"The reason, we assume, is that the government does not want to be seen as overly patriarchal."Of course, we meant, "paternalistic."
We regret the error, and we feel shame, and we will go sit in the box. But what we feel greater shame about is the fact that not a single Sloppist caught the mistake. Honestly, people, we've been working with you for almost two years now, attuning your ears to the cadences of fine writing and the subtleties of advanced vocabulary. And yet! Not a SINGLE one of you called us on that most egregious of sins against language and basic literacy, confusing "patriarchal" and "paternalistic."
We need to go sit in a dark room for a while.
Yes, go sit in the box! I mean really, we look to you, oh all-knowedness! If you use "patriarchal" instead of "paternalistic" then we assume that you know what you're doing! And for goodness sake! Don't lead us astray again! There. Now do you feel better?
ReplyDeleteNo, you were right the first time. Acting "paternalistic" would be acting as a caring parent. (note: "acting as". a caring parent is, of course, a Saint. Government is not.) "Patriarchal" would be acting as a bullying father (something I'm sure you cannot even conceive) and arbitrarily saying, in effect: "My house! My rules!" This is EXACTLY what the govt IS trying to do!
ReplyDeleteThis food-stamps-for-soda debate is very interesting indeed, and "paternalism" is at the heart of it. May I point you and your readers to an interesting article at
ReplyDeletehttp://civileats.com/2010/10/08/banning-soda-for-food-stamps-raises-tough-questions/
Here's an exerpt: The anti-hunger community is correct that historically, as a nation, we have treated the poor paternalistically. American social, educational and health policy is littered with countless examples of this failed approach. Regulating what food stamp recipients can and can’t buy with their benefits puts forth the message that they are not capable of making good decisions, and the government needs to set forth boundaries to protect them from their own poor choices. To the contrary, some studies have shown that food stamp recipients actually buy more nutritious food per dollar than non-food stamp recipients.
Anti-hunger advocates are also right that poor people typically can’t afford nutritious foods. Highly processed foods, such as ramen, fill up a belly more cheaply than broccoli and whole wheat pasta. In our food system, high calorie foods with low nutritional value are cheaper than nutrient dense foods. For example, a 12 pack of 12 ounce cans of Coke (144 oz) at Kroger’s costs $2.79 on sale, while a half gallon (64 ounces) of Minute Maid orange juice (also a Coca Cola Inc. product) is $2.49. The bad choice is the cheap choice.