# The Granola Extreme



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

An interesting discussion was started elsewhere about AP/Natural family living and its compatability/incompatability with feminism. I thought it would be good to have a place to continue the discussion.

Some people may remember an extremely mediocre miniseries on TV a while back called "The Sixties." It did have one moment that rang true to me: the daughter runs away from her traditional, cookie-baking SAHM family. She ends up at a commune, where her first job is to bake muffins (without refined sugar, of course). She discovers her scope at the commune is just as restricted as it was at home.

Sometimes AP/NFL does, to me, reek of: difficulty for the difficulty's sake, self-sacrifice by moms (regardless of the relative value of the sacrifice to the gain) = nobility, the more obscure, the more "cool", the more challenging, the more "cool". I have seen it drive my DH's ex literally to her wits' end. With her next pregnancy I expect to run across her lying under some bushes in the park, in midwinter, holding a stick between her teeth and giving birth alone. Because a homebirth isn't enough, an unattended birth isn't enough, it's gotta be something even *more* natural. Rather than keeping up with the Jones, she's keeping up with the Raynbow Arwen Starrs.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

I don't get it.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Of course. Because sexism and the patriarchal structures that uphold it is the water we swim in. We may congregate into different schools, but the water stays the same.

I agree with what you said, especially "difficulty for difficulty's sake." There's this female version of macho, too, whose birth was more unattended, who is more willing to be vicious to formula feeders, who is willing to psychically bleed to death for the sake of "constant contact," etc. I make an effort to reject it. Sometimes that puts me in the "bad" column for AP, sometimes not. I'm trying not to care.


----------



## stirringleaf (Mar 16, 2002)

aside from that, i agree with you to a degree. but i also, to use a cliche, dont think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. deciding that the ap/NFL lifestlye is altogether not feminist is incredibly generalizing. there are plenty of women that choose healthy lifestyles for themselves and their children simply becasue they feel it is healthy, and they dont go all dogmatic about it and become martyrs. i know plenty of people who do this lifestyle within reason. i eat like 85 percent organic but somethimes i eat salsa con queso fake nacho cheese sauce. sometimes i dont drive my car for a week. but sometimes i drive it every day and even use it to drive my son to sleep on a mommy meltdown kind of night. i dont hide either experince nor do i feel shame about them. i do get a stomachache from the fake cheese, however.


----------



## SquishyKitty (Jun 10, 2005)

I've noticed that a lot, that unless it's so hard, so sacrificial that you can martyr yourself over it, you're just not crunchy enough. I don't understand that thinking. I thought NFL was supposed to be about living simplier and easier, not doing the hardest possible thing because it's more natural than your neighbor.


----------



## Needle in the Hay (Sep 16, 2006)

Wow I don't get that impression of AP or NFL. Sure, there are some people who will just be extreme at anything they decide to embrace, and yes, I have seen posts on these boards where someone does seem to be making it much harder than it needs to be. People do that in lots of ways for lots of things, though, not just attachment parenting.

I never felt like I was sacrificing because I breastfed my ds. I never feel like I'm sacrificing when I lie down with him until he falls alseep (or, if I fall asleep first then we co-sleep). I don't feel like I'm sacrificing because I stay home and DH goes to work, or because my DS is with me instead of spending his days at school. No one is forcing any aspect of AP on me. I choose it and I like it and I use what works for me and don't get hung up on "rules".

Really, I think some people just misinterpret what it all means. I see people do that with homeschooling too. They think it's supposed to work a certain way and if it doesn't then they think homeschooling doesn't work or that they don't know how to do it right (or that other people are doing it wrong).

BCZmama, it's obvious from this and other posts that you do not have much esteem for your DH's ex. It seems that her version of AP frustrates you and even though you want to do certain things for your child that are AP, you really don't want to be associated in this way with your DH's ex. I totally understand that, especially since I got the impression that she tries to tell you how you should parent-- but granola (what you originally called it)? Come on. If women are striving to be matyrs for social acceptance I don't think that is the fault of AP or NFL. Some of the mamas who practice certain aspects of AP would do well to be less judgemental but it's not because they are judgemental that anyone needs to live up to their standards.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

That said..
I do think some women turn ap/nfl into a "more martyred than thou" competition. And who use that as a weapon against other women.

