An interesting discussion was started elsewhere about AP/Natural family living and its compatability/incompatability with feminism. I thought it would be good to have a place to continue the discussion.
Some people may remember an extremely mediocre miniseries on TV a while back called "The Sixties." It did have one moment that rang true to me: the daughter runs away from her traditional, cookie-baking SAHM family. She ends up at a commune, where her first job is to bake muffins (without refined sugar, of course). She discovers her scope at the commune is just as restricted as it was at home.
Sometimes AP/NFL does, to me, reek of: difficulty for the difficulty's sake, self-sacrifice by moms (regardless of the relative value of the sacrifice to the gain) = nobility, the more obscure, the more "cool", the more challenging, the more "cool". I have seen it drive my DH's ex literally to her wits' end. With her next pregnancy I expect to run across her lying under some bushes in the park, in midwinter, holding a stick between her teeth and giving birth alone. Because a homebirth isn't enough, an unattended birth isn't enough, it's gotta be something even *more* natural. Rather than keeping up with the Jones, she's keeping up with the Raynbow Arwen Starrs.
I think guilt happens sometimes when you feel upset with yourself for not living up to some ideal, and I also think it happens when we're made to feel like we should be doing more than we can handle. Women are expected to do A LOT in the home, and I don't think it's always a sign of some inner weakness if one succumbs to that.
Please forgive me Hazelnut, it was not my intention to dig on blondes.
I was literally visualizing some specific mamas I have seen at my local Whole Foods. My best friend is blonde AND dyes her hair (albeit with henna). She's also as thin as a rail. But you would never mistake her for mainstream. By "trim" I didn't mean just happening to be slender, but playing it up with clothes and such in all the ways mainstream culture rewards, and exercising the kind of subtle social dominance we are taught belongs to such women - casting disapproving glances at the really crunchy people next to them in line.
So I come back to the same question: What should happen here?
Some people really are "extreme". Are they suppose to shut up? Are they suppose to fabricate stories about something non-AP they did to make sure no one feels guilty? To make them more "Real"? We have a UA. It prevents posters from attacking. Posts designed to purposely and obviously guilt people can be reported. If it does not fall under that catagory, I think it is pretty pretentious to assume the poster is trying to guilt anyone. I think the meer presense of strong opinions is always going to invoke guilt in someone. Even if everyone tiptoes around. At some point you have to own your guilt. Like, back to Taco Bell. If I wander on to a thread where people are discussing fast food and how bad it is. Someone might post that they THINK feeding kids fast food is "child abuse." That might start to tug on my guilt strings since I have fed my dd Taco Bell. But then I have to step back and say "OK, this person THINKS it is child abuse......I do not......I am comfortable with what I am doing." Or i might say "Hmmmm, that person has a point....maybe it is a bad idea, I should mull that over...." But to come back on and say "Hey you are trying to guilt *me*, STOP IT!" is just silly. Nothing on this board is all about *me*.
That is what I see on this thread. People want to tailor how others post so they feel better. What is the point of that? Isn't the whole point of thoughtful discussion about pushing your confort zone, questioning your ideas, learning new things, hearing strong opinions, articulating your beliefs, and allowing those beliefs to be questioned/challenged?
I also think that anyone that participates on a messgae coard needs to remember that written words and tone are interpretted differently by each person. Oftentimes I see people accusing others of tone that I just do not see. I try to always assume the best intentions when interpretting tone. That has saved me from many a flame-war.
Originally Posted by Yooper
That is what I see on this thread. People want to tailor how others post so they feel better. What is the point of that? Isn't the whole point of thoughtful discussion about pushing your confort zone, questioning your ideas, learning new things, hearing strong opinions, articulating your beliefs, and allowing those beliefs to be questioned/challenged?
I also think that anyone that participates on a messgae coard needs to remember that written words and tone are interpretted differently by each person. Oftentimes I see people accusing others of tone that I just do not see. I try to always assume the best intentions when interpretting tone. That has saved me from many a flame-war.
