males.
- A huge waste of energy.
Pleasure can be understood as the mechanism by which males minimize the threats to their existence, and reproduce. In addition to facilitating deep ejaculation.
As for the female orgasm:
- According to some researchers, has no function.
- According to others, is the attraction of males function as a mechanism that promotes promiscuity, and then protect babies from being killed by the males, since there is no certainty paternity.
- For others, it has a pleasant for women to be attracted to sex.
- serves as a mechanism for women to select partners. The man who cause him more pleasure, will be the more you worry about her and her offspring.
- Serves as a sign of sexual fidelity.
- serves as a mechanism for the retention of sperm.
All have been proposed and none fully explains the function of female orgasm and its characteristics.
this subject was discussed in the second book I've written (I'll start looking for publishers who want it published).
Anyway we go deeper in successive innings.

It's funny, on one side has a traditional and conservative idea of \u200b\u200bthe family, and secondly, has the vision of a completely revolutionary family structure that protects and develops the rights of citizens, especially women.
is possible, but I think more than a traditional concept of family is of some of its functions and thus no additional structure.

Fan Switch For Furnace Model Mgha-070aafc-05?

The "natural" family

Answer to the question posed in the second inning of Wotan: "The family is the core of any social community, but the current side I see a growing distortion of values" moral "to support a concept of artificial family unstructured such as the existence of different family centers, which look very dangerous in the long time with an uncertain economic future for the emotional stability of families exactly what do you think of this? "

The question is fundamental in our society , although I make some mistakes at planting.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, should affirm that there is a natural family, or that there are natural values.
Both the family and the ethical / political support it is cultural (I prefer this claim to the concept of artificial) and as cultural, by definition, is organized intersubjectively.
It can go, to cite some examples minimally, M. Harris (Introduction to general anthropology, ...), Murdock (Ethnographic Atlas, ...), Campbell (The Masks of God, ...), Bateson (The new media, ...), Levi-Strauss (The Elementary Structures of kinship ...), Malinowski (Sex and Repression in the primitive society ...), to its own mythology, a Gamble (The doubling Paleolithic of Europe), to Buss (The Evolution of Desire ...), Mead (Sex and temperament ...) to Sabater Pi (The chimpanzee and the origins of culture ...) ... and even if I immodesty for putting me in the same paragraph, myself (Solitude Mae ...), ....
Biology, psychology (evolutionary) anthropology, neurophysiology, genetics ... except religion and politics (politicians are priests of "new" stamp), we offer an interpretive framework from which the family can be defined as an interaction system constructed by humans to set themselves as socially unfit individuals. And as a system of interaction built, not natural (if you like, innate) and may be modified.
Now, as a structure, and functions as complex and fundamental amendment means an alteration of the entire system of social interactions that forms: economic, political, legal, etc.
Well, for utilitarian reasons, or sheer ignorance, or at the confluence of the two (the interests of a deal the wills of others), you tend to think that two-parent nuclear family / monogamous (father, mother and children) is traditional in our culture (in chronological nuances, of course), is natural. But MNOs mistake, although it may be argued, concluded, justified, etc., There is nothing in nature that determined as the ideal for humans, compared to extended families or single parents or gay.
Similarly, we must accept this, that marriage should not be understood solely from heterosexuality and that from a cultural perspective, there are institutionalized marriages between women (matrifocal: more than two females) between men, between brothers, ... It is very likely that one more chance we have missed.
The key to understanding domestic interactions and the role they play in our society and the result of its amendment, pass, therefore, accept that the nuclear family is not natural. (To be more precise reading of authors and texts cited ...)
Take a very short biological example:
Studies by specialists demonstrate that among chimpanzees, incest between the female and her calf is very rare, like two pups from the same litter. But between the male and his offspring are very common, almost inevitable (J. Itani, Primates).
This is normal and natural among those social animals where the male is not involved in the development of the offspring.
It is therefore curious that the prohibition of incest, which is usually taken as the natural and fundamental element that regulates the relations between males and females (men and women) should only be applied to relations between the male (man) and her calf (daughter).
Now think that if we accept Freud wrongly, eg que el deseo de cometer incesto está muy arraigado en las profundidades de la naturaleza humana, (el instinto empuja al ser humano lo mismo que en el resto de los animales), entonces la prohibición de esta conducta fue el primer acto cultural. De este modo la cultura arraiga en nuestra naturaleza instintiva, por lo que toda nuestra organización cultural tiene su origen en nuestra naturaleza biológica.
Si esto es verdad, entonces, todo lo que tiene carácter universal, es decir las normas o conductas generalizadas culturalmente, o los sistemas de organización generalizados (como la prohibición del incesto o la familia nuclear occidental, pongamos por caso) deben ser lo correcto cultural y naturalmente.
De este modo, considering that two-parent nuclear family is natural, we tend to interpret what they should be, so that everything does not fit this is a deviation from social norms and the biological nature of human beings: a unnatural aberration, so that all these deviations should and must be corrected, as they cause damage to many individual and collective nature: bad socialized individuals, domestic violence, broken families, etc.. With all the emotional burden associated with this statement ...
addition, we do not realize that there is a fundamental rest we take emotionally, but rationally reject it, namely that the complementary (Dominance / submission), which is the basis of intersubjective relations system which determines the relations between women and men, is the foundation of domestic relations which we call family
- The same for women is the domestic (private) the man the political (public).
- The characteristic of the personality of the woman is being a mother (and wife). The characteristic of the personality of man is to be subject business.
- The same for women is to be understanding, loving, sensitive. The same man is being authoritarian, rational, hard ...
- What are women's own tasks and work of man. Etc.