You see the "string up the bad mama" mentality. You see these cyber-gangs that gather in the "I saw a bad mama doing xyz threads."

And it reminds me of the scene in the "Handmaid's Tale" when they all pull on the rope to hang the Handmaid who had sex with the doctor.

You see these gatherings of the ap/nfl police, ready to figuratively stone some stranger or acquaintance to death, for not measuring up. For not being martyred enough. And that really gives me the chills.

OTOH, I have RARELY seen mainstream mamas do that. Is that inherently part of ap/nfl? Absolutely not. But somehow, ap/nfl circles do seem to attract some women who really really need to compare themselves to others, and who are really really invested in setting up straw-women bad mommies to make themselves feel superior and righteous. I am not sure what is behind that, but I hear it and see it much more among women who describe themselves as ap/nfl.

I personally have no need to lambaste other mommas, especially when I haven't walked in their shoes. Nor am I as invested in labels as others. I came to ap because it seemed the best way to parent my infant. But I define ap the way Sears does.. with the 5 B's. And I did all five, while wohm-ing.

NFL is different than AP. And this site has made me more into NFL than I was. But again, I wohm, so I will never measure up in the eyes of many many women who have very narrow definitions of what NFL is.

Luckily, I no longer care.


----------



## 3girlmom (Sep 24, 2006)

Q


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

sure, there are some holier-than-thou crunchy people who seem to support difficulty for difficulty's sake. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again--the subculture of difficulty for difficulty's sake can only rightly be considered in light of the mainstream culture's wholehearted support of convenience for convenience's sake, no matter the consequences. People who question that mainstream lifestyle may be rightly suspicious of things that make our life easier, because there may be hidden costs. Some people take it too far. Some people always do. But if some woman wants to give birth in the bushes, so what?


----------



## Needle in the Hay (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *3girlmom* 

Particularly where I live, I've seen lots of women who harness their considerable energies, intelligences and financial resources to provide the most organic, most crunchy, most esoteric-all-natural-baby-item-special-ordered-from-Sweden-don't-drink-milk-if-it's-homogenized-even-if-it's-organic-soy?-no-soy?-dried-fruit-and-nuts-instead-of-a-birthday-cupcake life for their children, and it's rooted more in a search for control rather than a search for happiness. Imagine if they gave all that energy and money to larger societal problems rather than to attaining some sort of granola perfection.

WOW I do not know people like that. People here seem to be more concerned with appearing "normal" and mainstream. There is a fear of being marginalized.


----------



## Needle in the Hay (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah* 

OTOH, I have RARELY seen mainstream mamas do that.

There are people who do this in every group and subcategory! You know, people who think kids need to be spanked or advise everyone to let their child CIO ("buy earplugs, go outside if you have to" --I have even seen this in parenting books), people who make comments about breastfeeding being gross or indecent (Tracy Hogg in her parenting book telling the story of one woman she knew who BF'd whose breasts became "flat as pancakes") people who will shun those who don't vaccinate their kids, remarks about non-circumsized penises as being gross or weird, people of all kinds have their own reasons for making negative comments to homeschoolers (even though there are people of all kinds who homeschool)... so I think mamas are subject to harrassment from any "side".


----------



## Needle in the Hay (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna* 
sure, there are some holier-than-thou crunchy people who seem to support difficulty for difficulty's sake. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again--the subculture of difficulty for difficulty's sake can only rightly be considered in light of the mainstream culture's wholehearted support of convenience for convenience's sake, no matter the consequences. People who question that mainstream lifestyle may be rightly suspicious of things that make our life easier, because there may be hidden costs. Some people take it too far. Some people always do. But if some woman wants to give birth in the bushes, so what? .