Fuller - amen sister. If I have to attend one more women's group or similar where everything is supposed to be done by unanimous group think, and competition and debate are looked down on (unless of course you deserve to be beaten to death for not being group-think enough) I may burst a blood vessel in my head or poke my own eye out with a pen.
I'm not seeing people trying to censor what others say. I think this is all part of what you are talking about Yooper, organic discussion where people get challenged, express their beliefs, and comfort zones get prodded a little.
This time it is around extremism and judgment. What's wrong with that?
I don't see it either. I see people just wanting the condescension checked at the door, with maybe a little understanding if someone isn't up to snuff in all departments.
Thanks Galatea. Sorry if I was getting very particular, but that always gets me.
Someone might post that they THINK feeding kids fast food is "child abuse."
I just don't see how statements of "It is child abuse to [fill in the blank]..." [....feed fast food, let them watch TV, use disposable diapers, a harness, model traditional gender roles, use non-"natural" consequences, etc etc etc...] is a constructive form of discourse. It is a deliberately exaggerated statement which serves only to project a greater level of negative emotional judgment than the person is prepared to rationally justify or spell out in other terms.
Several posters seem to want to privilege those whose parenting practices are "extreme" or pure AP in a sort of pecking order where it's OK to talk down to people and use inflammatory rhetoric and they cannot be challenged because they are some kind of core group. But this isn't about our actual parenting practices. It's about behavior on a discussion forum. And it's a huge logical fallacy to assume that the people who are insensitive to others are the most hard-core APers. So what this is going to end up doing is privileging the people, not with the most knowledge or experience, but with the most attitude. This is already the case on MDC to a large extent. People who object to incompassionate communication are constantly getting it turned around on them and told their objections are nothing more than a sign of a guilty conscience.
I really think the UA and the moderation on this board are so strict because they have to be. I shudder to think what people would do to each other without them.
Originally Posted by siobhang
My rule is this: if I wouldn't treat my child with disrespect, judgement and shame, what would give me the right to treat another adult, another mother that way? Even if she is not actually present on the group?
Such an excellent point. Thank you.
None of us believe that the best way to guide our children's behavior is by heavy applications of guilt, shame, lecturing, shunning, derogatory language, or snap character judgments. But somehow people seem to believe that those techniques are an effective way of making other women into better mothers.
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel
I just don't see how statements of "It is child abuse to [fill in the blank]..." [....feed fast food, let them watch TV, use disposable diapers, a harness, model traditional gender roles, use non-"natural" consequences, etc etc etc...] is a constructive form of discourse. It is a deliberately exaggerated statement which serves only to project a greater level of negative emotional judgment than the person is prepared to rationally justify or spell out in other terms.
Several posters seem to want to privilege those whose parenting practices are "extreme" or pure AP in a sort of pecking order where it's OK to talk down to people and use inflammatory rhetoric and they cannot be challenged because they are some kind of core group. But this isn't about our actual parenting practices. It's about behavior on a discussion forum. And it's a huge logical fallacy to assume that the people who are insensitive to others are the most hard-core APers. So what this is going to end up doing is privileging the people, not with the most knowledge or experience, but with the most attitude. This is already the case on MDC to a large extent. People who object to incompassionate communication are constantly getting it turned around on them and told their objections are nothing more than a sign of a guilty conscience.
I really think the UA and the moderation on this board are so strict because they have to be. I shudder to think what people would do to each other without them.
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel
I just don't see how statements of "It is child abuse to [fill in the blank]..." [....feed fast food, let them watch TV, use disposable diapers, a harness, model traditional gender roles, use non-"natural" consequences, etc etc etc...] is a constructive form of discourse. It is a deliberately exaggerated statement which serves only to project a greater level of negative emotional judgment than the person is prepared to rationally justify or spell out in other terms.
