or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › Staying at Home "On Welfare"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Staying at Home "On Welfare" - Page 8

post #141 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hootandflutter View Post
Unfortunately, that is not what a baby in day care learns. He isn't capable of reasoning on that level. The baby learns to feel alone and powerless. The baby struggles with attachment (mental health) as well as being more likely to get sick, to be violent, and to do poorly in school later. He doesn't understand handouts -- he just learns, by practice, that life feels wrong.

(P.S. Please, mamas w/ babies in care, don't take my response as a condemnation. I know that you are doing the best you can.)
I think you are taking some small differences in behavior outcomes and making a big leap there.

The baby "learns, by practice, that life feels wrong"?? The baby "learns to feel alone and powerless"? Do you have anything to back that up or are you just kinda adding those parts in?
post #142 of 1188
Thread Starter 
I agree that there's a vast difference between caregivers, and not all babies being cared for by someone other than a parent are feeling alone and powerless. But Hootandflutter was directly responding to a pp who was being very insulting to those of us who stay home and draw public assistance.

I think Hootandflutter opens up an interesting idea: that maybe people shouldn't make assumptions about what babies and young children "learn" from our various behaviors. I'm sure some children of working mamas are learning that "we all have to work for things" -- but I believe my children are learning that, too.

And while some children in daycare probably do feel neglected -- some children of sahm's also feel neglected. Maybe Mama thinks her scrupulous housecleaning is teaching her baby a strong work-ethic, when really he's learning that scrubbing out the oven is more important than holding him.

I think pitter_patter (the pp quoted by Hootandflutter) expressed one extreme viewpoint -- and Hootandflutter countered that with an equally extreme viewpoint. Two wrongs (or two exaggerations) certainly don't make a right (or an accurate statement) -- but this is just another example of how attacking one group of people just kind of "starts the whole (adversarial) ball rolling."

I just believe we can discuss these issues without abandoning respect for one another.
post #143 of 1188
Beautifully said mammal_mama.
post #144 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by phathui5 View Post
I guess that depends on the daycare. The baby I watch two days a week got as much AP attention (minus the nursing) as my own did as babies. I had her in the sling until my pregnant belly got too big and now we use a Mei Tai when I take her out somewhere. She's never had to cry it out or been punitively disciplined. Her mom is a nurse and her dad's in school. When she's not with one of them, she's here at our house. My family is part of their team for taking care of her.
That baby is so lucky! If only that type of childcare was available to everyone.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamsInDigital View Post
Beautifully said mammal_mama.
for sure.
post #145 of 1188
Well said, mammal_mama. I was sad to see what to me has been a mostly thoughtful discussion (barring the flames about SAHMs on welfare and a few other posts I dismissed out of hand) add an ignorant and uninformed description of daycare, especially with the fatuous "oh but I'm really not attacking you WOHMs" at the end.

It saddens me to see so much fighting about various types of caregiving, especially when the stuff that really makes a difference and causes clear and proven developmental and emotion damage is swept under the carpet. There are lots of things that damage kids, but it's not being on welfare or in daycare. It's the biggies: untreated and unaddressed alcoholism and drug abuse, emotional instability, uncontrolled rage and anger, lack of safe living conditions, lack of decent food, violence in the family, untreated mental health issues, etc.

These are problems that transcend all types of family structure. They afflict families with two WOHPs, a SAHM and a WOHD, single mamas, lesbian and gay families, basically any kind of family you can imagine. These are the things that tear families apart from the inside, that make kids cower, that are proven predictors for future unhappiness and misery on the part of the children.

What's frustrating is that I think a lot of these problems could be tackled if we put our minds to it. But instead we get caught up in the mommy wars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
I agree that there's a vast difference between caregivers, and not all babies being cared for by someone other than a parent are feeling alone and powerless. But Hootandflutter was directly responding to a pp who was being very insulting to those of us who stay home and draw public assistance.

I think Hootandflutter opens up an interesting idea: that maybe people shouldn't make assumptions about what babies and young children "learn" from our various behaviors. I'm sure some children of working mamas are learning that "we all have to work for things" -- but I believe my children are learning that, too.