OK I know I'm quoting everyone's posts here but I had to reply to this. Brigianna you said it very well and it makes perfect sense that the inconvenience and sacrifice (sometimes taken too far) is a reaction to the convenience and selfishness that is part of mainstream culture (though certainly not embraced by all who would be considered more or less mainstream). Anyway, really loved your post.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Needle in the Hay* 
There are people who do this in every group and subcategory! You know, people who think kids need to be spanked or advise everyone to let their child CIO ("buy earplugs, go outside if you have to" --I have even seen this in parenting books), people who make comments about breastfeeding being gross or indecent (Tracy Hogg in her parenting book telling the story of one woman she knew who BF'd whose breasts became "flat as pancakes") people who will shun those who don't vaccinate their kids, remarks about non-circumsized penises as being gross or weird, people of all kinds have their own reasons for making negative comments to homeschoolers (even though there are people of all kinds who homeschool)... so I think mamas are subject to harrassment from any "side". There will always be extremists(so to speak) in just about any group but they are usually the minority

No, its different. Yeah, there are mainstream parents who make nasty remarks and who cut off people they disagree with. And yeah, UC, homeschooling and breastfeeding are often targeted by the ignorant. No doubt about that.

But I don't see the whole "we define ourselves by judging and lambasting straw women" culture I see in ap/nfl circles. I just don't. Mainstreamers don't DEFINE themselves that way. They don't have a culture of "more mainstream than thou." Ap/nfl people are more likely to define themselves solely by their parenting choices, and that is where some of that behavior comes from, I think.


----------



## Needle in the Hay (Sep 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah* 
No, its different. Yeah, there are mainstream parents who make nasty remarks and who cut off people they disagree with. And yeah, UC, homeschooling and breastfeeding are often targeted by the ignorant. No doubt about that.

But I don't see the whole "we define ourselves by judging and lambasting straw women" culture I see in ap/nfl circles. I just don't. Mainstreamers don't DEFINE themselves that way. They don't have a culture of "more mainstream than thou." Ap/nfl people are more likely to define themselves solely by their parenting choices, and that is where some of that behavior comes from, I think.

It's possible, I'll give you that, but plenty of people do define themselves by being "normal" and do not like what seems to be abnormal. Sometimes the pressure to conform to the majority is what is oppressive! Where I live people will critcize anything they think isn't normal. ("C'est pas normal" is a favorite expression!) Maybe mainstreamers mind their own business more where you live.

When I used to post and read on sites that were more conservative (frugality and homeschooling sites are often conservative) I did find a lot of judgement and a sort of contest between women of who could be the most devout, godly, motherly, wifely, etc. but of course that is also a group with ideals outside the mainstream (I've also know people like this IRL but these are people I avoided so I learned more from people with similar ideals online).

But I would say that group can judge and lambast just as well as any ap/nfl-ers can. I definitely hold that this behavior/mindset is not unique to AP. It really has a lot to do with the personalities/need for acceptance/insecurity of certain women (and no I'm not lambasting them for this, I think mainstream society, while possibly less judgemental of parenting choices, can make people this way).


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

What I have seen is that places where AP/NFL is the most "mainstream" (e.g., Hyde Park, Illinois and espec Berkely, California) people do get very competive about it. You know like "Crunchier than thou"

They get just as competitive as those in more Mainstream "mainstream" communities do about having the latest car or the biggest house.

When we lived in one of those communities you would have thought that exclusively bottle feeding was akin to feeding your baby rat poison.


----------



## saraann (Dec 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
Sometimes AP/NFL does, to me, reek of: difficulty for the difficulty's sake, self-sacrifice by moms (regardless of the relative value of the sacrifice to the gain) = nobility, the more obscure, the more "cool", the more challenging, the more "cool". .

For me AP has so many benefits and one of them is that it seems like an easier way to parent. I can feel confident about my parenting choices because they go with my instincts. I don't have to force myself to do things that go against my instincts such as CIO.
Wearing the baby makes getting things done around the house possible, while still meeting my baby's needs and it is much easier to manuever then a stroller.
Co-sleeping is easier then not because when she wakes up all I have to do is roll over and feed her in bed, while still half asleep, getting up at night would be much harder.
Breastfeeding is so much easier then bottle feeding.
So I guess I don't see it as being difficult or self-sacrificing, the opposite is true in my opinion.


----------



## jazzharmony (Nov 10, 2006)

What an unfortunate thread title.

bczmama, you seem very angry at your husband's ex wife. Perhaps dealing with that first would be helpful as it may be coloring your perspective.