Several posters seem to want to privilege those whose parenting practices are "extreme" or pure AP in a sort of pecking order where it's OK to talk down to people and use inflammatory rhetoric and they cannot be challenged because they are some kind of core group. But this isn't about our actual parenting practices. It's about behavior on a discussion forum. And it's a huge logical fallacy to assume that the people who are insensitive to others are the most hard-core APers. So what this is going to end up doing is privileging the people, not with the most knowledge or experience, but with the most attitude. This is already the case on MDC to a large extent. People who object to incompassionate communication are constantly getting it turned around on them and told their objections are nothing more than a sign of a guilty conscience.
I really think the UA and the moderation on this board are so strict because they have to be. I shudder to think what people would do to each other without them.
That is why i very carefully included "think" in that sentance. I have actually never in any thread called anything "child abuse". I was just using it an an example. Someone might really *think* it IS child abuse. You are allowed to *think* that. You are allowed to say you *think* it. It is different than just calling it abuse. I guess it is just an example similar to the people that *think* CIO is child abuse.
I also never said that i think *anyone* should be allowed to talk down to people or purposely be rude/condescending/etc..... What I said is that "extreme" people should not have to be quiet and go away because someone feels guilty about thier very existense.
But. This is an AP/NFL board. People should be free to respectfully (within the UA guidelines) express their opinions without worrying that someone not-yet-there is going to feel guilty.
I am not one of the "extremes" on this board. Or at least i do not think so. I do plenty of things that I have thoughtfully chosen to do that might go against the AP/NFL "checklist". I am OK with that. I do not need validation from everyone on this board to feel Ok with those decisions. I am here to talk about the AP/NFL topics that I am either doing or interested in learning about.
Originally Posted by Rivka5
Such an excellent point. Thank you.
None of us believe that the best way to guide our children's behavior is by heavy applications of guilt, shame, lecturing, shunning, derogatory language, or snap character judgments. But somehow people seem to believe that those techniques are an effective way of making other women into better mothers.
I have not heard anyone say that they think people should be treating people this way. My concern are the posters that are saying that people who hold extreme views or live thier lives in extreme ways should be quiet. I am also concerned that people think we should sit around talking about how great disposables and formula are to keep from offending anyone. It is a NFL board. It is OK to say that you *think* disposables are irresponsible. Respectfully and within the UA guidelines. Attacking another poster for using them is an entirely different manner and I have not seen anyone defend that practice on this thread.
Originally Posted by Yooper
My concern are the posters that are saying that people who hold extreme views or live thier lives in extreme ways should be quiet.
Okay, and *this* is what I'm not seeing. I'm seeing objections to the judgment and rudeness, not to 'extreme' ways of living.
It sucks that we tend to label people based on appearance but I know I'm guilty of it to some degree myself as well as being the victim of such judgement.
Several years ago I had all natural dreadlocks, didn't shave, didn't wear makeup, and went to the health food store with my canvas shopping bags and birks on. I got plenty of dirty looks from the more "mainstream" crowd. It wasn't a phase but an exploration in boycotting beauty standards I was going through at the time...very self healing btw but that is another discussion.
At any rate, I am now the bottle blonde, sometimes with a patchwork bag and sometimes with a designer bag, sometimes wearing juicy sweats and makeup, sometimes wearing hemp. Anyway, I'm sure I've been mistaken as the suburbanite mom with an SUV which is far, far from the truth based on how I look now vs. the way I looked several years ago. The truth of the matter is that I'm the same person inside I was then...still crunchy, still caring about the environment, social change, and still going to those hippie festivals. So you can't always judge a book by its cover, that's for sure.
Originally Posted by Yooper
I am not one of the "extremes" on this board. Or at least i do not think so. I do plenty of things that I have thoughtfully chosen to do that might go against the AP/NFL "checklist". I am OK with that. I do not need validation from everyone on this board to feel Ok with those decisions. I am here to talk about the AP/NFL topics that I am either doing or interested in learning about.
