or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Welcome to Mothering! › Site Help › User Agreement Revision
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

User Agreement Revision - Page 2

post #21 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
Respectfully, why not? I understand that, say, federal or state laws recognize "discrimination on the basis of race, religion" and that they do not recognize "discrimination against WOHPs or single parents." But the MDC UA doesn't have to follow laws or mainstream values (in fact, I'd suggest MDC often prides itself on going against mainstream values). The MDC UA already lists things that can't be discussed at all:

crying it out, harsh sleep training, physical punishment, formula feeding, elective cesarean section, routine infant medical circumcision, or mandatory vaccinations

as well as being "cautious about discussions on volatile topics such as"

abortion, religion, and race

So, if adding to the "-isms" doesn't suit you, why not list "parents working outside the home as detrimental to children or the family" and "single parenting as detrimental to children or the family" along with the no-no topics of crying it out, etc.? I mean, we all agree that those two statements I just put in quote marks are (1) incorrect, (2) offensive to many MDC members, and (3) countervene MDC's pro-family, pro-natural-living, pro-gentleness values, right? So why not say so explicitly, in the UA?

Respectfully, you might not be aware just how often these two offending ideas are said or implied here on MDC and how very, very hurtful they are.
Of course they are hurtful they are in forum guidelines but WOH is not a "protected class"

I don't think WOHism should be lumped in with racism.

Cynthia once responded to this sort of question and I would like to quote her here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher
I am quite surprised that Mothering has a policy against WOHMing and for SAHMing as a rule. I will ask about this as it does not seem to ring true. Peggy wrote in Natural Family Living that "Honoring the mother-child attachment does not necessarily mean giving up working when you have a child. Women in all societies have always worked." While Peggy does make suggestions about working and the needs and care of children, this seems to me to be inclusive of mothers who work.

As far as I know Mothering does not have an official stance in this regard. But here's the official line of Mothering's purpose:

Quote:
Mothering celebrates the experience of parenthood as worthy of one's best efforts and fosters an awarenessof the immense importance and value of parenthood and family life in the development of the full human potential of parents and children. As a readers' magazine we recognize parents as experts and wish to provide truly helpful information on which parents can base informed choices. Mothering is both a fierce advocate of the needs and rights of the child and a gentle supporter of the parents, and we encourage decision making that considers the needs of all members of the family. We explore the reality of human relationships in the family setting, recognizing that raising heirs of our civilization well is the prerequisite of a healthy society.
There are wonderful parents that work out of their home, that work in their home, as well as wonderful parents that stay home with their children and do not work. And there are terrible parents who work outside the home, who work inside the home, and who are SAH parents. A stance for or against WAHMing, WOHMing, and SAHMing would be too huge a generalization and would, I think, just create more ammunition for the mommy wars that so many of us wish would stop. Mothering advocates the rights of the child and that would seem to be the official stance of importance whether you are a WOHM, WAHM, or SAHM. Not all parents fulfill the rights of their children in the Mothering sense. So to uphold one of the labels as the ideal is pretty superficial.

I don't think the issue is policy-ed so that a line can be drawn to say who is and isn't supported full stop. Certainly, in making decisions in the best interest of the child(ren), what is necessary and even possible will be different from family to family based on the myriad of circumstances presented to the parent/parents.
post #22 of 126
Quote:
If we click on the link and it is negative?
What does this mean? Does it mean that you click on a link and are able to view a thread somewhere else? I am confused.

So, there are members here that are members elsewhere that view negative threads on other boards and then come back here, pm a moderator and report it?

I do understand when drama from other boards leaks onto MDC and causes issues.
post #23 of 126
I remember that discussion and post by Cynthia. Unfortunately, statements against WOHPs do keep occurring here (and ditto against single parents). It seems like we (and Cynthia ) do agree that Mothering opposes statements against these two groups (even if the two groups aren't legally protected classes). So can't we say so in the UA (again, just as "discussions we won't host" or "tread lightly areas" instead of -isms, if you like)? It is much easier for users/moderators to flag an offensive post as "against the UA" than "against something Cynthia said once." AND the UA works as an excellent deterrent, to prevent the offensive posts in the first place.
post #24 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain mom View Post
What does this mean? Does it mean that you click on a link and are able to view a thread somewhere else? I am confused.
Yes

Quote:

So, there are members here that are members elsewhere that view negative threads on other boards and then come back here, pm a moderator and report it?
Yes, in a lot of those situations we can't do anything about it other than offer name changes or other such things.

Internet harassment is a serious issue and people should really examine that behavior and take it seriously, it is really striking that this is so common with parenting boards. I would not allow my child to behave in such a manner. It is incredible that individuals do not hold themselves to the same standard.

