Is either WOH *or* SAH part of NFL? - Page 7 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 01:14 PM
 
radish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Originally Posted by guerrillamama
And I have seen SAHMs on this very board complain about those "lazy welfare mothers" and the hypocrisy makes me want to

Yeah I'd be just as lazy if I had a babydaddy paying the bills. "

Can you explain the "hypocrisy"? I hope I am misunderstanding but I find that comment offensive, either that welfare mamas or SAHMs w/ bill-paying daddys are lazy???
radish is offline  
#182 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 02:40 PM
 
meowee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
what exactly is a "babydaddy?" I've seen this term a few times on the forums and don't know exactly what it means. It sounds like something someone would say on Jerry Springer?
meowee is offline  
#183 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 02:52 PM
 
RedWine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know what a babydaddy is, but I'll take a guess -- along the same lines as sugardaddy, except the woman has kids..?
RedWine is offline  
#184 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 02:59 PM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by radish
I dont see why we wouldn't need a SAHM forum. Majority of us BF and we have a few BF forums, majority of us CD and we have tons of CD forums.
I think a SAHM forum is fine--so long as the focus of conversation remains on SAHMs (or, better yet, SAHPs), and not how WOHMs are evil, neglectful, etc., etc. The closed threads in that forum reveal that that is a challenge for some posters.
kaydee is offline  
#185 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 03:45 PM
 
radish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Babydaddy is just that - your baby's dad not necc a sugardaddy.

kaydee,
i understand but i am sure the same thing could be said about BF, circ, natural labor, to someone who doesnt do those things. that they would feel attacked.

sorry i am not saying what i mean
radish is offline  
#186 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 04:03 PM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by radish
kaydee,
i understand but i am sure the same thing could be said about BF, circ, natural labor, to someone who doesnt do those things. that they would feel attacked.

sorry i am not saying what i mean
Not sure how to respond, then.

I am not talking about situations where offense is taken where none is intended, BTW. I am speaking of conversations that really go off the rails with the high-and-mightiness. If you haven't seen such threads to know the differnce, consider yourself fortunate! The conversations might be better kept on the rails with a clearer statement from MDC leadership (a desire for which is how this thread came about).

My point is that MDC (ostensibly) welcomes parents who SAH, WAH, or WOH who have the values of NFL or AP. The SAHM forum explicitly says that it is not meant to be a place to denigrate those parents who WOH. It is meant to discuss the issues and concerns and experiences of SAHP-ing. Which is fine and appropriate. I think the difference in these two aims is, for the most part, pretty clear, and I suspect that most people know in which activity they are engaging.
kaydee is offline  
#187 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 04:10 PM
 
radish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i understand and have not been in those threads. i just meant that someone who FF or circs probably feels the same way. i have seen/read a lot of posts that demonize those two subjects and the threads arent just about "hey i choose to BF or non-circ and am happy with my choice" YK

it always ends up feeling like an attack to those who dont do the same.

FTR i am not excusing the behavior just saying MDC comes across that way in a lot of forums/subjects.
radish is offline  
#188 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 04:54 PM
 
liam's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: in utter disbelief
Posts: 1,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee
I think a SAHM forum is fine--so long as the focus of conversation remains on SAHMs (or, better yet, SAHPs), and not how WOHMs are evil, neglectful, etc., etc. The closed threads in that forum reveal that that is a challenge for some posters.


ITA. i have been a SAHM, and am now a WOHM (out of necessity) and some of the things i've read in now deleted threads just about broke my heart.

mostly WAHM, sometimes WOHM to my : two boys.
liam's mom is offline  
#189 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 04:55 PM
 
Greensleeves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, this thread just amazes me....I haven't been able to get through so many pages, but it seems like the Mods just can't win. SAHM's asked for a forum for a long time, and felt unsupported.......then finally got one, but now it's moderated, so there's unhappiness about that........now for various reasons WOHM's, who have had their own forum for quite a while, feel unsupported........


Doesn't anyone see that the bigger issue is that our culture doesn't value MOTHERS? Why don't we put our energies towards having on work site daycare centers, where mamas could see their little ones at break and lunch times, and not have all the pressures of having to drop them off and pick them up at a separate place with all the extra work and stress that entails?

And why can't a mom who has chosen to stay home, for whatever reason, feel good about her decision without having to justify it to the person in the checkout line or anybody else who feels free to comment?