ETA - thank you moderator, for changing the thread title


----------



## dawningmama (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Of course. Because sexism and the patriarchal structures that uphold it is the water we swim in. We may congregate into different schools, but the water stays the same.

Well said. Simply because a certain lifestyle is outside the mainstream, doesn't make it immune to the very strong forces of -isms that the mainstream runs on. In fact, sometimes it seems the more "other" a particular subculture seems to get in a specific aspect, the more "normal" it appears in all other respects.


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

Mod edit for quote of UA violation

TT- Thank you, Bug.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Ditto to the above, especially given the recent losses of some MDC mamas. It'd be kind to edit that.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah* 
OTOH, I have RARELY seen mainstream mamas do that.

Really? And you're on livejournal?!







I see mainstream mamas do it all the time, IRL and online, it's just about different things. "She's disgusting for breastfeeding, I can't believe she doesn't spank her kids, they're such brats, she's such a freak for picking her baby up when he cries, did you know that weirdo didn't circumsize her son, etc etc"


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 
Really? And you're on livejournal?!







I see mainstream mamas do it all the time, IRL and online, it's just about different things. "She's disgusting for breastfeeding, I can't believe she doesn't spank her kids, they're such brats, she's such a freak for picking her baby up when he cries, did you know that weirdo didn't circumsize her son, etc etc"










I write poetry and essays on livejournal. I read about poetry and spirituality and tattoos there. I don't look at parenting stuff there.

But again, I never said that there aren't mean and nasty mainstreamers who make mean and nasty comments.

I am talking about a certain "culture" of judgment and mommy-martyrdom, that no, I don't see among mainstreamers. Telling me about rude comments from individuals doesn't negate that opinion.


----------



## maybebaby (Dec 24, 2001)

I think there's a big difference in how women lived in the 50's and how "granola" moms do things now though. Back then, it was assumed that these jobs were "women's work", women were expected to be housewives and stay at home moms. Now, we're *choosing* to do those things. Choice is a huge factor. I don't see being granola as being less feminist; we just have *choice* about how we spend our time now. A feminist can choose to be a wohm or a sahm now, with gratitude to those women who blazed the trails for us in the past decades. As long as we all support other women making their own choice then it's all going to work out just fine. But judgement takes place on both sides, whether we want to admit it or not. There will always be career women who say we sahm's aren't feminist enough and there will always be sahm's who say wohm's arent as committed to their families.

And I totally don't believe we embrace difficulty for the sake of difficulty. That's nutty! There are reasons why we do things we do, and it's not just because it's harder. That would be crazy. We research and soul search and do what's right for our families. Sure, there are times we get upset when we feel women make decisions based on no more than just "following the herd", but you know maybe that stems from some feminist beliefs; we care so much that women avail themselves of information and the choices out there because in the past some of those choices weren't ours to make.


----------



## nancy926 (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm not in a frame of mind to wax philosophical...

But it's not just women who need to be feminists if we're going to change the way people think. Men need to be feminists too.

AND...part of being a feminist (IMHO) is seeing men as capable parents who can make their own decisions. Feminism is not just about women getting jobs and being paid equally.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah* 
But I don't see the whole "we define ourselves by judging and lambasting straw women" culture I see in ap/nfl circles. I just don't. Mainstreamers don't DEFINE themselves that way. They don't have a culture of "more mainstream than thou."

I don't see a culture of "more mainstream than thou", because none of the mainstream parents I know define themselves as mainstream. But, I certainly see a culture of "my kids are the best behaved", "my kids follow order" or even "my kids have more toys", and I think that's all part of the same phenomenon. It's easier to peg with the AP/NFL crowd, because we have a convenient label, and at least a rough set of criteria in order to "qualify".

I don't think AP/NFL parents are any different in this respect than mainstream parents. We just have handier labels on our actions.