And this system continues to operate in today! (Read my book)

Now, if we interpret the incest taboo from a community perspective (social organization), then we realize that the incest prohibition is intended to reorganize the intersubjective behavior (human groups) and their functions coincide with the functions of the family:
- Avoid inbreeding.
- Control access of young men to women.
- Establish networks of kinship.
- Establish partnerships ...
community functions again giving us clues on how to properly interpret human behavior.
Not that we are not natural, but our nature does that we should consider our relations systems from another perspective that assumes the natural in interaction with cultural, community is always up what is in us.
Once accepted, we must think about the family as an interrelated system structure at all times with the cultural system as a whole. Cognitive and emotional context that significantly determines the personality and behavior of individuals in terms of what is socially expected of them and, therefore, is inseparable from the community that has been inserted. Hence the first statement leads us to conclude that the family is not a private space where individuals develop emotionally its existence, but the field public construction of ethos in relation to .... ".
But this characterization is also a negative dimension (in the sense of control theory and communication), because the family must also be seen as a reactive system whose function is to control the disruptive nature of individuals ( to be thought of as subsystems). That is another of the core functions of the family is "redirect" the ability of individuals to reconstruct reality, cognitive and otherwise emotionally, to ensure the stability of the social system.
The system would be more or less like this: Culture is structure and function is the creation and maintenance of the community, which is done through the family.
From the time women must grasp a range of values \u200b\u200band behavior patterns that reinforce, at least emotionally, submission both family interaction and in the community.
And man must, however, to grasp a range of values \u200b\u200band behavior patterns that reinforce, at least emotionally, the interaction domain in both the family and in community.
The family becomes the place where people grasp these modes of being.
In conclusion, the domestic (family) is a system interconnected cultural, where the ethos shaping factor is presented as the unifying social factor through the inclusion of individuals in a complex mythological system (man and woman complement each course that the woman is mother nature that true love is eternal, that family is the natural place of women, while the world is the man ...) that determines, for starters, the relations between the two basic subsystems of the family system: man and woman , complementary (domain / submission).
Well, the ethos is complementary to the one shown in Neolithic systems of the clans and also our cognitive modes and understand emotional love relationships are developed from medieval ideals (Isolde and Tristan, Heloise and Abelard ...). The family is built and can be changed!
As this occurs, we should consider the possibility that the sacred Western family is not functioning properly. I, as researcher and teacher who is taking a delegation from the parents of the duties incumbent upon them.
Here:
Where learning and apprehend the individual to perform additional behaviors? Where do we learn and grasp to abuse or being abused? Where it becomes possible domestic violence as a manifestation likely complementarity?
The proper place is the family.
For this reason, and despite what people are saying the "experts", the great debate today has nothing to do with the application, or extension of the concept of family: heterosexual nuclear families, nuclear families, homosexuals, single-parent nuclear families , two-parent nuclear families, extended families, .... The truly important thing is not in this, but the waiver endoculturadora function by parents and their transfer to state institutions: Education, Health and Interior, especially.
Despite living in the XXI century, we continue to think and feel emotionally the reality Paleolithic and medieval models. For this reason is not hard to understand why the state (that strange abstraction is nothing that the community model of subjective identity ... But that's another story that belongs to other research), which takes as its starting point the existence of subjects formed, can not assume the functions of the family and, therefore, strategies for solving certain types of phenomena that are increasingly affecting the younger individuals of the community (drugs, obesity, anorexia, school failure, etc.. ) are not working.
that my son drinks, smokes pot, etc., They give talks in schools and colleges and health click campaigns on how bad it is the drink, while I left with less and 18 years is on Fridays and Saturdays until late at night without control. For that, the municipalities or the Interior, to mobilize the police to control alcohol consumption in minors.
that my child has an unhealthy diet, which will give talks in schools about the need to follow the Mediterranean diet and exercise, while I crammed industrial bakery, I feed only what the child wants and what I have all day at home watching TV and playing your game. Thus, ad infinitum.
But it's not a question of modern life, or nature is a matter of assuming the responsibilities arising from the unquestionable fact, that the family does not belong to the sphere of private relations, exclusively, but the public space, as we all are social subjects more or less skillful in her womb .
So not only are the problems of drug addiction, poor nutrition., Which require the intervention of the families for their solution, but there are also other serious problems such as domestic violence that originate and therefore can be alleviated, to and from the family. It would not nothing wrong, in this sense, advertising campaigns aimed not victims of abuse but their family environments.
Do you think the role of families in cases of domestic violence that we see daily is appropriate? Do they believe that within the family develops systems of reciprocity between individuals, rather than complementary, the abuse would be a widespread problem? The family has been and is a factor for the protection of women against men in general and her male partner in particular. But, of course, I'm not saying that since the family must recover violent strategies of coercion against the perpetrator, but the family must be the place where women recognize their own identity and be protected by the revaluation autonomy from their complementary behavior.
Individuals must learn that the family is not a private but a public stronghold, and in it the others will step in when we consider that it is producing a situation of abuse. In addition, individuals must be aware that physical abuse is the ultimate manifestation of a long process of emotional abuse and, therefore, its interference should occur long before the development of physical aggression.
is, therefore, the family, the first place where you have to do battle:
1 º. Through education of the children, reinforcing the identity of women in the daughters and the respect and recognition that identity in children, and no emphasis on equality, but in recognition of the autonomy of female identity and male identity for, from there, to promote mutual relations between them.
2 º. Through a more extensive (transformed) of the family, through which it is intended as a public sphere and not private.

