User Agreement Revision - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 126 Old 03-10-2009, 11:45 PM
 
Seasons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Host city of Laundryfest 2009
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I like what you just said as a start (although I'd prefer to be more specific, as I mentioned upthread), but this WOULD be a good start:

Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
I am not trying to say it isn't a difficult situation, it really is and I don't want to dismiss that, I think the best solution that I can come up with is to include a bashing/generalizing clause.

Such as "Mothering respects individuals and understands that the decision one person makes for their family may not be the same that another person would make. We do not host bashing/demeaning criticism or generalizing regarding those decisions, even if they are not necessary decisions that would be hosted here. Please be kind to one another and remember, we are all parents trying to do the best that we can."

Or..blah blah something like that.
ETA: how weird - when a mod edits her post, the post doesn't say "edited"? I got the quoted text via my email subscription to this thread, but the text isn't in your post now. Weird!

The only thing you owe to others is to behave with integrity.
Seasons is offline  
#62 of 126 Old 03-10-2009, 11:54 PM
 
christyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by texmati View Post
the mommy wars are disgusting.

I've seen just as much anti-SAHM posting on these boards as well, and also much posting about how evil it is to have more than 2 kids, parents with big families are ruining the environment and being irresponsible, I WOH because I want to give my kids a good role model (as if SAH parents aren't a good role model) or show my kids that I want to achieve my full potential (as if SAH don't). I'm about to be a WOH parent again, and have been in the past, but just don't think that a statement saying we don't tolerate WOH-ism or whatever is appropriate for the UA. It takes a side in the supposed "mommy wars"-- a side that favors WOH. I think there are MANY issues I think should not be addressed in anything other than a positive light, but they don't need to be in the UA.

Quote:
I am in favor of keeping the SAH/WOH thing out of the UA becuase generally can't we just go towards a shorter UA? I barely post here anymore b/c it's such a minefield. The problem seems to be that there are wayyyyyyy too many rules and some of them prevent people from fighting their own corners. When you over-regulate you just make people irritable because they feel confined. The natural urge when you feel confined is to punch out and push the boundaries. I think fewer rules would result in more order.
Exactly.

Wife of one and mom of five, including my HBAC twins!
christyc is offline  
#63 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 12:59 AM - Thread Starter
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
I like what you just said as a start (although I'd prefer to be more specific, as I mentioned upthread), but this WOULD be a good start:



ETA: how weird - when a mod edits her post, the post doesn't say "edited"? I got the quoted text via my email subscription to this thread, but the text isn't in your post now. Weird!
Yeah sorry I edited it because the Statement of purpose already includes basically what I wrote but worded better.


I am kind of in agreement that less=more when it comes to rules

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#64 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 05:55 AM
 
flapjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England, easily locatable by Google
Posts: 13,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
Size-ism represents a protected class?



But technically, it's not a protected class. So why is it okay to add size and not WOH/ SAH? Many mothers also feel that WOHMs feel discrimination as well. And I am sure the same can be said for SAHMs, too.
Obese people are actually covered by disability discrimination and therefore it is a protected class. I've been asking for sizism because many women's bodies are different during the years that they are using MDC. Pregnancy and the postpartum period, the breastfeeding years all change one's body and therefore, there is a case to be made for sizism distinct from the disability issue. It's actually MORE acute here because at this time in our lives, weight is such an issue in so many people's minds. There may be less "oh, I had a baby, I'm so fat" threads here than elsewhere on the net, but it exists, and I don't believe such threads are in the spirit of MDC.

Abimommy, I've been reading Penelope Leach again and Children First. Would it be possible to ask for wording like

"We support families who are striving to keep their children at the heart of their families and host discussions on ways to do this. This includes exploring ways of working outside the home whilst caring for children, creating a life at home and parenting as part of a blended and step family. Please remain respectful of other members choices and experiences."

I think that would put family-centred WOHM on a par with, say, breastfeeding or natural birth, but not label it as a protected class.

