or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › The Granola Extreme
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Granola Extreme - Page 11

post #201 of 327
And yes, some of us do think that deliberately embodying mainstream feminine aesthetics is undesireable

Yes, I do too, but being 'blonde and trim" has nothing to do with that. Some people are just blonde. Some people stay trim through exercise and healthy diets. Wearing make up, dyeing one's hair, wearing uncomfortable and fashionable clothes, okay. But having physical appearances that randomly fit into some conventional ideal shouldn't really be cause for assumptions. I'm not sure how that's getting away from judging women by their looks.

Plus, like someone said, I don't think one can always tell who is crunchy in practice by appearance. I know what you're saying about how we don't always factor in privilege and all, and how that is a huge factor in not being able to determine someone's dedication to their granola level, so to speak. But sometimes I might look pretty mainstream (even with that conventional make up) and I don't carry a sign that indicates how organic and green our household is, or how I co-sleep, cd, and breastfeed my toddler and all that jazz.
post #202 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by siobhang View Post
Whenever I read the "no one can make you feel guilty" line, I always assume the writer has inserted a silent "despite me trying hard to make you, darn you" afterwards. : )
I think since I was the one that said the "guilt" thing, this bears repeating:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
Except that in this particular case, I was stating it about guilt, not hurt . . . and also with a mind to a conversation that goes more like this:

Person A: "Meat chickens, if allowed to reach full size, would collapse under their own weight"
Person B: "How dare you say chicken is bad for me, I can't stop buying chicken, I can't afford lentils, don't make me feel guilty!"

THAT is the reality on MDC. I do understand what you're saying and the types of situations where people expect others to not have any feelings, but I don't see those convos very often.
People here get offended by things that were very clearly NOT the intention of the accused guilt-monger. That is a problem. It happens very frequently.

Guilt is what happens when your actions conflict with your ideals. There is nothing wrong with that. None of us live up to our ideals 100% of the time.

When someone tells you that XYZ makes you a bad mother, that's HURTFUL, not guilt-inducing (unless you agree with that person). Being hurtful is not OK, but it also is not the same thing.
post #203 of 327
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.
post #204 of 327
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.
post #205 of 327
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.
post #206 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
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.
post #207 of 327
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.
post #208 of 327
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?
post #209 of 327
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.
post #210 of 327
Quote:
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.
post #211 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by siobhang View Post
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.
post #212 of 327
Wow, I think that was really well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
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.
post #213 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
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.
post #214 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rivka5 View Post
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.
post #215 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
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.
post #216 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by devster4fun View Post

Sorry, it's hard to explain myself with typing...
Yep, same here, but I am going to get better at it.
post #217 of 327
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.
post #218 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
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?
post #219 of 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiewytch View Post
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.
post #220 of 327
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › The Granola Extreme