And while some children in daycare probably do feel neglected -- some children of sahm's also feel neglected. Maybe Mama thinks her scrupulous housecleaning is teaching her baby a strong work-ethic, when really he's learning that scrubbing out the oven is more important than holding him.

I think pitter_patter (the pp quoted by Hootandflutter) expressed one extreme viewpoint -- and Hootandflutter countered that with an equally extreme viewpoint. Two wrongs (or two exaggerations) certainly don't make a right (or an accurate statement) -- but this is just another example of how attacking one group of people just kind of "starts the whole (adversarial) ball rolling."

I just believe we can discuss these issues without abandoning respect for one another.
post #146 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post
It is cliche, and a few people on one board cannot change the cultural meaning of it now.
How many people does it take to make a change? Why do you feel helpless to make an attempt?


Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post
I find the attempt to make it "Okay" to say that somewhat disingenuous, too.
Why do feel equipped to judge the motives of others? Doesn't this very sentiment oppose the meaning you are trying to convey, as in, you use a phrase with specific intent to judge in order to convey that another's motive to judge is improper (by your assumption that they- or I- have made a judgement, which as your comment pertains to my participation will never be substantiated; you did read the posts that followed, I hope.).

This is a double standard. Why do you perpetuate a victim mentality by conveying that change is not possible? There are myriad examples of revolutions that have changed not just individuals, cultures and nations, but the whole world as well. I do not agree with your defeatism. I won't allow language to oppress me; you can choose to if you desire, but I fail to see how that could be understood as having any modicum of purpose towards betterment.

In case you don't think this is a category of importance, realise that language is the first vehicle for governmental agencies to change public perception; it is called 'social engineering' and it happens every day, all day. There are highly compensated individuals whose work is to do exactly that- change the language to change perception. If you are going to fight for something, why not something worthwhile rather than the right to continue to be victimised by your own language, and to do violence to others with accusation based upon fallacious reasoning and emotional reaction?

Why hold onto this? Are you trying to protect something? Do you feel that your needs are not being met somehow? Wouldn't it be liberating to just express that and see how people will respond? My guess is that you'd be surprised how much and how often others actually enjoy bettering another's life; try to assume the best, even when your initial reaction is negative- that's your response to your past. Wouldn't you rather live here in the present?

Saying no to positive change won't stop it; it'll just mean you remain part of the problem while others who desire positive change are incidentally having to work against you. Change will happen with or without you. Where do you stand? Or will you move forward?

I'm on the way right now.
post #147 of 1188
*
post #148 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post
WARNING! Grade-school math back to haunt you all. Mooohahahaha!

I'm not on welfare, but I do receive child tax benefits (CTB) and child care supplement for working families (CSWF) every month and they are only available to low income families here and the more money we earn outside the home, the less we recieve, so I'll treat them the same way as welfare.


SAHM Scenario (monthly)- Dh works FT, I stay home with 3 dc
CTB payment= $750
CSWF payment= $275
Childcare subsidy= $0
Taxpayer's paycheque contribution= $1025


WOHM Scenario (monthly)- Dh and I both work FT
CTB payment= $295
CSWF payment= $0
Childcare subsidy= $1890
Taxpayer's paycheque contribution= $2185




Clearly it costs taxpayers less for me to stay at home than it would for me to go out to work, assuming, of course that I don't land a job for $100K/yr
Thanks for posting -- I'm also in Canada and receiving the CTB and CSWF, and I didn't know how the numbers added up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azuralea View Post
You have a much broader definition of "raising your kids" than most people I know. Just a personal anecdote, I went to daycare as a child (which, btw, I thought was a lot of fun), and I have never once, not in my entire life, not even in my teen years when I was questioning everything, thought I was raised even in part by the childcare workers. Or my teachers, for that matter. I did appreciate them and love them, but the people who raised me are my parents, full stop.
I think that varies with the individual. I was cared for by a sitter from the time my mom had to return to work (not later than 6 months) but it was in her home, with her grandchildren & a few other kids, and was always the same woman except when she took time off (very, very rare). I have more childhood memories of being there (and then school once I was old enough) than of being at home until I was old enough not to need a sitter. Yes, I have a greater attachment to my parents; however, I do feel that this sitter had a large hand in raising me. As much as I loved my sitter, I still wished my mom could stay home with us instead of having to spend so much time at school/the sitter's.
post #149 of 1188
Quote:
Unfortunately, that is not what a baby in day care learns. He isn't capable of reasoning on that level. The baby learns to feel alone and powerless. The baby struggles with attachment (mental health) as well as being more likely to get sick, to be violent, and to do poorly in school later. He doesn't understand handouts -- he just learns, by practice, that life feels wrong.