Helen mum to five and mistress of mess and mayhem, making merry and mischief til the sun goes down.
flapjack is offline  
#65 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 09:42 AM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christyc View Post
I've seen just as much anti-SAHM posting on these boards as well, and also much posting about how evil it is to have more than 2 kids, parents with big families are ruining the environment and being irresponsible, I WOH because I want to give my kids a good role model (as if SAH parents aren't a good role model) or show my kids that I want to achieve my full potential (as if SAH don't). I'm about to be a WOH parent again, and have been in the past, but just don't think that a statement saying we don't tolerate WOH-ism or whatever is appropriate for the UA. It takes a side in the supposed "mommy wars"-- a side that favors WOH. I think there are MANY issues I think should not be addressed in anything other than a positive light, but they don't need to be in the UA.
This is so true in that whenever one this is stated, the opposite is often inferred, and the bolded is a good point. So perhaps MDC should avoid mentioning specific issues and instead have a general respectability statement - or something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flapjack View Post
Obese people are actually covered by disability discrimination and therefore it is a protected class. I've been asking for sizism because many women's bodies are different during the years that they are using MDC. Pregnancy and the postpartum period, the breastfeeding years all change one's body and therefore, there is a case to be made for sizism distinct from the disability issue. It's actually MORE acute here because at this time in our lives, weight is such an issue in so many people's minds. There may be less "oh, I had a baby, I'm so fat" threads here than elsewhere on the net, but it exists, and I don't believe such threads are in the spirit of MDC.
Actually, it depends. Not all obese people are covered under ADA.

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
#66 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 11:06 AM
 
christyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
We are not adding SAHM/WAHM/step parent to the UA at this time. That is currently a part of forum guidelines.
Thank you. Quite a few people have posted saying it should not be in the UA, but I'm not sure our voices have been heard.

Wife of one and mom of five, including my HBAC twins!
christyc is offline  
#67 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 11:39 AM
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewi View Post
Hi Abby,
My question seems trivial compared to the other concerns.

Am I allowed to have the link in my signature to the Birth Survey?
It's not my website it's a national birth survey?

BTW, thanks for your hard work keeping this a soft landing and kind place for all of us

Dewi
This is a non-profit org, no UA rules are broken by linking to it as far as I can see.
jennica is offline  
#68 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 11:40 AM
 
Seasons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Host city of Laundryfest 2009
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapjack View Post
Abimommy, I've been reading Penelope Leach again and Children First. Would it be possible to ask for wording like

"We support families who are striving to keep their children at the heart of their families and host discussions on ways to do this. This includes exploring ways of working outside the home whilst caring for children, creating a life at home, and parenting as part of a blended and step family or single-parented family. Please remain respectful of other members' choices and experiences."

I think that would put family-centred WOHM on a par with, say, breastfeeding or natural birth, but not label it as a protected class.
Ooooh, that's nice wording, if Albimommy wanted a general, short no-bashing clause to the UA. I added something necessary though.

Re: less is more, I can appreciate that, but once you've chosen a lengthy UA (in addition to forum guidelines AND a statement of purpose) to try to regulate member behavior, then what you choose to omit from the UA, what you choose NOT to prohibit, is a choice that many of us find hurtful. A UA should either be very very short - like Theoretica's "make sure [your posts are] necessary, thoughtful, and kind" - OR should list, generally or specifically, ALL behavior/discusions/discrimination you want to ban. So a lengthy UA, like the current one, should ban generalizing against single-parented families, single parents, WOHMs, SAHMs, blended families, stepparents and biological parents.

Some of the forum guidelines come close to prohibiting such generalizing, but (1) not all these generalizations are prohibited, for instance, stereotyping single parents - such as saying "all kids deserve two parents" or "two parents are better than one" - isn't prohibited ANYWHERE on MDC as far as I can see, (2) the stereotypes occur across forums, for instance, I've seen WOHMs "bashed" in Frugality & Finances, and (3) the UA, not the statement of purpose or forum guidelines, are what users and mods use to guide - and punish - posting behavior.

The only thing you owe to others is to behave with integrity.
Seasons is offline  
#69 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 04:39 PM
 
loitering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Is there going to be a banner at the top of the boards linking to this thread? I know most people don't visit this forum on a regular basis and usually would only come to post their opinions if they're alterted to the change via banner or sticky post.

