Bitchy, Diva Attitude - Page 6 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#151 of 172 Old 08-10-2007, 08:52 PM
 
silly_scout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Double :
silly_scout is offline  
#152 of 172 Old 08-10-2007, 10:00 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viewfinder View Post
But if things have truly changed so, why do we not see as many or WAY MORE powerful images of women and girls even AVAILABLE, never mind marketed to girls? Why has there not been a woman President of the USA? Why are most roles of power in the real world held by men? Bratz and Barbies aren't about rebellion: they are about suppression, regression, blocking advancement, and relegating to meaninglessness.
YES. This is especially and painfully true when you are in Barnes and Noble shopping for children's biographies.

TONS of bios about Americans, like we're the only country in the world and our not-quite-four hundred years of history somehow trumps the ten thousand years of civilization enjoyed by the rest of the planet.

But that's a bit OT.

TONS of biographies about men. Ben Franklin. George Washington. Martin Luther King, Jr. Albert Einstein.

Worthy people all, to be sure, but when you look at the biographies about women, first of all, you have to look FOR the biographies about women. When you've found any, they are generally about the following. I'm dealing only with American bios, BTW -- like I said, OTHER COUNTRIES apparently have no one worth writing about and selling at Barnes and Noble.

Good Patriots - Women functioning as token symbols of our country's mythology who conveniently didn't do much that was important.
Stars of this show: Betsy Ross, Dolley Madison.
Who's NOT there
: Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Sandra Day O'Connor, Molly Pitcher, Victoria Woodhull

Good Token Native People and POC - Nice "safe" choices so the booksellers don't look too racist or biased, but these women's political activism is often (dare I say it?) whitewashed so people (i.e., white people) can avoid feeling genuinely guilty or question their way of treating others:
Stars of this show: Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Pocahontas, Sacajawea
Who's NOT there: Coretta Scott King, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Kathleen Cleaver, Mae Jemison

Didn't They Write?
Stars of this show: About the ONLY woman who ever wrote was, apparently, Louisa May Alcott.
Who's NOT there:Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton, Emily Dickinson, Phillis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Edith Wharton, Gertrude Stein, Hilda Doolittle, Djuna Barnes

Women They Can't Ignore Because It Would Be Too Obvious
Stars of this show
: Eleanor Roosevelt, Marie Curie, Susan B. Anthony
Who's NOT there: Mae Jemison, Rosalind Franklin, Gloria Steinem, Jane Addams, Mary McLeod Bethune, Dolores Huerta, Margaret Sanger, Dian Fossey, Jane Goodall, Maria Mitchell, Sally Ride

Poor Things
Star of this show: Helen Keller, blind/deaf girl
Who's NOT there: Helen Keller, socialist activist and women's rights champion

Sometimes, an absence speaks louder than words.
Meg Murry. is offline  
#153 of 172 Old 08-11-2007, 08:31 AM
 
lisalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
VF I think you missed my main point which was marketing is NOT a precise science. You made it sound like focus groups and other things were this amazing thing that provides exact results that helps marketers surgically strike and manipulate everyone. It doesn't.

You're blaming the symptom not the cause. It goes back much further than marketing. It goes back to the role of women throughout history in the patriarchy we call Western Culture. I think things have only advanced so far from when women were considered property and had no inheritance rights and no ability to vote. We tend to take two steps forward and 1 3/4 steps back.

We as a society still judge women based on how attractive they are to men. There are billion dollar industries for that exact purpose. So they have vested interest in making sure women remain insecure about who they are so they'll buy the product. We have a medical industry that treats women like a walking uterus. We're still just objects to the majority of society. And society thinks it has a vested interest in keeping us that way. And we help to perpetuate it as women.

Why not so many strong women in biographies etc? The fact is history has ignored them for the most part. History is the story of the powerful.

