or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

anarcha mamas? - Page 2

post #21 of 48
I'm apolitical, but it sure seems like a least one of all evil
p.s. - pagan...
post #22 of 48

Have you all seen this? What do you think about it? I read it a while ago, but there was some stuff in there I wasn't too cool with - like about the crying.
post #23 of 48
Thread Starter 
makinganescape, iron rail is awesome!

jumpmama, i had to re-read it, too, but (aside from rolling my eyes about some of the sexual stuff) i kind of thought it was anti-cio.. "Lowen has traced specific neuroses, particularly depression, to this practice."

i think before that bit, it speaks about children making lots of noise and being free to do it but i think and hope they meant the happy screams and shrieks like when the little ones are finding their voices and isn't talking about letting them cry.. but again, my whole take on why we don't cio is that cries are an attempt to communicate. it's not too anarchist to ignore someone when they communicate, kwim?

something from the faq that made me giggle: "Anarchists do not advocate a lack of common sense." (i just think it's funny that that is in there..)

the question of how to raise moral children when they don't have any punishment to fear made me think of the new york times moral life of babies..
when i read it, i was so excited, i felt like it 'proved' something, that babies too young to have been schooled, disciplined, religion-ized, etc. still instinctively knew - in a mutual aid kind of way- the difference between harmful actions and helpful ones. what'chall think about it?

i'm rambling, aren't i.. sorry.
post #24 of 48
I should probably reread it. I think I took it as being a little pro cio since we often have trouble distinguishing my dd's vocalizations intentions. She VERY rarely actually cries, but gets really vocal about things, so I feel like just letting her vocalize for its own sake is on par with ignoring cries since she's usually trying to tell us something important.
post #25 of 48
count me in - deep south, usa

makinganescape - i read my first copy of Spiritual Midwifery at the iron rail info shop - sad to hear oil got into lake ponchartrian, y'all take care down there.

jump, mama, jump, thanks for the link - will read when screen time allows.

has anyone else read 'punished by rewards' and 'unconditional parenting' by alfie kohn? i think his writing explores a lot of relevant ideas about authority and autonomy.

look forward to hearing more...
post #26 of 48
Originally Posted by jump mama jump! View Post

Have you all seen this? What do you think about it? I read it a while ago, but there was some stuff in there I wasn't too cool with - like about the crying.
I haven't read this yet, but I just wanted a thanks for the link! Looks interesting. I'm reading a collection of Emma Goldman's speeches to my lo right now. He seems to fall right to sleep when I read it, but I'm finding it very enjoyable.

DP is anarchist, and over the past three years, he's just about convinced me, so this looks like the tribe for me.
post #27 of 48
post #28 of 48
Thanks J. Jones... We are trying to make things work right now. DP is a server at a seafood rest. NO ONE is eating gulf seafood right now. He made $7.00 yesterday in 6 hours. We are kinda starting to freak out.

I have a pipe dream about organizing a radical nonreligious homeschool conference down here. There are too too too many christian and conservative conferences, and I feel left out. Do you think that is doable? Do any of you homeschool?
post #29 of 48

As I was searching for another tribe, I ran across this. I wanted to bump it a little and also post these two links:


First, this is the blog of my friend Tomas, creator of the radical parenting zine Rad Dad.  If you ever get the chance to see him on one of his tours and reading his work, its worth going. He is awesome.




Also, this is the link with a blurb about the zine compilation book The Future Generation, by China Martens. Its a great collection that was written by a young radical mother. It takes you through all of her adventures in parenting throughout 17 years of her daughters life. Its a great read.







post #30 of 48

Loved The Future Generation! Nice compilation. 


I'd like to link to The Anarchist Mother. A friend of mine just started it up! 

post #31 of 48

Hey everybody,


Amazing thread! I live in a house with 9 other anarchists. I am an infant nanny now. I am planning to TTC as a Single Mama in January 2012 or earlier, depending on money. I'm polyamorous, but plan on being the sole "parent" to my child in a huge family of rad folks! So glad you all are here.

Originally Posted by jump mama jump! View Post

I should probably reread it. I think I took it as being a little pro cio since we often have trouble distinguishing my dd's vocalizations intentions. She VERY rarely actually cries, but gets really vocal about things, so I feel like just letting her vocalize for its own sake is on par with ignoring cries since she's usually trying to tell us something important.




Of course sex is not the only expression of life-energy that parents try to stifle in children. There are also, for example, the child's natural vocal expressions (shouting, screaming, bellowing, crying, etc.) and natural body motility. As Reich notes,

"Small children go through a phase of development characterised by vigorous activity of the voice musculature. The joy the infant derives from loud noises (crying, shrieking, and forming a variety of sounds) is regarded by many parents as pathological aggressiveness. The children are accordingly admonished not to scream, to be 'still,' etc. The impulses of the voice apparatus are inhibited, its musculature becomes chronically contracted, and the child becomes quiet, 'well-brought-up,' and withdrawn. The effect of such mistreatment is soon manifested in eating disturbances, general apathy, pallor of the face, etc. Speech disturbances and retardation of speech development are presumably caused in this manner. In the adult we see the effects of such mistreatment in the form of spasms of the throat. The automatic constrictions of the glottis and the deep throat musculature, with subsequent inhibition of the aggressive impulses of the head and neck, seems to be particularly characteristic." [Op. Cit., p. 128]



As a nanny, I think that maybe I could easily interpret the above quote as being meant for children who are a little older, as opposed to infants. The text seemed pretty adamant that loving and immediate responses to a child's needs were paramount in creating a free child.