(P.S. Please, mamas w/ babies in care, don't take my response as a condemnation. I know that you are doing the best you can.)
Wow...I was going to stay out of this discussion, but this is just so unbelievably insulting : Especially the "disclaimer" which makes it sound as if "the best I can" is somehow inferior or substandard to what full time SAHMs do. : : :

And, btw, these are NOT the things my child is learning in daycare. She is learning that other people are capable of loving her and caring about her, she is learning new skills, she is learning arts and crafts, she is experimenting daily with new ways of moving in a huge outside play area filled with sunshine and fresh air, and she is learning social skills such as sharing and playing nicely with other children. She loves her daycare and is THRIVING there. She also gets plenty of mama time in the mornings, evenings, weekends, and all summer long (I am a student mama and I SAHM in the summers). And I assure you, she has no "attachment issues." Nor is she sickly or violent :

Quote:
and to do poorly in school later.
Actually, the studies I've read show that, on average, children who have been in daycare do BETTER academically

So, no, I don't think I'm just "doing the best I can." I think I'm doing a darn good job of raising a happy, healthy child for whom, I daresay, life for the most part, feels RIGHT.

Anyway, I realize this is already fairly off topic, so I will go back to lurking now. But I just could not let such an insulting and misinformed post go. My apologies.
post #150 of 1188
I think the offense taken to the idea of sharing the raising of one's children is largely a north american phenomenon. My background is eastern european and if my great-grandmother had said she was raising her children and meant to the exclusion of others, not only would she have been grievously wrong, she would have caused great insult to the extended family and small community she relied upon for her family's survival. I also know aboriginal canadians, people from asia, and south america who would never even dream of saying that the parents are the ones who raise their children, 'full stop.' Saying that their parents are raising their children is not an offense to their own raising of their children. Saying that the community is raising their children is not an offense to their raising of their children. That offense seems to be pretty localised, which begs the question about the idea that we should refrain from using phraseology that offends- to whom is it offensive? How are we to know without dialogue? How can we even consider changing it if the ones who find offense are unwilling to participate in the conversation except to stake a claim and malign those who desire to understand, stop the cycle, and progress together?

Why so protective of this idea that we don't need or want anyone's participation in our lives? What do we gain by this? Mommy wars aside (since they are clearly- now that I have become aware of the 'issues'- largely irrelevant, IMO), what is the big threat to our need for reassurance that we are doing what is best for our families? Are we not reassured by the resulting love in our homes and confidence in the relationships therein?

Is there really no possibility for dialogue unless all participants adhere to the unspoken and even irrational limitation of phrases and words preferred by a few people (as they are in comparison to the number of people the world over who wouldn't and do not find offense to the same)? Do north americans have it right to the exclusion of all other cultures?

(It's possible that I have asked 100 questions so far and recieved very few responses to my questions, though much maligning of my character and motives. Perhaps someone who finds offense would be willing to enter into a dialogue that is respectful and peaceful?)
post #151 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMom View Post
I think you are taking some small differences in behavior outcomes and making a big leap there.