I just worry that most people won't know about these changes. We've come to rely on the board banners to inform us of any MDC changes.
loitering is offline  
#70 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 04:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapjack View Post

"We support families who are striving to keep their children at the heart of their families and host discussions on ways to do this. This includes exploring ways of working outside the home whilst caring for children, creating a life at home and parenting as part of a blended and step family. Please remain respectful of other members choices and experiences."

I think that would put family-centred WOHM on a par with, say, breastfeeding or natural birth, but not label it as a protected class.
I don't think we can put family-structure on par with Natural Birth and Breastfeeding.

That would be great for the WOHM forum guideline but I am not sure it would be appropriate for the UA.

I can bring it up to Peggy and ask her. What we have currently has been approved and any additions would also need to be approved.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#71 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 04:58 PM - Thread Starter
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by loitering View Post
Is there going to be a banner at the top of the boards linking to this thread? I know most people don't visit this forum on a regular basis and usually would only come to post their opinions if they're alterted to the change via banner or sticky post.

I just worry that most people won't know about these changes. We've come to rely on the board banners to inform us of any MDC changes.
There is an announcement at the top of each forum.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#72 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 05:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
I have two concerns with the UA:



I think this is rather excessive and I can't figure out why exactly it is in there? I think there is a big difference between a "blog" that was set up for business purposes (which yeah, people shouldn't be linking to) and just someone's personal blog that may have some ads or a link on the sidebar to their online store. I think in the latter case, the store is just linked to in order give more information about the writer, and not to make money off their readers. Also, when a blog has ads, it generally means it is better then the average blog, and the ads sort of are paying the writer for better content. Blogs are a form of journalism, and online journals and newspapers have ads - we aren't banning those too are we? I really enjoy reading and writing blogs, and I would hate to see them limited in this way just because they may have an ad or a link to an online store. That really seems to be going overboard.
I agree there is a difference but the problem is, it is really difficult to distinguish between the two. We have had a lot of people join who were only here to promote and that isn't really great for the community. A lot of people make a living off their blogs so it can a pretty serious business and people take that seriously. But what is the difference between someone who makes a living off their blog and someone who makes a living off making diapers?

There just isn't an easy, fair way to go about it. :/

Blogs are a form of journalism but they are also a diary of sorts or someone's autobiography. It is a unique media. I really enjoy reading blogs too.

Quote:
My issue with this item is that it gives MDC members a false sense of security. They feel that the content of their posts is somehow protected from being copied and pasted to other communities. With a site of this size that is googleable, there is no way to protect people's posts from being copied and pasted to other online sites. I am pretty sure that legally there is no way to protect posts of a searchable site such as this one. There are some very sensitive forums here, and to my knowledge there is no warning in the UA or on those forums that what is written can not be protected since it is googleable.
We do state that people are not safe here and these are public forums. There are several forums that are not public but it doesn't really take much for someone with bad intentions to gain that access.

That isn't true about the googleable sites and protection. Show me where the copyright laws state that because that is just not factual nor is that how it is enforced through an ethical host or google. The difference is *quantity* If someone is posting short blurbs then that isn't something we can prevent.

There are nasty people in this world. There are people who would exploit the pain of others in order to promote their own agenda.

It is very sad. The best thing one can do is to not read at those places and they wouldn't make money off another mother's loss. I boycott Nestle, I can also boycott blogs that are not being nice. Boycotting Nestle is hard..they make a lot of stuff.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#73 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 07:38 PM
 
robertandenith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I had a personal blog in my siggie and it was removed because it had my etsy items in a box or something like that. The blog is personal, like writing stories, recipes, etc.

Latina Mama of 3 and Wife of a great man since 1997
: : : : : : :
robertandenith is offline  
#74 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 07:38 PM
 
Arwyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twitter, RMB, PDX
Posts: 16,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theoretica View Post
I think figuring out a way to simplify the UA would be awesome.

Our house has very few rules...I think it's fairly straightforward.

1) Be respectful, to yourself and others.

2) Be responsible, for your things, your words, and your actions.