So to blame marketing seems rather lame to me. Society's views have to be there first before a marketer can take it make it sell a product. This view of women won't change overnight. But at least we as women can try to stop perpetuating it for ourselves and our daughters and sons.
lisalou is offline  
#154 of 172 Old 08-11-2007, 10:36 AM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalou View Post


So to blame marketing seems rather lame to me. Society's views have to be there first before a marketer can take it make it sell a product. This view of women won't change overnight. But at least we as women can try to stop perpetuating it for ourselves and our daughters and sons.
Lisalou, I'm afraid that I can't agree with you on this wholeheartedly. Too many times, we all have seen marketers, media spin doctors, all Xbox manufacturers, and the entire Bush administration create an apparent "need" where one did not exist before, or create an ideology or attitude that was either not there at all or present in much smaller quantities before they metastasized it for their own purposes.
Meg Murry. is offline  
#155 of 172 Old 08-11-2007, 11:07 AM
 
2tadpoles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalou View Post
Why not so many strong women in biographies etc? The fact is history has ignored them for the most part. History is the story of the powerful.
Precisely. That's why it's called his-story, rather than her-story.
2tadpoles is offline  
#156 of 172 Old 08-11-2007, 11:22 AM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2tadpoles View Post
Precisely. That's why it's called his-story, rather than her-story.
You're joking, right? I don't want to be boring and explain that the word doesn't have anything etymologically to do with gender.
Meg Murry. is offline  
#157 of 172 Old 08-11-2007, 03:18 PM
 
2tadpoles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meg Murry. View Post
You're joking, right?
Relax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meg Murry. View Post
I don't want to be boring and explain that the word doesn't have anything etymologically to do with gender.
But you did, anyway.
2tadpoles is offline  
#158 of 172 Old 08-11-2007, 04:03 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2tadpoles View Post
Relax.



But you did, anyway.
Ah, but you see, I spared you the incredibly long-winded version.
That could change.
Meg Murry. is offline  
#159 of 172 Old 08-11-2007, 04:10 PM
 
SquishyKitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As an adult, I think HB and Cartman and Family guy are hilarious. However, I would not endorse a child wearing it, because they often aren't able to distinguish between the subtle humor and RL at that age.

I also wouldn't endorse girls wearing the "Boys are stupid" type clothes, nor would I allow DS to wear the numerous shirts marketed at boys saying things like "little monster".

It's pretty sad, the things that are marketed at kids these days. It's up to parents to filter that crap out.
SquishyKitty is offline  
#160 of 172 Old 08-11-2007, 10:10 PM
 
Viewfinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalou View Post
VF I think you missed my main point which was marketing is NOT a precise science. You made it sound like focus groups and other things were this amazing thing that provides exact results that helps marketers surgically strike and manipulate everyone. It doesn't.

You're blaming the symptom not the cause. It goes back much further than marketing. It goes back to the role of women throughout history in the patriarchy we call Western Culture. I think things have only advanced so far from when women were considered property and had no inheritance rights and no ability to vote. We tend to take two steps forward and 1 3/4 steps back.

We as a society still judge women based on how attractive they are to men. There are billion dollar industries for that exact purpose. So they have vested interest in making sure women remain insecure about who they are so they'll buy the product. We have a medical industry that treats women like a walking uterus. We're still just objects to the majority of society. And society thinks it has a vested interest in keeping us that way. And we help to perpetuate it as women.

Why not so many strong women in biographies etc? The fact is history has ignored them for the most part. History is the story of the powerful.

So to blame marketing seems rather lame to me. Society's views have to be there first before a marketer can take it make it sell a product. This view of women won't change overnight. But at least we as women can try to stop perpetuating it for ourselves and our daughters and sons.
Lisalou,

I got your main point, and I disagree with it. Marketing is a precise science, much, much too costly not to be as spot-on effective as possible, using whatever methods can be brought to bear, including fraud, deceit, bait-and-switch, etc. It is used on all members of society, with specific tools designed for specific target audiences/consumers. It finds the weakness/need in them, and goes after it. Men "need" bigger and louder car engines and trucks, in order, btw, to be magnetic to women, and women "need" longer legs (high heels), blonder hair, flawless skin, thick eyelashes, figure flattering clothes in order to be chosen by men.

The politics of where women are in society is a factor that is USED by marketing, as part of its scientific methods.

I don't blame marketing for where women are politically, though marketing takes full advantage of where women are: it behooves them to do so. It does make the check bigger at the end of the day.