Doesn't anyone see how much it benefits our corporate culture to have moms fighting with each other rather than fighting for having better options for everyone? Our American culture is so immature and "either/or" about so many issues, and I'm really tired of it. We are kept on a rat wheel with our pace of life so that nobody has the "leisure" to really think about things that matter.
Greensleeves is offline  
#190 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 04:58 PM
 
radish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Well, this thread just amazes me....I haven't been able to get through so many pages, but it seems like the Mods just can't win. SAHM's asked for a forum for a long time, and felt unsupported.......then finally got one, but now it's moderated, so there's unhappiness about that........now for various reasons WOHM's, who have had their own forum for quite a while, feel unsupported........"

ITA Mama and yes, we shoudl really direct our attention/efforts elsewhere. Well those who want change anyway.
radish is offline  
#191 of 209 Old 06-17-2005, 05:24 PM
 
Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 10,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greensleeves
Well, this thread just amazes me....I haven't been able to get through so many pages, but it seems like the Mods just can't win. SAHM's asked for a forum for a long time, and felt unsupported.......then finally got one, but now it's moderated, so there's unhappiness about that........now for various reasons WOHM's, who have had their own forum for quite a while, feel unsupported........


Doesn't anyone see that the bigger issue is that our culture doesn't value MOTHERS? Why don't we put our energies towards having on work site daycare centers, where mamas could see their little ones at break and lunch times, and not have all the pressures of having to drop them off and pick them up at a separate place with all the extra work and stress that entails?

And why can't a mom who has chosen to stay home, for whatever reason, feel good about her decision without having to justify it to the person in the checkout line or anybody else who feels free to comment?

Doesn't anyone see how much it benefits our corporate culture to have moms fighting with each other rather than fighting for having better options for everyone? Our American culture is so immature and "either/or" about so many issues, and I'm really tired of it. We are kept on a rat wheel with our pace of life so that nobody has the "leisure" to really think about things that matter.

I agree 110%
Raven is offline  
#192 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 03:47 AM
 
AngelBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Brighton, MN
Posts: 20,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by candiland
I don't know, I consider all of Mothering mag to promote the "ideal".

Ideally, we should all do child-led weaning.

Ideally, we should do the family bed for years and enjoy it.

Ideally, we shouldn't punish, coerce, use time-outs or bribery.

Ideally, we should always wear our wee ones in a sling.

Ideally, we should eat 100% organic foods.

Ideally, babies and mommies should be together for the first few years of life.

Ideally, we should have a great community of like-minded mommas who support one another so we have a "tribe".

Ideally, all low-risk women would home birth.



Once you start going down the slippery slope, though, every shade of gray would need to be covered. I was forced to work when my dd was 8 months old because I was too mentally unstable to be a full time mother. I know that, ideally, it shouldn't be that way. But it was.

What would happen if Mothering diluted its message of ideals? How far would one want to take that? Before you know it, the mag. would be getting angry mail because "you made us formula feeders look bad, we can't help it that we don't breastfeed, you need to include us" and "you need to show the cons of leaving boys intact, too" and "your articles about organics aren't realistic and balanced because many of us can't afford it" and so on and so forth. While all of these things are actual TRUTHS for many of us mommas, Mothering's message would be totally diluted by being wholly inclusive and NOT putting forth the highest ideals.

That's why I love Mothering mag. I've tried CIO; I weaned both kids at the age of 2; I worked outside of the home; we don't do organics right now; etc. etc. etc. I LOVE the mag because I know what the ideals are and I try to live up to them. Sometimes they don't work and they are not right for me and my family, and that's okay. I'd rather have a mag. promoting AP ideals than watering down every message in fear of offending someone.
I totally agree.

Mama to 9 so far:Mother of Joey (20), Dominick (13), Abigail (11), Angelo (8), Mylee (6), Delainey (3), Colton (2) and Baby 8 and Baby 9 coming sometime in July 2013.   If evolution were true, mothers would have three arms!

AngelBee is offline  
#193 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 03:16 PM
 
meowee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
about the SAHM forum, i just find it "weird" that it is moderated, and that the reason is variously that 1) off topic posts are too much of a risk, and/or 2) SAHMs will say nasty things about WOHMs and daycare.