The baby "learns, by practice, that life feels wrong"?? The baby "learns to feel alone and powerless"? Do you have anything to back that up or are you just kinda adding those parts in?
As an aside, this is the kind of thing Dr. Sears tends to say in his books (not about daycare, about things like crying it out), when honestly, there's no real way to know what a baby is learning from a given situation. I've always been annoyed with Dr. Sears' books because I felt he was attributing thoughts and feelings to young babies that they might or might not actually be experiencing. We can certainly do studies in which we discover what kind of outcomes particular parenting practices tend to lead to, but we can't possibly know what the "inner life" of a six-month-old is actually like.
post #152 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVC View Post
She is learning that other people are capable of loving her and caring about her, she is learning new skills, she is learning arts and crafts, she is experimenting daily with new ways of moving in a huge outside play area filled with sunshine and fresh air, and she is learning social skills such as sharing and playing nicely with other children. She loves her daycare and is THRIVING there. She also gets plenty of mama time in the mornings, evenings, weekends, and all summer long (I am a student mama and I SAHM in the summers). And I assure you, she has no "attachment issues." Nor is she sickly or violent
Here is an excellent example of why I think the definition of raising one's children must be broadened and more inclusive of different arrangements. Here, a caring mum is raising her child. Part of raising the child as she describes her above is in allowing others to raise her as well. This has resulted in the best for everyone. More than one person raising a child can be a really wonderful thing and saying that the people who are obviously giving this child such loving care, while mum's away, are not raising her is not only insulting to them, I suspect, but degrades the role that mum has given them, which is a sideways and subtle insult to mum as well. I wonder, does anyone else see that?

p.s. EVC, I don't assume you agree with my arguement; I just read your post and wanted to use a positive example of what I'm trying to communicate to mums who feel threatened by the idea that someone else is raising their children alongside them.
post #153 of 1188
Quote:
p.s. EVC, I don't assume you agree with my arguement; I just read your post and wanted to use a positive example of what I'm trying to communicate to mums who feel threatened by the idea that someone else is raising their children alongside them.
While I tend to bristle when people insinuate that "strangers are raising my child", etc (or whatever implies that I am not raising child myself), the fact of the matter is I do WANT my child to feel attachments to other adults even those who assume the role of caregiver whether that be daddy, grandma and grandpa, aunt, uncle or--gasp--a trusted professional daycare provider who is not--gasp--a blood relative. I think it is beneficial to the child to learn to trust and care about others, both adults and children. I DO believe that, as the PRIMARY caregiver, I AM raising my child, but, no, I am not doing it alone. And I think, ultimately, that can be a positive thing.

I do love spending time with my child and I live for these summer months when I SAHM. But I also think it's great that daycare during the school year lets her get to know other people and gives her additional opportunities for exploration, learning, and socializing.

And I don't think it's really all that different from what many SAHMs do. Many use family members as occassional babysitters, go to playdates, do babysitting swaps with other SAHMs, etc. Many also eventually send their kids to school (or even pre-school) where thay are in the care of their teachers during the day. The only difference is that, in our arrangement, money is exchanged. But I don't think that need make the caregiver any less devoted or caring to the child. I know very few daycare providers who are ONLY in it for the money. Most truly love children and form deep attachments to the children in their care.




....
post #154 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post
This is a double standard. Why do you perpetuate a victim mentality by conveying that change is not possible? There are myriad examples of revolutions that have changed not just individuals, cultures and nations, but the whole world as well. I do not agree with your defeatism. I won't allow language to oppress me; you can choose to if you desire, but I fail to see how that could be understood as having any modicum of purpose towards betterment.
Or, here is a great idea. Why not just try not to use hot button phrases and you can put all of that energy you are using to argue with people to do something like support a bill for affordable childcare, or more affordable health care, or easier access to welfare.
post #155 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post
(It's possible that I have asked 100 questions so far and recieved very few responses to my questions, though much maligning of my character and motives. Perhaps someone who finds offense would be willing to enter into a dialogue that is respectful and peaceful?)
FYI, while I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the topic, I do get the strong sense that the only dialogue you are interested in concerning this topic is that which agrees entirely with you. Perhaps I have misread you.

I am willing to consider that the term "raising one's children" can and perhaps should be inclusive. I liked the definition mammal_mama posted in the other thread. However, while I am willing to consider a broader and more inclusive definition of the term, I don't think that can happen without a significant acknowledgement that the term, as used in popular culture today, is frequently intended as an insult.