VF
Viewfinder is offline  
#161 of 172 Old 08-13-2007, 11:10 AM
 
lisalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The history of marketing is littered with failed marketing that was supposed to be a sure thing. That needs that were attempted to be created couldn't be. It's not a precise science nor does it follow the scientific method even vaguely. Sorry it just doesn't. Perhaps I'm taking you a little too literally and your definition of precise science isn't really what I'd consider the scientific method.

Quote:
Lisalou, I'm afraid that I can't agree with you on this wholeheartedly. Too many times, we all have seen marketers, media spin doctors, all Xbox manufacturers, and the entire Bush administration create an apparent "need" where one did not exist before, or create an ideology or attitude that was either not there at all or present in much smaller quantities before they metastasized it for their own purposes.
One of the first things marketing 101 teaches you is that you can't create a need that isn't already there. People do smell bullshit a mile away believe it or not. You can exploit and grow a need but you can't create it through marketing.That's what this administration did with fear after 9/11. That's what marketers do with female insecurities for the multi billion dollar fashion and cosmetic industries.

I'm not absolving marketing at all. Marketing is all about exploitation to sell a product. But after spending some 16 years in it, to make marketing out to be the bogeyman that's the be all end all that we can't overcome is ridiculous to me. If you read a marketing 101 textbook you have 99% of the tactics marketers use to market a product to you. The tactics haven't changed in 50 years. And they're not even as effective as they used to be. Once you're aware of the tactics as well as your own prejudices and insecurities you can make the conscious decision to ignore it as well as teach your children the same.
lisalou is offline  
#162 of 172 Old 08-13-2007, 03:57 PM
Banned
 
happyhippiemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: out in the hills of iiiiiiowwwwwaaa
Posts: 1,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bumping because it's so good....
happyhippiemama is offline  
#163 of 172 Old 08-14-2007, 11:26 AM
 
Nemo6's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meg Murry. View Post
YES. This is especially and painfully true when you are in Barnes and Noble shopping for children's biographies.
If what you're talking about is "why do we not see as many or WAY MORE powerful images of women and girls even AVAILABLE", it's largely the fault of the buyers for B&N. When I ran an independent bookstore, there were several publishers with children's biography series, ranging from early picture books up to chapter books for upper elementary.

From your list, I can remember off the top of my head that I carried biographies of Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Sandra Day O'Connor, Molly Pitcher, Victoria Woodhull, Coretta Scott King, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Mae Jemison, Emily Dickinson, Phillis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Rosalind Franklin, Gloria Steinem, Jane Addams, Mary McLeod Bethune, Margaret Sanger, Dian Fossey, Jane Goodall, and Sally Ride.

I also remember biographies of Amelia Earhart, Clara Barton, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Nellie Bly, Rachel Carson, Abigail Adams, Martha Washington, Elizabeth Blackwell, Bessie Coleman, Mahalia Jackson, Marian Anderson, Margaret Bourke-White, Dorothea Lange, Georgia O’Keeffe, Julia Morgan, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Annie Oakley, Julia Ward Howe, Althea Gibson, Wilma Rudolph, Babe Didrickson, and numerous contemporary athletes.

I’m pretty sure I remember biographies of Mother Jones, Emma Goldman, and Nancy Pelosi, too.

Granted, there were umpteen different choices for biographies of Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt, and only one or two of Rachel Carson, but the same held true for biographies of men--lots to choose from if it's MLK or Lincoln, and only one of John Muir.

There were lots of biographies of non-Americans, too. Again, these are often from the same publishers of the biographies that are carried by B&N; it's not as if I had to go to a different source to find them. So it's not that
Quote:
OTHER COUNTRIES apparently have no one worth writing about
just that B&N doesn't consider them worth selling. They only carry the biographies that sell the best, which of course is a vicious cycle; unless the customer is specifically looking for a biography of Mae Jemison and will order one, you can't sell a book that isn't on the shelf.

So once again it all comes down to marketing. B&N and Borders think they know whom kids want to read about, so that's all they carry. I understand how this happens in smaller stores, with limited budgets, but it's one of the many things I hate about the chain bookstores.