3) In all that you do, make sure it is necessary, thoughtful, and kind.
Your household is also a wee bit smaller than MDC.
Arwyn is offline  
#75 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 07:53 PM
 
Theoretica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Inside my head (it's quiet here!)
Posts: 3,825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arwyn View Post
Your household is also a wee bit smaller than MDC.
Well of course! I was just illustrating a point, that simple can work too Wasn't trying to be snarky or anything

GOOD moms let their kids lick the beaters. GREAT moms turn off the mixer first!
Humanist Woman Wife , & Friend Plus Mama to 6 (3 mos, 2, 9, 13, 17, 20)
Theoretica is offline  
#76 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 08:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theoretica View Post
Well of course! I was just illustrating a point, that simple can work too Wasn't trying to be snarky or anything
We did start out simple. I think most communities start out with really simple basic rules and then end up having to expand them due to various issues.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#77 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 08:08 PM
 
Arwyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twitter, RMB, PDX
Posts: 16,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh I know. I just think simple works a whole lot better in small groups, and the larger the group, the more complex the rules need to be, for everyone's sake. Of course
There's the risk of cruft, of getting buried in red tape and bearaucracy, but I think we're aware of that, and the answer in a community this large simply can't be to cut it down to nothing. I wish that worked, I really do.

And that's all just my personal opinion, take it for what you paid for it.
Arwyn is offline  
#78 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 09:32 PM
 
SunShineSally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the land of NO punctuation.!,?':
Posts: 2,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

I agree with what Seasons said It SHOULD be in there. It is very hurtful and I even feel unwelcomed in many forums because I am a single mom.

Glenn bouncy.gif 11*09 Joe 4*04 peace.gif Me praying.gif & Hubby geek.gif

 

Quote:
 

 

SunShineSally is offline  
#79 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 09:52 PM
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
We do state that people are not safe here and these are public forums. There are several forums that are not public but it doesn't really take much for someone with bad intentions to gain that access.

That isn't true about the googleable sites and protection. Show me where the copyright laws state that because that is just not factual nor is that how it is enforced through an ethical host or google. The difference is *quantity* If someone is posting short blurbs then that isn't something we can prevent.

There are nasty people in this world. There are people who would exploit the pain of others in order to promote their own agenda.

It is very sad. The best thing one can do is to not read at those places and they wouldn't make money off another mother's loss. I boycott Nestle, I can also boycott blogs that are not being nice. Boycotting Nestle is hard..they make a lot of stuff.
If that is stated, it isn't in an obvious place. It certainly isn't in the forums where it could really do harm to be copied and pasted. This part of the UA seems to give a false sense of protection, I know it did for me... I never knew someone would actually copy and paste a post and use it like that until someone pointed me to it... I certainly don't go reading blogs like that. The fact that this site is searchable makes it very easy to exploit. I don't know about specific copyright laws, it just seems that if a site is public and searchable, then you can't really protect the content - isn't it sort of owned by the world wide web? I mean, if someone where to copy and paste a post, could you even do anything about it? I mean aside from banning the member who did it if you knew?
jennica is offline  
#80 of 126 Old 03-11-2009, 10:38 PM - Thread Starter
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
If that is stated, it isn't in an obvious place. It certainly isn't in the forums where it could really do harm to be copied and pasted. This part of the UA seems to give a false sense of protection, I know it did for me... I never knew someone would actually copy and paste a post and use it like that until someone pointed me to it... I certainly don't go reading blogs like that. The fact that this site is searchable makes it very easy to exploit. I don't know about specific copyright laws, it just seems that if a site is public and searchable, then you can't really protect the content - isn't it sort of owned by the world wide web? I mean, if someone where to copy and paste a post, could you even do anything about it? I mean aside from banning the member who did it if you knew?
Just because I can find a book in a card catalog doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with the contents.

If we can do something about it we will, in many cases we cannot.