From what I can tell, and perhaps I have misread you, you would like us to forget that the term is used in the mommy wars, or at least consider that usage insignificant or irrelevant. However, as somebody who has been on the receiving end of that phrase several times when it's used as a deliberate insult, even though I roll my eyes when I hear it and can easily shrug it off, I would say that any attempt to reclaim the term is going to have to include a significant effort to repudiate and make clear that you do not accept the use of the phrase as a weapon.

I consider this basic respect necessary for any discussion. I don't have a problem reclaiming the phrase. In fact, there has been a long and largely positive history of reclaiming phrases used as insults. However, that's done by acknowledging the negative use and then moving forward, and making it crystal clear that the use as a weapon is unacceptable.
post #156 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post
(It's possible that I have asked 100 questions so far and recieved very few responses to my questions, though much maligning of my character and motives. Perhaps someone who finds offense would be willing to enter into a dialogue that is respectful and peaceful?)
It could be you've asked 100 questions. But to be blunt with you, they are framed with some very condescending proclamations as well. It makes it very hard for me to dialogue with you when in the same breath you ask for it you are also pitying my 'pain' and telling people who disagree with you that basically they are enslaved to a victim mentality.

Do I think you mean to come across that way? I don't know. I don't take it personally, because that's been your response to everyone you percieve disagrees with you, so I'm pretty sure it's not because you hate me or think that I, personally, am stupid. I wish you could understand or acknowledge that not everyone who wishes you (and everyone else in this thread that's used it) would cut out the hot button language is doing so from a place of personal pain. I've never put my kids in daycare. I've never been a WOHM. However, I posess the ability to empathize with why hearing the phrase "letting others raise your children" hurts MANY of those who have, and as part of my contribution to easing the mommy wars I *try not to use that language*.

And if I do, I do my damndest to apologies, either in private or public, instead of justifying it in the name of some philosophical pursuit of redefining social language and accusing other people of slipping into chosen or ignorant victimhood.

What's wrong with simply choosing different words? Why is it so important for you to rub salt in the wound? You've been arguing with those of us that disagree with your methods about how important language is. Yet you don't seem to want to apply that to yourself. Maybe you still don't get it, becuase you have no frame of reference for it. Maybe you're so passionate about the method you want to employ that you can only interpret discomfort or criticism of it as rejection of the ultimate goal. Maybe it's pride. I don't know, I don't know you.

And you don't know me. I'd appreciate it if you would consider that perhaps I just disagree with your method, and prefer to choose words that have less of a chance of being hurtful. To me, that is courtesy. Please don't condescend to me about how you feel sorry I'm in so much pain or that I'm not getting my needs met (I still don't understand why you think you could or need to meet some need of mine, I assume you're trying to infer something, I have no idea what though), or that people who aren't rushing to reclaim those words are just keying into to the socio-political suppression/domination of women through language.

You still haven't answered my question, in all of this, either. Why not just avoid using that phrase until later in the conversation, so that it's not an automatic throwing down of the gaunlet? You are asking everyone to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you've certainly not extended the same to others in this conversation. Could it be that they've felt just as attacked by your original statement (as well as continual references to their guilt/pain/ect) as you are feeling with their statements?

There are other words and phrases that can be used. If you choose to use a hot-button phrase right off the cuff, then to be honest, you have to have enough thick skin and patience to take the flak that will arise from it. If you're as an asute observer of language and it's power as you represent yourself to believe, then I don't think it's possible that you don't know how predictable that reaction is. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that? Why are you insistant that everyone else automatically assume the opposite of what's most often meant by that, but you're not willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that react to it?

Just because I choose different methods than you doesn't mean we're not working towards the same goal. Just because I behave differently than you in my choice of language doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the problem. The way you've spoken to me and others doesn't seem like you feel that this could be the case. I hope I'm wrong. But I dunno. I have this futile hope that maybe you'll understand a little of why you're getting the reaction you get from ME, anyway. It appears you're an optimist, I'm a cynic, and never the twain shall meet. I believe that to achieve something that's got as much stacked against it as liberating mamas of all stripes from the inane social assertion that if you're not doing it all by yourself on your own two feet you're not worthy to be doing it at all...sorry, mama, it's going to take both our types to do it.
post #157 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by PreggieUBA2C View Post
Why so protective of this idea that we don't need or want anyone's participation in our lives? What do we gain by this? Mommy wars aside (since they are clearly- now that I have become aware of the 'issues'- largely irrelevant, IMO), what is the big threat to our need for reassurance that we are doing what is best for our families? Are we not reassured by the resulting love in our homes and confidence in the relationships therein?
Well, you seem to ask mostly rhetorical questions, but to answer - I don't know many mamas who don't want to acknowledge the help they get raising their children.