There was also a great series on "Outrageous Women" of various eras; these were some of our best-selling biographies, in part because they talked about women who were rarely mentioned elsewhere.
Nemo6 is offline  
#164 of 172 Old 08-14-2007, 05:36 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo6 View Post
If what you're talking about is "why do we not see as many or WAY MORE powerful images of women and girls even AVAILABLE", it's largely the fault of the buyers for B&N. When I ran an independent bookstore, there were several publishers with children's biography series, ranging from early picture books up to chapter books for upper elementary.

From your list, I can remember off the top of my head that I carried biographies of Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Sandra Day O'Connor, Molly Pitcher, Victoria Woodhull, Coretta Scott King, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Mae Jemison, Emily Dickinson, Phillis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Rosalind Franklin, Gloria Steinem, Jane Addams, Mary McLeod Bethune, Margaret Sanger, Dian Fossey, Jane Goodall, and Sally Ride.

I also remember biographies of Amelia Earhart, Clara Barton, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Nellie Bly, Rachel Carson, Abigail Adams, Martha Washington, Elizabeth Blackwell, Bessie Coleman, Mahalia Jackson, Marian Anderson, Margaret Bourke-White, Dorothea Lange, Georgia O’Keeffe, Julia Morgan, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Annie Oakley, Julia Ward Howe, Althea Gibson, Wilma Rudolph, Babe Didrickson, and numerous contemporary athletes.

I’m pretty sure I remember biographies of Mother Jones, Emma Goldman, and Nancy Pelosi, too.

Granted, there were umpteen different choices for biographies of Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt, and only one or two of Rachel Carson, but the same held true for biographies of men--lots to choose from if it's MLK or Lincoln, and only one of John Muir.

There were lots of biographies of non-Americans, too. Again, these are often from the same publishers of the biographies that are carried by B&N; it's not as if I had to go to a different source to find them. So it's not that just that B&N doesn't consider them worth selling. They only carry the biographies that sell the best, which of course is a vicious cycle; unless the customer is specifically looking for a biography of Mae Jemison and will order one, you can't sell a book that isn't on the shelf.

So once again it all comes down to marketing. B&N and Borders think they know whom kids want to read about, so that's all they carry. I understand how this happens in smaller stores, with limited budgets, but it's one of the many things I hate about the chain bookstores.

There was also a great series on "Outrageous Women" of various eras; these were some of our best-selling biographies, in part because they talked about women who were rarely mentioned elsewhere.

I see what you're saying, but it's amazing how quickly it becomes a matter of a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you don't know it's available, you can't buy it and if people don't buy it, it won't be available.
Meg Murry. is offline  
#165 of 172 Old 08-16-2007, 04:02 PM
 
amanda10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow. What a fascinating thread. I'm going to read Packaging Girlhood pronto. My two girls are now 5 and 8. I was so dismayed by the transformation in my eldest once she started school -- all of sudden she wasn't *allowed* by the boys to play with the dinosaur toys (even though she was obsessed with them at home and had read volumes about them) or the blocks. Girls in her class were already being "mean" in Kindergarten--something she had been completely unfamiliar with. She started bringing the bad attitude home and that hasn't been pleasant. She's had a hard transition, and now I see her as trying to conform (and I desperately don't want her to) so she doesn't get picked on. My five year old enters Kindergarten next month--she's a little tougher emotionally though so I hope she'll manage okay. I am sad that little kids don't act like little kids anymore--they act like little grown ups when they're six.
amanda10 is offline  
#166 of 172 Old 08-16-2007, 08:02 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanda10 View Post
Wow. What a fascinating thread. I'm going to read Packaging Girlhood pronto. My two girls are now 5 and 8. I was so dismayed by the transformation in my eldest once she started school -- all of sudden she wasn't *allowed* by the boys to play with the dinosaur toys (even though she was obsessed with them at home and had read volumes about them) or the blocks. Girls in her class were already being "mean" in Kindergarten--something she had been completely unfamiliar with. She started bringing the bad attitude home and that hasn't been pleasant. She's had a hard transition, and now I see her as trying to conform (and I desperately don't want her to) so she doesn't get picked on. My five year old enters Kindergarten next month--she's a little tougher emotionally though so I hope she'll manage okay. I am sad that little kids don't act like little kids anymore--they act like little grown ups when they're six.
Is there any way of homeschooling them? Seriously, the "socialization" you're talking about seems one of the very best reasons to keep them at home, if you can. Just a thought.
Meg Murry. is offline  
#167 of 172 Old 08-26-2007, 07:52 PM
 