A new-born child has only one way of expressing its needs: through crying. Crying has many nuances and can convey much more than the level of distress of the child. If a mother is unable to establish contact at the most basic emotional ("bioenergetic," according to Reich) level, she will be unable to understand intuitively what needs the child is expressing through its crying. Any unmet needs will in turn be felt by the child as a deprivation, to which it will respond with a wide array of negative emotions and deleterious physiological processes and emotional tension. If continued for long, such tensions can become chronic and thus the beginning of "armouring" and adaptation to a "cruel" reality.


post #32 of 48

I'm a bit confused from reading this thread. I always thought anarchy meant someone who doesn't believe in government telling them what to do, but this thread looks like that definition includes agnostics, atheists, and several other things. I, personally, think we'd be better off if we lived in small groups, without a government entity telling us how to live and breathe, but I believe very strongly in God and in that person being a very loving and personal being. So, I don't know if I belong here or not.


hildare, Radical Homesteading (the title) sounds intriguing. What does it entail? Do you have a link to share?

post #33 of 48

A Random Phrase, there are religious Anarchists. I know some self-identified Christian Anarchists, though they have very radical, progressive perspectives on the faith. I personally am agnostic. I find religious literature enthralling and I believe that Jesus (if he is a factual person) would probably have identified as an anarchist, had the term been available to him. At the very least, he was anti-capitalist. Supposedly, he washed the feet of women. He honored his mother. He engaged in platonic friendships with sex workers. He died because the king wanted power, and Jesus's message of community and love were too strong for the powers that be. I love that story. It has a LOT of flaws, but I think it's beautiful at it's core, and I know it's not the only story of it's kind throughout history. Just check out this Woodie Guthrie song. Neat.


The irony is how little the "love your neighbor" ideal is practiced with wholehearted conviction within the church. I believe strongly and passionately that the institution of religion has created immense oppression and suffering. It tends strongly to be steeped in hierarchy, patriarchy, classism, racism, etc. Not Anarchist. Religious leaders are often adorned with flashy outfits and king-like status. Not Anarchist. I am not at all opposed to personal faith,  assuming that it does not result in an emotionally an socially unhealthy and deeply ingrained numbness and acceptance to patriarchy and oppression, which I believe it usually does, at least often in abrahamic institutionalized religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).  The words "anarchia" and "anarchos" mean "without ruler". I know many people think of God as being a coercive authoritarian "father" figure, which is in no way Anarchist. At least not considering the historical roots of the anarchy movement as a very radical force for liberty through autonomy.


Some people, who would like to identify as both religious and anarchist, might try to make a discrepancy between a state ruler and an omnipotent ruler, God. So they make authoritarian allowances in their interpretations of what God is where they wouldn't in their interpretations of how the state should work. 


Anarchy has a history in many faiths but most recently and powerfully with those who aren't religious. It has strong roots in a "No Gods, No Masters" ideal. It puts a lot of faith in the inherent goodness of the individual, and their innate tendencies toward autonomy and productive collaboration in community. It asserts that where there is a master, there is sickness and there is violence.  Where there is true autonomy, there is liberty. 


Anarchy is radical and has the deepest of trust in humanity to rule themselves in a way that honors collaboration and . That doesn't necessarily conflict with the notion of god, though it often does, especially within our society.  


Community and autonomy and love. Anarchy. 


<3 (A) <3


post #34 of 48

Habitat, thank you for the answer. My personal view of God is a being who gives us a tremendous amount of freedom to choose, including whether or not to choose to do what he says. I do belong to an organized religion, though. I do get what you're saying about the leaders of religions. Even if they don't want to be viewed as someone whose every word must be obeyed, people often put them on a pedestal.


I think you are spot on about Jesus. Most certainly, he was very radical to the people of his time.


I think I may lurk here from time to time. Thank you again for your clear answer to my question.

post #35 of 48

Something ironic: since last posting here, I came across several anarchy blogs written by members of the church I belong to. You learn something new every day. And what they said made sense to me, so I have been seriously thinking about some of the details of how I really think. I think most people have a tendency to cover up what they really think/feel because of how they perceive those in authority over them. (I hope that made sense.) I guess I am more one of you than I thought.

post #36 of 48

I haven't checked this thread in a while. Thanks to people who posted new links. They look interesting. I've been meaning to pick up a copy of the future generation, and have heard of Rad Dad, but never actually read it.


To me anarchism is more than just the advocacy of the absence of government, but the whole absence of hierarchy. I feel like oppression would still be present in other forms as long as there is any one or group with power over others.


That said, I have a lot of problems with religion, but certainly respect everyone's right to believe what they want.

post #37 of 48

Yay for more anarcha mamas!

post #38 of 48

Hmm, I just stumbled upon this thread, and am checking out the links some of you posted. Very interesting! Can anyone recommend some really basic info on anarchism for someone who doens't know much? Thanks. :)

post #39 of 48

sub sub subbing...

post #40 of 48
Thread Starter 

enjoythesilence, check out the anarchist faq on infoshop.org

and, i love love love emma goldman.  most of her books are really good.  i like red emma speaks.

also a berkman wrote the abc's of anarchism, which is very straightforward....



Edited by hildare - 3/17/11 at 7:33am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Connect With Other Moms