OTOH, maybe I'm just clueless. I'm not particularly crunchy, and have never used the terms "AP" or "NFL" to describe my approach to life and parenting. I don't think I've adopted any label for myself or my beliefs or tasts since I shucked "metalhead" in the late 80s. I do what I think is best for me and my family, and it mostly falls more into AP than otherwise, but I'm not hung up on the label at all. And, aside from the local MDC tribe, I don't think I know a single parent who qualifies as anything but "mainstream" (most of them are a fairly vicious backbiting lot, too).


----------



## MomInFlux (Oct 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nancy926* 
But it's not just women who need to be feminists if we're going to change the way people think. Men need to be feminists too.

AND...part of being a feminist (IMHO) is seeing men as capable parents who can make their own decisions. Feminism is not just about women getting jobs and being paid equally.

Yep, yep, yep. I'm interested in this conversation, but I'm not sure I'm in for the long haul. I just can't relate to it.

I have a wonderful DH, who joyfully practices AP, and is a SAHD, and whom I would consider a feminist. He's also very crunchy







. At home, we're all about AP/NFL: homebirth, EFB, baby wearing, no vaxing, no circ, real food, sleep sharing, GD, homeschool, yadda-yadda-yadda. We don't do those things because we're striving to be "more granola" than our neighbors. We do these things because we think they're the right thing to do, and we LIKE doing them.

Yet, we're also outwardly mainstream. We've made the decision together that it makes more sense for our family that I work FT, and he supports that decision 100%. I work as an environmental consultant, and I look corporate. You would really have to talk with us for a nice long time to discern our lifestyle choices.

If people are the type to be competitive about their lifestyle choices, I think they're going to be competitive regardless of which direction they've gone in: granola or mainstream. And when people put dogma (of whichever stripe) ahead of making rational decisions, there will be issues. Are people really so weak-willed that they'll make decisions for their family based on some granola code of honor rather than what's right for their family?


----------



## Snowdrift (Oct 15, 2005)

Can we cut out the criticisms to UC-ers? They could be very hurtful. Birth is as safe as life gets, but not completely safe. No matter where it happens or who is there.


----------



## witchbaby (Apr 17, 2003)

i see entirely what you're saying, but i think it's more of a mother thing than purely and ap/nfl thing. it is very much the mommy wars in progress, it just depends on which side you're warring with. there are "i saw a mom at the mall doing xyz" threads here, posts about mothers breastfeeding "kids who can walk and talk!" on other boards. it seems to me, once we get bored with attacking the other side, we turn on each other.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SquishyKitty* 
I've noticed that a lot, that unless it's so hard, so sacrificial that you can martyr yourself over it, you're just not crunchy enough. I don't understand that thinking. I thought NFL was supposed to be about living simplier and easier, not doing the hardest possible thing because it's more natural than your neighbor.

I do see this at times. I find it particularly true in terms of bfing. I have seen this attitude that, no matter what bfing problems you have, if you're not willing to suffer years and years of physical pain, exhaustion, PPD, whatever to breastfeed, you're just not doing a good enough job. I had extreme bfing problems--severe ppd, 8+ weeks of severe pain. I was not a good mother to my dd. She still has some residual problems b/c of it (refusal to latch onto the breast herself, even at nearly 9 months, b/c latching on was so traumatic at the beginning). I was too ashamed to post on MDC that I was thinking of quitting bfing. I was afraid that people would jump all over me--as I had seen them jump all over others who weren't willing to "sacrifice" themselves. Instead, I emailed some mamas from my DDC privately, and they got me through (well, therapy for PPD helped too). I am still EBF. But if I had not been able to correct it when I did, the toll it would have taken on me and my daughter would have been too great. And still I think a lot of women in the NFL community would have condemned me.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah* 
That said..

OTOH, I have RARELY seen mainstream mamas do that. Is that inherently part of ap/nfl? Absolutely not. But somehow, ap/nfl circles do seem to attract some women who really really need to compare themselves to others, and who are really really invested in setting up straw-women bad mommies to make themselves feel superior and righteous. I am not sure what is behind that, but I hear it and see it much more among women who describe themselves as ap/nfl.

I do think mainstream mamas do this, but I also think that NFL mamas might sometimes seem defensive b/c, well, many of us spend so much time defending our decision to the mainstream.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

I'm glad this topic got picked up from the other thread, I thought it was interesting.