The thing is, this is not a purely educational/informational board and I really don't think most people perceive it as such. It is very much a community, that people start to identify with after a while. And it can be hurtful to have the support of that community withdrawn because one doesn't have this or that box checked off. It's conditional friendship and all it will do is cause people to be dishonest about their lives for fear of getting hurt. It will become a venue for displaying an online persona and crowing over one's own purity rather than discussing natural parenting. Which is already enough of a problem as it is IMO.
As for the child abuse Taco Bell example, "I think that..." is nowhere near a sufficiently strong disclaimer for deliberately inflammatory, exaggerated rhetoric. Yeah they may THINK that, but what are they trying to achieve in SAYING it?
Originally Posted by pixiewytch
It sucks that we tend to label people based on appearance but I know I'm guilty of it to some degree myself as well as being the victim of such judgement.
Several years ago I had all natural dreadlocks, didn't shave, didn't wear makeup, and went to the health food store with my canvas shopping bags and birks on. I got plenty of dirty looks from the more "mainstream" crowd. It wasn't a phase but an exploration in boycotting beauty standards I was going through at the time...very self healing btw but that is another discussion.
At any rate, I am now the bottle blonde, sometimes with a patchwork bag and sometimes with a designer bag, sometimes wearing juicy sweats and makeup, sometimes wearing hemp. Anyway, I'm sure I've been mistaken as the suburbanite mom with an SUV which is far, far from the truth based on how I look now vs. the way I looked several years ago. The truth of the matter is that I'm the same person inside I was then...still crunchy, still caring about the environment, social change, and still going to those hippie festivals. So you can't always judge a book by its cover, that's for sure.
I look more mainstream than I am, which isn't saying much. But I hit a rough patch in life and for several years had much bigger things to worry about than whether my paisley skirts were REAL Indian block prints or industrial repros. I should have been clearer that I am not talking about people who merely look mainstream, but those who actually are mainstream in areas of life outside the strict technical definitions of AP. I don't know if the ladies I saw at WF are among them, but I know they exist, because they post to MDC about how no respectable woman would ever dream of leaving the house without "full face makeup."
I think the word I'm looking for is "co-opted." And I think the snarky crunchier-than-thou phenomenon is, in part, a confused and counterproductive attempt to deal with such.
I love my friends that go to Mickey D's
I love my friends that are raw food eatin' vegans
I love myself for the die hard carnivore that I am
I love my friends who wouldn't dig in the dirt for fear that they would get it under their fake nails
I love my friends who say "what does *organic* mean?
I love my friend who gives her child a pacifier and tries to convice me to do the same
I love myself who does cloth & disposable
I love myself who wouldn't dare go to any sort of gathering without makeup.
I love myself for carrying my child in a sling, but sometimes my back hurts so she gets put in the stroller
I love my friend who puts her child in their crib on the second floor and they sleep on the first.
I don't judge any of these loved ones for they way that they choose to parent and live.
Well, the point I am trying to make is that we can't all be the same and I look at the differences in my friends as the people in my life that "smooth out the edges of *me*". I've learned things from them and they have learned things from me. That is why I like MDC. No, I don't label myself with any parenting label. We are who we are. I don't want everyone to be like me, because if they were, then there would be nothing more to learn from others.
Well, the point I am trying to make is that we can't all be the same and I look at the differences in my friends as the people in my life that "smooth out the edges of *me*". I've learned things from them and they have learned things from me. That is why I like MDC. No, I don't label myself with any parenting label. We are who we are. I don't want everyone to be like me, because if they were, then there would be nothing more to learn from others.
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel
The thing is, this is not a purely educational/informational board and I really don't think most people perceive it as such. It is very much a community, that people start to identify with after a while. And it can be hurtful to have the support of that community withdrawn because one doesn't have this or that box checked off. It's conditional friendship and all it will do is cause people to be dishonest about their lives for fear of getting hurt. It will become a venue for displaying an online persona and crowing over one's own purity rather than discussing natural parenting. Which is already enough of a problem as it is IMO.