Quote:
I do understand when drama from other boards leaks onto MDC and causes issues.
It causes more issues than people realize.
post #25 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
We are not interested, however, in hosting discussions on the merits of crying it out, harsh sleep training, physical punishment, formula feeding,
So you just can't discuss formula feeding in a positive light? What about someone who is FF for medical reasons.... can they get support here and share their stores?
post #26 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_McG View Post
So you just can't discuss formula feeding in a positive light? What about someone who is FF for medical reasons.... can they get support here and share their stores?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/merits

1.
a. Superior quality or worth; excellence: a proposal of some merit; an ill-advised plan without merit.
b. A quality deserving praise or approval; virtue: a store having the merit of being open late.
2. Demonstrated ability or achievement: promotions based on merit alone.
3. An aspect of character or behavior deserving approval or disapproval. Often used in the plural: judging people according to their merits.
4. Christianity Spiritual credit granted for good works.
5. merits
a. Law A party's strict legal rights, excluding jurisdictional, personal, or technical aspects.
b. The factual content of a matter, apart from emotional, contextual, or formal considerations.



There is a difference between discussing *merit* and *reason*


Medical formula has not been censored. That has been in the UA this entire time.
post #27 of 126
I know what merit means. I wasn't sure if 'merits of' applied to every word in that sentence. Re-reading I guess it's pretty obvious. Thanks.
post #28 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_McG View Post
I know what merit means. I wasn't sure if 'merits of' applied to every word in that sentence. Re-reading I guess it's pretty obvious. Thanks.
Oh I see, yes it does.
post #29 of 126
Quote:
6. Do not post to invite MDC members to other communities, blogs or message boards for adversarial purposes.
What about PMing somebody a link to another message board? I know I've received such PMs in the past, often within the context of "I no longer post at MDC, here's the link to the spinoff board where I'm posting now."

Also, what's the policy on posting links to other message boards if it's not for adversarial purposes? Say, somebody wants more information about gluten-free living or low-carb dieting, would it be appropriate to share a link to a message board dedicated to that specific topic?
post #30 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla View Post
What about PMing somebody a link to another message board? I know I've received such PMs in the past, often within the context of "I no longer post at MDC, here's the link to the spinoff board where I'm posting now."
Unless someone reports it how would we even know that?

Why would someone report it?

Quote:
Also, what's the policy on posting links to other message boards if it's not for adversarial purposes? Say, somebody wants more information about gluten-free living or low-carb dieting, would it be appropriate to share a link to a message board dedicated to that specific topic?
That isn't against the rules.
post #31 of 126
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was never quite sure about either one, especially my 2nd question (which is a much more practical concern.)
post #32 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
I remember that discussion and post by Cynthia. Unfortunately, statements against WOHPs do keep occurring here (and ditto against single parents). It seems like we (and Cynthia ) do agree that Mothering opposes statements against these two groups (even if the two groups aren't legally protected classes). So can't we say so in the UA (again, just as "discussions we won't host" or "tread lightly areas" instead of -isms, if you like)? It is much easier for users/moderators to flag an offensive post as "against the UA" than "against something Cynthia said once." AND the UA works as an excellent deterrent, to prevent the offensive posts in the first place.

I just wanted to say, I very much agree with this. I hope to be a SHAM when this baby comes, but the mommy wars are disgusting. While I don't think it's no the same level as racism, I think MDC taking a stance on this the way that they have about CIO and breastfeeding would go a long way to help WOHM/SHAM relations on this board.

Love that post of Cynthia's! I understand she's giving a reason not to make an official stance on the issue, but I feel like having her reasoning (that working and non working parents can both be AP/Natural family ideals and fit in with this community) is something that would be wonderful to have in the UA.
post #33 of 126
Umm...y'all are missing a comma in #7
post #34 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain mom View Post
What does this mean? Does it mean that you click on a link and are able to view a thread somewhere else? I am confused.
IF someone posts a "live link" (ie, one where you click and it takes you to the site) to a thread at MDC, they (MDC) can see the referring site and can get a link back to the original thread, message board or blog that posted the link, if the original site is a public, googalable site. If it is not, they will not be able to see the original link (for eg, if I posted, on my friends-only LJ that DD was driving me nuts and posted a link to my thread in the GD forum, MDC would be able to see that a link came from that blog, but they would not be able to read my post - and would not know whether I said, look at all the great advice I got from those awesome MDC mamas or look at all the nonsense those UAV's at MDC suggested)
post #35 of 126
Thankyou for adding sizism, Abimommy
post #36 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
A link or a reference to a discussion that is negative towards MDC or its members.

"Check out what these people think of your ideas about X or y at blahwebsite.blah"


But that part is not new. I am wanting to make Rule 6 a bit more clear we have a lot of confusion about it.
PLEASE DO! Think of all the crafty type sites that this excludes people from suggesting.
post #37 of 126
Quote:
Also, what's the policy on posting links to other message boards if it's not for adversarial purposes? Say, somebody wants more information about gluten-free living or low-carb dieting, would it be appropriate to share a link to a message board dedicated to that specific topic?
Quote:
That isn't against the rules.
At the risk of getting my hand slapped here... what about the ravelry threads?
post #38 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticmomma View Post
PLEASE DO! Think of all the crafty type sites that this excludes people from suggesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticmomma View Post
At the risk of getting my hand slapped here... what about the ravelry threads?
That issue was related to negative things being posted there, not the actual website itself.
post #39 of 126
ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. I never saw any negative stuff... thanks for clearing it up.
post #40 of 126
What about age-ism?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Site Help
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Welcome to Mothering! › Site Help › User Agreement Revision