I fully agree that there is a lot of "AP-er than thou" attitude in so-called AP communities -- be they online or in real life.

The problem I see is that an unreachable standard is being set here -- much like that of the woman who feels she "must" WOH or SAHM _and_ clean the house _and_ make fabulous meals _and_ provide amazingly enriching activities for her kids etc. etc. etc. in order to be the "right" kind of mom. NOBODY can meet this super-standard and the woman inevitably feels like a failure.

This pattern is also established with the mega AP lifestyle. I know this, because of the kind of posts I see here _all the time_. Mamas worry that if their baby cries for three minutes, EVER, that the child will suffer horrible psychological damage. They ask pleadingly if it's "okay" that their kid accidentally saw half an episode of Mr. Rogers once, or if the baby sits in a bouncy seat while the mom takes a five minute shower. They write of the angst they suffer for leaving their child in the care of their husbands for an hour, for the first time, when the child is over three years old.

Again and again I see mamas posting with guilt -- crushing guilt -- about not meeting some sort of AP super standard at ALL TIMES. And attempting to meet most of these standards entails this huge, astonishing self-sacrifice on the mother's part.

When did AP go from "hold your child, be there for him" to "the mother is no longer a person with needs and desires", anyway? When a mom feels like crap b/c she needs to take a shower, much less get out of the house for half an hour?

It comes from competitive AP. When people imply that letting your baby sleep in the carseat carrier for half an hour is some kind of Clockwork Orange torture treatment, something is not good.

Instead of helping women be the best mamas they can be, I sometimes feel like the AP movement can be a way to make women even more tortured about their choices -- because, sometimes, you really just can't be good enough.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I'm glad this topic got picked up from the other thread, I thought it was interesting.

I fully agree that there is a lot of "AP-er than thou" attitude in so-called AP communities -- be they online or in real life.

The problem I see is that an unreachable standard is being set here -- much like that of the woman who feels she "must" WOH or SAHM _and_ clean the house _and_ make fabulous meals _and_ provide amazingly enriching activities for her kids etc. etc. etc. in order to be the "right" kind of mom. NOBODY can meet this super-standard and the woman inevitably feels like a failure.

This pattern is also established with the mega AP lifestyle. I know this, because of the kind of posts I see here _all the time_. Mamas worry that if their baby cries for three minutes, EVER, that the child will suffer horrible psychological damage. They ask pleadingly if it's "okay" that their kid accidentally saw half an episode of Mr. Rogers once, or if the baby sits in a bouncy seat while the mom takes a five minute shower. They write of the angst they suffer for leaving their child in the care of their husbands for an hour, for the first time, when the child is over three years old.

Again and again I see mamas posting with guilt -- crushing guilt -- about not meeting some sort of AP super standard at ALL TIMES. And attempting to meet most of these standards entails this huge, astonishing self-sacrifice on the mother's part.

When did AP go from "hold your child, be there for him" to "the mother is no longer a person with needs and desires", anyway? When a mom feels like crap b/c she needs to take a shower, much less get out of the house for half an hour?

It comes from competitive AP. When people imply that letting your baby sleep in the carseat carrier for half an hour is some kind of Clockwork Orange torture treatment, something is not good.

Instead of helping women be the best mamas they can be, I sometimes feel like the AP movement can be a way to make women even more tortured about their choices -- because, sometimes, you really just can't be good enough.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

the title of your thread leaves something to be desired (i'm being very nice this morning), although this is a fascinating thread.

to me, this has a lot to do with personal experience. i suppose i'm fortunate to not having had the displeasure of engaging in a crunchier-than-thou pissing match with other mothers. i could see that if i did, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth, though.

doesn't this have a lot to do with the definition of ap/nfl? it really isn't about the specifics of the food, diapering, slinging, discipline, educational etc-etc-etc choices that we make, it's about being a conscious, connected responsive parent.

as for mainstream mama bashing here at mdc, you have to remember that for many of us, this is the only place that we can vent about stuff like that and get like-minded support and commiseration. so that definitely requires some consideration.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MomInFlux* 
I have a wonderful DH, who joyfully practices AP, and is a SAHD, and whom I would consider a feminist. He's also very crunchy







. At home, we're all about AP/NFL: homebirth, EFB, baby wearing, no vaxing, no circ, real food, sleep sharing, GD, homeschool, yadda-yadda-yadda. We don't do those things because we're striving to be "more granola" than our neighbors. We do these things because we think they're the right thing to do, and we LIKE doing them.