Well, then how did that daycare thread get through the mods? Was it subterfuge to give them an excuse to get rid of the SAHM forum? Anyway, most of the nastiness in that thread was directed *toward SAHMs,* saying that they are burnt out "babydaddy" dependents.

I find it very offensive that it is assumed SAHMs will start saying nasty things about WOHMs. I have seen SAHMs here speak passionately about the importance (in their opinion) of parental care vs. non parental care... but I have not seen WOHMs trashed left and right, and certainly not in the SAHM forum, not even in the infamous daycare thread.

Now, are there guidelines on the WOHM forum stating that they are not allowed to say that SAHMing is boring, makes a woman dependent, is unfulfilling? Even if those are the reasons she wants to WOH?
meowee is offline  
#194 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 04:17 PM
 
radish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Interesting POV meowee...I missed the daycare thread bBut I got that vibe (SAHMs are lazy b/c they have a babydaddy to flip the bills) in this thread.
radish is offline  
#195 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 05:31 PM
 
meowee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
While it may seem unappreciative to "complain" about the fact that SAHM is moderated, I can say I've been waiting 4 days now on a totally benign role call thread that I submitted. It hasn't shown up. If that thread can't get through, how did the daycare thread get through, when the rules clearly state that is the one topic we are not allowed to discuss?
meowee is offline  
#196 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 07:51 PM
 
meowee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
after some feverish google research I've learned that "babydaddy" does not refer to just any father, and certainly not to a bill-paying father. It generally connotes a man who impregnanted the mother and never was involved much beyond that, whether financially or emotionally.

It is a derogatory, unPC term, so it probably shouldn't be used on MDC.
meowee is offline  
#197 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 08:25 PM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by meowee
about the SAHM forum, i just find it "weird" that it is moderated, and that the reason is variously that 1) off topic posts are too much of a risk, and/or 2) SAHMs will say nasty things about WOHMs and daycare.

Well, then how did that daycare thread get through the mods? Was it subterfuge to give them an excuse to get rid of the SAHM forum? Anyway, most of the nastiness in that thread was directed *toward SAHMs,* saying that they are burnt out "babydaddy" dependents.

I find it very offensive that it is assumed SAHMs will start saying nasty things about WOHMs. I have seen SAHMs here speak passionately about the importance (in their opinion) of parental care vs. non parental care... but I have not seen WOHMs trashed left and right, and certainly not in the SAHM forum, not even in the infamous daycare thread.

Now, are there guidelines on the WOHM forum stating that they are not allowed to say that SAHMing is boring, makes a woman dependent, is unfulfilling? Even if those are the reasons she wants to WOH?
In theory, I totally see your point (why should one forum be moderated but not the other?). Perhaps on a different website, there would need to be similar treatment. The problem is, IMO, that the reality here at MDC is that the broad-brush trashing tends to happen much more in one direction than the other. I have seen far, far, far more negative talk that indicts parents (read: moms) who WOH than I have similarly global indictments of moms who SAH. So from my perspective, the unequal levels of scrutiny simply make sense, given the general tendencies of this site.

That said, wouldn't trash talk about WOHMs *or* SAHMs violate the UA? UA violations should be dealt with equally, in all forums.

I also wonder how that daycare thread got through. It was a real train wreck. :

(BTW, I thought the "babydaddy" comments were facetious, and were actually lampooning that stereotype of SAHMs. )
kaydee is offline  
#198 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 08:48 PM
 
meowee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee
I also wonder how that daycare thread got through. It was a real train wreck. :
Classic Vulcan subterfuge! (I can't be the only geek here, am I?)
meowee is offline  
#199 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 09:03 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by meowee
Well, then how did that daycare thread get through the mods? Was it subterfuge to give them an excuse to get rid of the SAHM forum? Anyway, most of the nastiness in that thread was directed *toward SAHMs,* saying that they are burnt out "babydaddy" dependents.

Wow, were we reading the same thread?