I guess I have never seen this. I have no idea if people are lying. None of us do. Of course, I am actually a 50 yo male with no children
I have never seen anyone shooed off because they do not do something on some sort of checklist. I HAVE seen people chastised for declaring they love Hummers because of the way they look and would buy one if they had the cash. I do not think it is OK to attack or belittle someone for declaring that. But I do think it is perfectly acceptable to state you feel that opinion is irresposible. It IS a NFL board after all.
What I do see over and over is someone saying "I think toilet paper is wasteful and I cannot afford to buy it, give me suggestions". Then all sorts of people come on with suggestions that the OP shoots down one after another. Turns out the OP actually wants everyone to say "yeah it is wasteful but you gotta do what you gotta do, here are some pats on the back". If that is what we have to do to make everyone feel all happy inside, then forget it. It is a waste of my time to post suggestions in what turns out to be cleverly disguised just-give-me-pats threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel
As for the child abuse Taco Bell example, "I think that..." is nowhere near a sufficiently strong disclaimer for deliberately inflammatory, exaggerated rhetoric. Yeah they may THINK that, but what are they trying to achieve in SAYING it?
Well, they might be trying to say they think it is child abuse. Obviously, this fictional example is getting a little silly. But depending on the context of the thread and the parameters around it, a statement like that might be useful to someone who feels strongly about it. If I were posting on that thread, I would think "gee that person has some strong views" and move on since I love TB way too much to worry what some unknown person thinks about me taking my kid there.
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel
I look more mainstream than I am, which isn't saying much. But I hit a rough patch in life and for several years had much bigger things to worry about than whether my paisley skirts were REAL Indian block prints or industrial repros. I should have been clearer that I am not talking about people who merely look mainstream, but those who actually are mainstream in areas of life outside the strict technical definitions of AP. I don't know if the ladies I saw at WF are among them, but I know they exist, because they post to MDC about how no respectable woman would ever dream of leaving the house without "full face makeup."
I think the word I'm looking for is "co-opted." And I think the snarky crunchier-than-thou phenomenon is, in part, a confused and counterproductive attempt to deal with such.
I hear ya. I didn't have time before but let me tell you that I have my own hangups about judging people who have "co opted" as you put it. I have an issue with going to the health food store in my little beat up Geo amongst a sea of Lexuses and SUV's. I have an issue with organic style magazine and how organic or ecofriendly has now become an interior design issue. I have issue with how being green is now a trend and that instead of making real lifestyle changes people buy some "green" product and claim they are making a real difference.
So there you have it. That is awfully judgemental...but then I realized that people are probably judging me too. In fact, let me help you out. How can I bleach my hair with all those chemicals and buy organic? How can I wear a designer bag made of leather? How can I eat vegan one night and then taco bell the next? How can I drink organic juice but drink several glasses of wine or beer the next? I could go on and on.
I've just come to a point of realizing that we are all human and nobody is perfect. When I looked the part so to speak I really did attempt the granola extreme and found as you were saying about paisley skirts which was very funny btw, that no matter what something wouldn't be good enough or granola enough or crunchy enough. Then I looked at the way I judged others for their decisions the same way others were probably judging me. I decided to be human, to accept that if I really wanted to bleach my hair it was okay..that if I really want to wear designer clothing because I think it is prettier than hemp or organic, that is okay. I'm not always proud of those decisions. I tend to see them as vices even, but I think if we try too hard we will still never walk a straight line and if we take ourselves too seriously we will never enjoy life.
Originally Posted by Yooper
So I come back to the same question: What should happen here? Some people really are "extreme". Are they suppose to shut up?
...
I also never said that i think *anyone* should be allowed to talk down to people or purposely be rude/condescending/etc..... What I said is that "extreme" people should not have to be quiet and go away because someone feels guilty about thier very existense.