The problem is that part of the mommy wars is the "moms should stay at home" camp implying or simply downright SAYING that if a mom uses daycare or other childcare during the day, she IS NOT raising her kids. Other people - strangers are.

So the problem is a matter of being accused of not raising one's children. Not an inability to share in the raising of one's children.
post #158 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVC View Post
Wow...I was going to stay out of this discussion, but this is just so unbelievably insulting : Especially the "disclaimer" which makes it sound as if "the best I can" is somehow inferior or substandard to what full time SAHMs do. : : :
Yes, it was extremely insulting and I'm having a hard time grasping why you and I seem to have been the only people a bit outraged by the post.
post #159 of 1188
Azuralea, I have acknowledged the hot-button phrase and gone to great lengths to address my newly acquired knowledge that it is used as a weapon and why it shouldn't be as well as how we can begin to reframe it's use. If you have indeed read all of my posts and have still come to the conclusion that I am using it in a negative way, then I can only assume that you are not really addressing me or my posts, but an underlying need of your own that you have not expressed. I have been very clear.

You wrote:
"FYI, while I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the topic, I do get the strong sense that the only dialogue you are interested in concerning this topic is that which agrees entirely with you. Perhaps I have misread you. "

You have most certainly misread and/or misunderstood me and my posts on the topic. Perhaps you could re-read them for clarification.

You wrote:
"I would say that any attempt to reclaim the term is going to have to include a significant effort to repudiate and make clear that you do not accept the use of the phrase as a weapon. "

Here is one of my responses to this from post #84 (bolding added):
"So what you are saying is that your need is that I acknowledge that you have feelings derived of pain, that you attribute to a particular phrase being used in a way that was intended to do so by the person who used it toward you in a previous experience. I acknowledge that you have expressed this to me and I believe you. I need to know that you recognise through my very lengthy explanation that you also trust that I was not intending in any way to do the same. I was not aware that you or anyone else would feel as you do. I have asked for a working definition of 'raising one's children' precisely to avoid this in the future because my personal philosophical understanding of raising one's children appears at first to be different from yours. I need to know that my understanding is at least tolerated if not embraced. I feel that we are equals and can have differing definitions and understandings and still communicate peacefully and without hurt and judgement. I do not judge you."

And:
"I am deeply sorry that you have been hurt in the manner you described and also that my words re-opened your wound. I did not intend in any way to cause you or anyone else pain."

And:
"I think that if we choose to accept words as weapons, they retain the initially intended effect. We can choose to disarm them if we choose to use those words to mean what we need them to mean to feel loved and secure...As I have already stated, I was unaware that the phrase I wrote carries such hurtful connotation for many women; we can change that, but we have to be willing to do the work of coming to a mutual understanding that doesn't put words between us, that disarms both the weapon words and the feelings that are evoked by them."



In addition, it behooves you to read in my initial post that I did not ever even imply that mums who sent their dc to daycare are not raising their children. What I wrote is that childcare providers choose to raise other people's children. There is an obvious distinction there to anyone who is capable of discernment. Otherwise, if this distinction is too difficult because of past hurt, then for your sake (and I cannot figure out how you could possibly have not been able to discern this from my posts up until now) I believe whole-heartedly that it is intrinsically wrong to use words as weapons; it is also intrinsically useless to continue to box shadows. The discussion evolved from what I didn't say (or imply- regardless of what others in the past may have said or implied) into what some of us believe regarding the definition of raising one's children. There again is a distinction- the initial instigation of a fight (not by me) and the ensuing maligning of my character and refusal to accept that what I wrote is what I meant and nothing more, and the resulting discussion regarding the definition of raising one's children.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not you forget that the phrase I didn't use is used to hurt in the mommy wars. I am not a participant in those wars and will not be assigned a position in them (especially based upon an inaccurate inference). I think the mommy wars are irrelevant to anyone who isn't interested in wasting time and energy fighting about nothing.