: Except I stay home because computer geeks make better $$ than teachers









I do what I do because it's the right thing to do. Do I wish all children were parented in a similar way? Sure. I also wish that all children had enough to eat and clean water.

-Angela


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Okay, well I also don't like the title of the thread.

I definitely agree with the content though. I see so much judgment in AP/NFL circles. I don't know if it is specific to those circles... do some reading on a mainstream board, or hang at a mainstream playgroup, and you will see much criticism about how "sick" EBF is, how children must get on a good sleep schedule established thru CIO, how "irresponsible" UC and even homebirth is, kids need to learn to be independent, what age did your dc give up his paci/bottle/favoured lovie, etc etc on and on.

For me I came to AP as part of my progressive/feminist analysis. I want to be kind to my child, I want to respect and meet her needs, I want to value interdependence over pushing independence, I want to promote connection, I want to honour her in the way I parent her, I want to feel and live my own womanly power as bringer of life, nurturer, without turning that over to the patriarchal establishment any more than I have to.

It seems stupid to stop all of this just with my child and my life, and turn to hating and shaming and judging when we are talking about other mamas. Expecting martyrdom and pressuring women to repress our own needs is wrong. Black and white thinking, where one thing is right and everything else pales in comparison, with no grey area or room for individual interpretation, is wrong IMO.

We don't do it with our children, yet we do it with each other. Why? Misogyny, I believe. And defensiveness. And the fact that this way of interaction is so ingrained in us in the culture.

I think it would do the AP/NFL movement a world of good to look at this issue with open eyes.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Ok I have edited out the offensive title and any reference to it or the word nazi as well as a post that was not within the UA. If I have edited your post, know that I did so only because of quoting and such. I do feel this is a good conversation but we must keep it within the guidelines of the UA. Please make yourself more familiar with the UA if you need to before posting on this thread again. If you have any questions about my editing please feel free to contact me, but there was so much to edit that I felt it necessary to just do it myself in the interest of time and to also allow the converstaion to continue in a timely manner.

Please keep this conversation on track and within the UA or I will be forced to remove it for good.

Thanks
MamaBug


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yay!


----------



## stirringleaf (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug* 
Ok I have edited out the offensive title and any reference to it or the word nazi as well as a post that was not within the UA. If I have edited your post, know that I did so only because of quoting and such. I do feel this is a good conversation but we must keep it within the guidelines of the UA. Please make yourself more familiar with the UA if you need to before posting on this thread again. If you have any questions about my editing please feel free to contact me, but there was so much to edit that I felt it necessary to just do it myself in the interest of time and to also allow the converstaion to continue in a timely manner.

Please keep this conversation on track and within the UA or I will be forced to remove it for good.

Thanks
MamaBug

Thank you!!!!!!


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Your very welcome. I am sorry I did not post to tell where it went but I am pregnant and well..... you all know how that goes

Carry on!


----------



## srain (Nov 26, 2001)

I see a lot of families around me making what look like non-feminist choices from the outside: fathers functioning as babysitters rather than parents, mothers doing ALL the non-paid work (sometimes in addition to paid work), women giving up their own careers to care for their children, while men work more hours than ever, etc. BUT I also know that some of the choices my husband and I have made appear anti-feminist, when they actually were matters of convenience and choice. We both knew before we had kids that we didn't want to put them in day care, which meant one of us had to stay home with them. For the first three years I worked full-time and my husband worked part-time; then I stopped working entirely and he increased his hours slightly. I gave up a professional, respected career because I wanted to, a decision I'm sure many of my (childless) feminist friends rolled their eyes at. It was a CHOICE (something feminism is all about, right?) that I was happy to be able to make.