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#200 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 11:49 PM
 
meowee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa
Wow, were we reading the same thread?
daycare was being trashed in that thread, but not WOHMs. There were nasty things said about SAHMs in that thread.
meowee is offline  
#201 of 209 Old 06-18-2005, 11:50 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I disagree. I saw a lot of WOH bashing. If there was sah bashing, I missed it.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#202 of 209 Old 06-19-2005, 12:30 AM
 
musingmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
hmmm yeah I missed the SAHM bashing on the daycare thread as well....
I am very curious as to why an OP criticizing the whole concept and reality of daycare would get through the moderators, and I felt the same way about the thread that generalized that SAHMs are thinner and "yummy mommies" :Puke and WOHMs are "ummm bigger... even though they have highlights in thier hair and can afford nicer clothes..." and in both instances the OP was asking if others shared that same self righteous view so they could all revel in the giddiness of judgeing others...., so it seemed a very obvious set up to bash WOHMs and feel superior. Its almost as if it is desired by the powers that be that the SAHM forum have train wreck after train wreck to shut it down, and it seems like it is happening pretty easy...
sad because I had a different view of the potential for a SAHP forum that could support all parents and view all the work that one does caring for children as real work, not as being lazy and "supported by babydaddies".... theres a lot more to support than just money.... and why is caring for children seen as a real job only if its someone else's kids....
oh well, this just always goes around in circles anyway
I just wish we could talk openly and respectful and realize we just don't know what its like to be in anothers shoes....

homeschooling mama to 8 yr old biggrinbounce.gif with a new little one(5-5-2011) babyf.gif...  h20homebirth.gif

musingmama is offline  
#203 of 209 Old 06-19-2005, 11:37 AM
 
RedWine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have to disagree about the daycare thread. Yes, it became a train wreck, and that's a shame. But it NEEDN'T have become a train wreck. The thread, as I understood it, was NOT about trashing WOH moms. It was specifically about daycare -- NOT about child care other than mama. There are plenty of WOH moms who use nannies, au pairs, relatives, flex-time shifts so daddy stays home sometimes, etc.

That thread could have been useful and the original subject itself should not have been offensive to WOH mamas. Again, it COULD have been about daycare, period. NOT about other-than-mama care (of which, as I've mentioned, there exist many other options besides daycare). It became a battle, which is sad, because it really didn't have to go there. But discussing daycare in and of itself should not be tabboo.
RedWine is offline  
#204 of 209 Old 06-19-2005, 11:40 AM
 
RedWine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh, and the "do you have time to excerise" thread didn't have to go that route either. The original post was about not having time to exercise, or something like that. I can relate, as I am definitely NOT a "yummier mommy" since I became a SAHM. Quite the opposite, for some of the reasons mentioned in that thread.

Perhaps instead of deleting an entire thread, maybe the mods could delete offesive individual posts?
RedWine is offline  
#205 of 209 Old 06-19-2005, 12:20 PM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An Arabian kingdom far far away
Posts: 28,860
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
The thread has not been deleted. It was removed for review and may be returned but probably to another forum for general discussion.

cynthia mosher is online now  
#206 of 209 Old 06-19-2005, 12:26 PM
 
RedWine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks, CM -- but again, maybe no need for removal of the thread...? Can you just delete the offensive posts, or -- as what happens in other forums -- interject warnings from the mods, but leave the thread?
RedWine is offline  
#207 of 209 Old 06-19-2005, 02:05 PM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An Arabian kingdom far far away
Posts: 28,860
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
There are some posts that perhaps should be edited or removed. But my feeling is, and was from the start, that the topic is one that should be discussed generally. The quality of daycare is not really a SAHM specific topic. Actually it is a topic that should be of interest to the entire Mothering community and not one that is limited to or should be discussed as a SAHM issue. So I think the thread should be moved to another forum and perhaps the OP edited to present it as a general discussion for all parents. Though the OP presented it as a SAHM question the discussion turned completely to a critique (negative and positive) of the studies mentioned. I don't think that was the intent of the OP. If it was then she needs to start another thread for that purpose outside the SAHM forum or we need to accept it s such and move the thread.

If the intent was to ascertain if the implications of these studies influenced a SAHM's decision to stay home rather than work then that is a completely different topic than the thread took and needs to be edited accordingly and the thread redirected.

So the review is to decide which of the two will happen.

cynthia mosher is online now  
#208 of 209 Old 06-19-2005, 02:20 PM
 
RedWine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ahhhh. I get it now. Thanks.

If I may say so, you are an extremely wise woman.
RedWine is offline  
#209 of 209 Old 06-19-2005, 09:40 PM
 
radish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for the posts RedWine and CM.
radish 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