So, since I have many times acknowledged the negative use of the phrase I didn't use (thereby meeting the criteria you have set for me) and then defended the use of a different phrase that I did use, why aren't you moving forward as you claim is possible?

What do you consider a 'significant effort to repudiate?' The definition of repudiate that I am working with (OED) includes the following: to disown, disavow, reject, refuse dealings with, refuse to recognise or obey, or discharge. I think my efforts in this discussion are completely in alignment with that definition. If you disagree, perhaps you could very specifically address those aspects of my arguement (preferably with quotations) that you feel do not adhere to this definition of my repudiation of the use of the terminology that is used by others as a weapon to harm mothers who choose to allow/employ others to participate in life with their families.


I will repeat the following so that this aspect of the discussion can be finished:
I believe whole-heartedly that it is intrinsically wrong to use words as weapons

I believe whole-heartedly that it is intrinsically wrong to use words as weapons

I believe whole-heartedly that it is intrinsically wrong to use words as weapons

Can we please move on?
post #160 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerchild View Post
It appears you're an optimist, I'm a cynic, and never the twain shall meet. I believe that to achieve something that's got as much stacked against it as liberating mamas of all stripes from the inane social assertion that if you're not doing it all by yourself on your own two feet you're not worthy to be doing it at all...sorry, mama, it's going to take both our types to do it.
I am not a cynic. You are correct about that. I don't think that cynicism affords the possibility of positive change though, if you are using the term the way it is typically defined (marked by ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure, one who sarcastically doubts human sincerity and merit, incredulous of goodness, sneering- OED). I disagree that it will take both types, the optimist and the cynic, to make that change. Neither extreme is useful to me, but I wonder what do you think would motivate a cynic to change for the better? It seems like a philosophical oxymoron, to me. I am more wholistic in my definition of my personhood- I couldn't define myself in one word. I would suggest that the optimist certainly has an innate motivation to positive change where the cynic would sit back and think poorly of the one making an effort. I think that is what is happening here. I have actually addressed every one of your accusations until this last post and you have been willing to concede to nothing, even as it relates to my own assessment of my own motives. You have chosen to continue to berate and villify me for my efforts and have not allowed for a peaceful discussion. You claim that my manner of writing is condescending; I find that at the very least immature and at best innaccurate.

Condescension is purposed, not incidental, but you continue to give yourself the place of judge and jury of my personal motivations and expressions, another grand contradiction. I am sad for you that you have not discovered that others can have good motivations, while perhaps causing you to choose to either stretch your comfort zone or push them away, and not be at fault for your perceptions of them.

I can easily infer that you have needs that are not being met because you continue to express anger, frustration, and hostility toward me and my effort to open dialogue. This is not a difficult conclusion. You have chosen to reject that assessment; it doesn't change the reality, however. You have pressed the issue so much that it has become impossible to meet your demands- and that is what your post amounts to, that I concede to your demands of my personal expressions or I am a horrible and rotten person- if even I felt compelled, which I do not.

I also find it interesting that while choosing not to use any of the 'hot-button' phrases, you have still managed to attempt to hurt me as a person. It seems that words can be used however we wish; even those which have no denotative or connotative insult can be used specifically to do exactly that, as you have shown.

Your question has already been answered implicitly by my continued use of the phrase you mentioned in another branch of discussion resultant from, but aslo distinct from the 'offensive' use that you continue to ply.

I have only used the evolved phrase since my initial post with regard to the definition of raising one's children, not in order to rub salt in wounds or to fight for it's continued use as a weapon. This is abundantly clear.

I would still appreciate your response to any of the questions that I've asked that you'd be willing to address not just for your own seeming desire to belittle my efforts, but for the purpose of a real, and useful discussion. If you are willing, that is.

Pick one question, something at least. Or ask your own. Or write me off. It's your choice.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Stay at Home Parents
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › Staying at Home "On Welfare"