That is just the nature of the internet. We could write up something on internet safety for Q&S. We haven't had anything previously but I think it would be a good addition.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#81 of 126 Old 03-12-2009, 01:49 AM
 
kimiij's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
I am really against defining family structure under "discrimination." I am sure people who do belong to protected classes would find that offensive.
Me too. I think that what has been suggested here is only going to serve to eliminate valid opinions (even if they differ from another person's opinions). I guess in developing a UA you need to decide what your purpose is. Is it to eliminate every single chance of anyone forming a dissenting opinion on a specific topic? Or is to identify the topics that are not up for debate at all and to eliminate discriminatory statements in order to support a positive and cohesive environment.

Hurt feelings or disagreeing with someone else's opinions does not equal discrimination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
I explained that family structure is not included at this time. I can discuss adding it with the other admins but it won't be listed as discrimination.
Good.
kimiij is offline  
#82 of 126 Old 03-12-2009, 05:56 AM
 
flapjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England, easily locatable by Google
Posts: 13,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
I don't think we can put family-structure on par with Natural Birth and Breastfeeding.

That would be great for the WOHM forum guideline but I am not sure it would be appropriate for the UA.

I can bring it up to Peggy and ask her. What we have currently has been approved and any additions would also need to be approved.
To clarify, I'm not advocating to put family structure in there. I'm asking for you to advocate for a child-centred (or if you prefer, a family-centred) way of life, with the challenges that entails in the workplace, at home, out and about and elsewhere. The structure of the individual family is irrelevant. It's an acknowledgement that we're all singing from the same songsheet, even though we're in different keys.

Helen mum to five and mistress of mess and mayhem, making merry and mischief til the sun goes down.
flapjack is offline  
#83 of 126 Old 03-12-2009, 08:32 AM
 
mikaela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Souderton, PA
Posts: 400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
...Many of the members here are women, while it would be discrimination to refuse us employment based on our sex, people don't refuse employment based on family structure nor have step parents been forced to drink from a different water fountain...
How timely. I was just part of a hiring committee. During one of our meetings a fellow committee member said about a potential employee that she wouldn't be able to "handle the job" as a single mother. She wasn't hired.

Discrimination against single parents happens FAR more than one may like to believe.
mikaela is offline  
#84 of 126 Old 03-12-2009, 08:59 AM
 
D_McG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimiij View Post
Me too. I think that what has been suggested here is only going to serve to eliminate valid opinions (even if they differ from another person's opinions). I guess in developing a UA you need to decide what your purpose is. Is it to eliminate every single chance of anyone forming a dissenting opinion on a specific topic? Or is to identify the topics that are not up for debate at all and to eliminate discriminatory statements in order to support a positive and cohesive environment.

Hurt feelings or disagreeing with someone else's opinions does not equal discrimination.



Agreed! Can't we just be adults here? People have told me I was financially irresponsible to SAH. Whatever - who cares? Debate is part of life.

DS (6.06), DD (10.08), DD (05.11).

D_McG is offline  
#85 of 126 Old 03-12-2009, 10:48 AM
 
dewi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think they're trying to sooth the edges so the vicious nature of debate that goes on in most other parent forums does not happen here.


I'm reading the magazine since 1985, Peggy was a working mother. She was the publisher of this magazine!

The magazine was never aganist working mothers, women earning money. In fact they promoted women owed small business and had inexpensive advertising for us.

The magazine taught me to think outside the box that I could earn money and still parent in a way best for my family.
dewi is offline  
#86 of 126 Old 03-12-2009, 12:03 PM
 
EnviroBecca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,172
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Flapjack wrote:
Quote:
Pregnancy and the postpartum period, the breastfeeding years all change one's body and therefore, there is a case to be made for sizism distinct from the disability issue. It's actually MORE acute here because at this time in our lives, weight is such an issue in so many people's minds. There may be less "oh, I had a baby, I'm so fat" threads here than elsewhere on the net, but it exists, and I don't believe such threads are in the spirit of MDC.
: I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that if a postpartum mother feels uncomfortable with HER OWN weight and WANTS advice on losing weight safely, she should not be allowed to post about it?

Mama to a boy EnviroKid treehugger.gif 9 years old and a new little girl EnviroBaby baby.gif!