silly_scout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Reviving for the sake of this article (which hopefully hasn't already been posted on MDC.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2172705/nav/tap1/
silly_scout is offline  
#168 of 172 Old 08-26-2007, 08:32 PM
 
bu's mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 2,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by silly_scout View Post
Reviving for the sake of this article (which hopefully hasn't already been posted on MDC.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2172705/nav/tap1/
Good article. Dd is not a tween yet (5), but even shopping for clothes for her is usually difficult. I won't do overt advertising on clothes, no characters (though I did compromise & bought her a t-shirt with 'High School Musical' on it. That was a big step for me ), not overly sequined or shiny. My biggest complaint (as in the article also) are low waisted pants : , actually double : .

My favorite line..."Mom, I'm 11!" she said. "I'm not Harriet Miers!"
bu's mama is offline  
#169 of 172 Old 08-26-2007, 09:14 PM
 
mum5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: feeling beachy!
Posts: 1,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have not read all the posts, just the first few pages, but just wanted to offer my opinion.
The sad part is, that this kind of language/phrases/attitudes will become the "norm" and will be tolerated and percieved as ok to just be thrown around.
It is wholly unacceptable for children, be they 5 or 15 to be wearing and portraying this kind of image. It IS adult humour, and barely even humour at that.

Just my opinion.

Me and Dh partners.gif, Dd1bouncy.gif  Dd2dust.gif,Ds1joy.gif, 2flowerkitty.gif, 2hamster.jpgand lots of goldfish.gif

mum5 is offline  
#170 of 172 Old 08-27-2007, 12:51 PM
 
nancy926's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: where we always need more bookcases
Posts: 2,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagomom View Post
It's sad and frustrating that on mothering.com this is considered "advancement for women".

WOH is not "advancement".
I haven't read all 9 pages of this thread but I had to respond to this. To me, NFL and AP is not about the mom staying home. It's about FAMILY. In our family, I work. I happen to work at home. My DH stays home with the kids. WHY oh WHY is this not an "acceptable" family unit? Why should I stay home with the kids and be a miserable SAHP so DH can go to an office and make 1/3 what I make and never see the kids???

Sorry, I know this is OT but it bothers me that in a place where people are supposed to be open minded to other ways of living outside the mainstream, that people still believe the only good mom is a stay-at-home mom, and that the father doesn't even factor into a family.

A writer/runner/thinker/wife with two daughters (11/02 and 8/05), one dog, three cats, seven fish, and a partridge in a pear tree... in Vermont.
nancy926 is offline  
#171 of 172 Old 08-27-2007, 01:24 PM
 
nonconformnmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the wilderness
Posts: 5,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nancy926 View Post

Sorry, I know this is OT but it bothers me that in a place where people are supposed to be open minded to other ways of living outside the mainstream, that people still believe the only good mom is a stay-at-home mom, and that the father doesn't even factor into a family.
I have been trying to express this perspective here on MDC for as long as I've been here, and you nailed it. Thanks for articulating it so well.

I really think that MDC should change the SAHM forum to SAHP, and for heaven's sake let's stop having threads that say "How often does your dh watch the kids". :
nonconformnmom is offline  
#172 of 172 Old 08-27-2007, 01:38 PM
 
silly_scout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nancy926 View Post
Sorry, I know this is OT but it bothers me that in a place where people are supposed to be open minded to other ways of living outside the mainstream, that people still believe the only good mom is a stay-at-home mom, and that the father doesn't even factor into a family.
Precisely. It really ticked me off that someone would argue with me over the fact that women making 6 figures is advancement. I think that was the angriest I've ever gotten on MDC. And I've had to log off in anger quite a few times because of what I call "non-mainstream-mainstream", meaning MDC members are anti-mainstream parenting, but you sure as h*ll better be for their non-mainstream style or you are one of "Them". (ETA: I am very pro- public school, and I feel like an uneducated boor on here sometimes, but whatev.)
I noticed the person who stated that WOH isn't advancement hasn't posted since several rebuttals have been made. Perhaps she has no answer?
silly_scout is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
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