I don't see people being made to feel guilty or inferior by just a persons extremism, or just their crunchiness. It is the entire attitude these so-called extremists embody, and like someone else has already said, that attitude is not favored by many here when dealing with children, but somehow it is acceptable when dealing with adults?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooper
I also think that anyone that participates on a messgae coard needs to remember that written words and tone are interpretted differently by each person.
I think that is a two way street. Yes, people need to keep in mind that the "tone" they are reading may not be intentional, but at the same time, it would be nice if people would also take into concideration the "tone" they may be projecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I'm not seeing people trying to censor what others say. I think this is all part of what you are talking about Yooper, organic discussion where people get challenged, express their beliefs, and comfort zones get prodded a little.
This time it is around extremism and judgment. What's wrong with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazelnut
I don't see it either. I see people just wanting the condescension checked at the door, with maybe a little understanding if someone isn't up to snuff in all departments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel
But this isn't about our actual parenting practices. It's about behavior on a discussion forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
I'm seeing objections to the judgment and rudeness, not to 'extreme' ways of living.
Hmm--Getting back to the idea that having to give your parenting a name is bourgeois. Actually, though, all segments of our society get names or identify themselves culturally by common behaviors and common lifestyles, common things they buy (and I do mean 'segments'--our culture is all about demographic fragmentation, mostly for marketing purposes). Like, you have the Nascar people, the Bergdorf Goodman people, the Stop-n-shop people, the ****** drinkers, the microbrew drinkers.
But maybe this is bourgeois, since all these people would probably call themselves middle class. Do the very wealthy call themselves anything? Do the very poor?
The thing is, though, that like it or not, people DO tend to connect with each other in the U.S. via shared brand names or shared lifestyles (that usually involve purchasing products). Things like buying piercings and tattoos are totally mainstream, even cliche, if you're in that group.
So the AP label serves a purpose. I think when people first start out 'doing' AP, they are often so swept away that they DO make it into a list of sorts. We're so used to being told what to do by experts--we're so used to NOT using our own instinct and judgement for anything--that switching to AP is sometimes just continuing to do that.
If you look at the history of consumption in the 20th century, you see that as time passes we become a more and more fragmented society. Identity politics played into this beautifully. Some people say it's why we are so far from achieving deep, lasting social reform that benefits everyone (like paid maternity leaves, nat'l health insurance). In the U.S., we just don't think of ourselves as a 'people.' We think of ourselves as belonging to some subcategory. The constant emphasis on individualism goes very well with this too. Both the left and the right pride themselves on their individualism--it's just being 'individualist' about different things. (The right is about economic individualism, the left is about cultural individualism.) Most of our cultural energy seems to go into finding ways we are different from everyone else rather than in finding ways to get together. A really good book on this is Lizabeth Cohen's A Consumer's Republic.
(Not that individualism is all bad. I am always fascinated by people here wishing they were in a 'tribe' to raise their children...but they forget that tribes can be pretty conformist places. And--Hmm. Wait a minute...)
Originally Posted by fuller2
The constant emphasis on individualism goes very well with this too. Both the left and the right pride themselves on their individualism--it's just being 'individualist' about different things. (The right is about economic individualism, the left is about cultural individualism.)
excellent point. I think one area where women are especially hit hard by individualism is that having children is often portrayed as an individual choice by the family. I'd even go so far as saying that many parenting decisions are called "lifestyle choices".
The upside of this is that it allows for more diversity of styles and, well, choices. The downside is that if something is a choice, then it is your responsibility - you chose to have a child, you chose that lifestyle. Therefore, the community has NO OBLIGATION to support you in that choice. And if your choice suddenly does require support from the community because you cannot do it alone, then you lose your right to have free choice.
So we benefit and we get burned. I guess you cannot get the good without taking the bad too? Interesting situation to be in.
Siobhan
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mothering Forum
16.5M posts
285.1K members
Since 1996
A forum community dedicated to all mothers and inclusive family living enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about nurturing, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!