I write about parenting, environment, cooking, and more. computergeek2.gif

EnviroBecca is offline  
#87 of 126 Old 03-12-2009, 02:38 PM
 
flapjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England, easily locatable by Google
Posts: 13,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For me, I'm not. There's a whole forum for that :

I'm looking for people to challenge their assumptions. If someone in your DDC tells you that she's already 10lbs below her pre-pregnancy weight, don't assume that she's happy about it- she might feel that she was already too skinny, she might be concerned that it's too fast, she might be concerned about the effects on her milk supply. A lot of the time people's physical appearance, particularly their size, is used as a simile for personal characteristics, and this assumption is unreasonable. Not all thin people have eating disorders, not all fat people eat unhealthily.

Helen mum to five and mistress of mess and mayhem, making merry and mischief til the sun goes down.
flapjack is offline  
#88 of 126 Old 03-12-2009, 03:44 PM - Thread Starter
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapjack View Post
To clarify, I'm not advocating to put family structure in there. I'm asking for you to advocate for a child-centred (or if you prefer, a family-centred) way of life, with the challenges that entails in the workplace, at home, out and about and elsewhere. The structure of the individual family is irrelevant. It's an acknowledgement that we're all singing from the same songsheet, even though we're in different keys.
Mothering's Mission Statement

"Mothering celebrates the experience of parenthood as worthy of one’s best efforts, and fosters awareness of 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, Mothering recognizes parents as the experts and provides 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 encourages decision making that considers the needs of all members of the family. Mothering explores the reality of human relationships in the family setting, recognizing that raising the heirs of our civilization well is the prerequisite of a healthy society."

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#89 of 126 Old 03-12-2009, 06:58 PM
 
dewi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
Mothering's Mission Statement

"Mothering celebrates the experience of parenthood as worthy of one’s best efforts, and fosters awareness of 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, Mothering recognizes parents as the experts and provides 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 encourages decision making that considers the needs of all members of the family. Mothering explores the reality of human relationships in the family setting, recognizing that raising the heirs of our civilization well is the prerequisite of a healthy society."
Amen
אָמֵן
آمين
’Āmīn
dewi is offline  
#90 of 126 Old 03-13-2009, 12:34 PM
 
EnviroBecca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,172
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Flapjack wrote:
Quote:
I'm looking for people to challenge their assumptions. If someone in your DDC tells you that she's already 10lbs below her pre-pregnancy weight, don't assume that she's happy about it- she might feel that she was already too skinny, she might be concerned that it's too fast, she might be concerned about the effects on her milk supply. A lot of the time people's physical appearance, particularly their size, is used as a simile for personal characteristics, and this assumption is unreasonable. Not all thin people have eating disorders, not all fat people eat unhealthily.
Okay, I understand that. So is "sizism" in the User Agreement supposed to mean "assumption that weight or body type is associated with particular personal characteristics" or something like that? Is there a definition of sizism as MDC means to define it that could be linked to that word? Because I wasn't sure what was meant by it, and I bet a lot of people wouldn't be, and did you notice I asked for a definition 4 days ago and nobody's posted one?

I've encountered people here and IRL who believe that the whole idea that being overweight might EVER be unhealthy for ANYONE is discrimination against them personally, and people who try to feel better about being overweight by making nasty comments about slim women. I'd hate to see that sort of thing MDC-approved with a definition of sizism that assumes fat people need protection and thin people do not. But a definition that cuts both ways would be fine with me. Then maybe mamas like me (I dropped 10 pounds below pre-pregnancy weight, just like your example, which made me clinically underweight) would be able to start a thread titled, "Anyone else getting too thin postpartum?" without attracting a dozen posts of, "Golly, I wish I had that problem!" I mean, I don't see THAT as discrimination that needs to be banned, but it would've been so nice to avoid it in a stage of life when strangers were grabbing me and commenting on my body and other women were treating me as if I'd chosen my metabolism specifically to make them feel bad. : I know that obese people face discrimination that's often more frequent and worse, and that unusually tall or short people have these problems too, so I think it's important if MDC is going to ban sizism to use a broad but clear definition.

Mama to a boy EnviroKid treehugger.gif 9 years old and a new little girl EnviroBaby baby.gif!

I write about parenting, environment, cooking, and more. computergeek2.gif

EnviroBecca is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off