Wards Lab 9 Transpiration Answers

Mae's loneliness in bookstores now!


Mae's loneliness. Anthropological research on domestic violence by Javier Ortega Cañavate
Library Science, Series Economics, Politics and Sociology 301
ISBN: 978-84-245-1135-7
Format: 13.3 x 19.3 cm, 304 pages
PVP: 16.00 €

The domestic assault in Spain have increased by 145% between 2000 and 2004. In the European Union, at least one of every five women is abused by her partner. Beyond our Europe, the mistreatment of women casts some frightening figures: 130 million fewer women in the world due to domestic violence exerted on them, even before birth.

Is not it time to raise the issue of domestic violence beyond the psychological and sociological models, manifested clearly enough? This book offers a different way to approach the phenomenon abuse: from the complement system upon which we founded our domestic relations. From an anthropological investigation more than 600 people, including victims of abuse, comes this story that is neither social nor individual, but cultural. In it are revealed underlying cultural models of domestic violence: the clan syndrome Syndrome and Heloise.

This work is undertaken with clear objectives: not to tolerate the structural violence against women as a price to pay to maintain our lifestyles, or accept a woman's death by friendly fire of the lover, nor admit that the family is a 'Comanche territory' where women can become the scapegoat.

Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Murcia, Javier Ortega Cañavate has published "The concept of cismogénesis and social dynamics" (Iberoamericana, 1997), "The structural basis of domestic violence" (Isabor, 2006), "Complementarity and cultural context for understanding domestic violence "(PBS, 2007). In 2005 he was a speaker at the conference on domestic violence organized by the Ministry of Women CCOO and in 2006 taught a course at the local police in Lorca on Gender Violence. She currently writes a blog on domestic violence (lasoledaddemae.blogspot.com) just finished the forgotten dream of Avalon. An essay on domestic violence and is working on a comic book about the history of the woman artist Esther Guzmán Martín. Hello