Time-consuming activities we perform for the sake of the environment and health are shared fairly equally. We also made the decision early on to truly co-parent; while I see many AP moms choosing to care for babies with very little help from their husbands, we didn't go that route.

BUT I don't feel it's my place to judge the women I see who from my perspective allow their husbands to live like the stereotypical 50's breadwinner, while they grind their own wheat and stay up nursing all night. Just like my choices may look nonfeminist from the outide, it's possible there are a lot of things I don't see in their relationship, too.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I think too often people take "discussions" of a certain topic as "holier than thou". In a discussion people discuss thier reasons for doing things and others might contrast or compare thier experiences. Somehow someone in the party becomes deemed the "holier than thou" person. That person can be at either end of the spectrum of discussion or might actually be somewhere in the middle but still apart from the majority. I do not like the "I saw a mother do X in store Y. Isn't that SO bad?!?!?" threads. But often, real honest discussions about parenting becomes the same sort of thread. I have been on both ends of this phenomenon here on MDC. I find some things that people do to simply be too much work for myself. But they are happy and that is cool. I am sure I have also been in the "martyr" camp to others. Again, I am happy with my choices and that should be fine too.

Like take homeschool. We are planning to unschool. People IRL ask me what we are doing. Too often I try to mask my reasons. I do not want to outright say why we are doing it for fear that the person on the asking end takes it as a personal insult. Instead I probably sound like a non-commital, uniformed, parent. I will say "Oh, I just don't want to miss her all day" or something wishy-washy like that. But I have zero issue or offense when someone else weighs up their options and chooses soemthing else. In fact, I hope they tell me, even if they fear offense, because I gain from hearing other persepctives. I know most parents are doing what they think is best for thier families even if it is vastly different than my choices. I still want to hear thier reasons, if they feel like sharing. I think that is invaluable for me. I like to discuss, ask questions, compare experiences. Why not?


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

I think no matter what circles you run in, you always will run into people who have a highly competetive edge, who need to be the fastest, the strongest, the best at EVERYTHING they do. I've seen it in my mainstream groups of friends and in my crunchy groups of friends (and oh man, you should see what happens when I have both groups of friends over at the same time!).

People I know IRL tend to usually not give me too much crap for any decision I choose to make regarding anything, whether they're crunchy or mainstream. I do massive amounts of research (a discussion about a serious subject will end in me pulling huge binders out of my bookshelf for the opposition to read), I weigh it carefully, and I make the decision. Once my mind is made up, it usually doesn't change. You are more than welcome to state your opinion, which I welcome and enjoy, but I had better be able to present mine. I don't deal with bickering, one-upmanship, or accusations of crappy parenting.

As far as one group being worse than the other, I don't see it that way. I just see different things to bash on. In the AP/NFL/Granola world, it's breastfeeding, vaccines, epidurals, homebirth/UC's and circs. If you vary from the "norm" within the crunchy circle, you tend to be ostracized a bit, accused of not educating yourself, etc by at least one person. In the mainstream world, the things to bash on tend to be formula choice, consumeristic ideals (who has the best stroller vs. the crappiest), prep pre-schools, college plans for 2 year olds, etc. Once again, if you vary from the norm within these circles, you're subject to bashing within the community.

It happens equally in both circles. Both circles bash the other, then get bored and bash within the ranks. No one does it more, the arguments just vary.

All in all, though, I think if women would stop hating on each other for idiotic, petty reasons and start showing more loving guidance and support, the world would change drastically.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
I think too often people take "discussions" of a certain topic as "holier than thou". In a discussion people discuss thier reasons for doing things and others might contrast or compare thier experiences. Somehow someone in the party becomes deemed the "holier than thou" person.

Well, I think it's hard not to take discussions as "holier than thou" when mothers who ask questions about crib sleeping are accused by other posters of putting their baby in a cage. Or when a mom goes on at length about how she could never ever ever let another human take care of her child for even an hour without being wracked with guilt.

Because, clearly, the people that post these sort of opinions feel that they *are* more AP than others. And they make other people, the ones that do use a sitter or don't cosleep, feel like crap.

The above examples are somewhat extreme (although very real ones from this site), but this happens every day here, in subtler forms.


----------



## wendy1221 (Feb 9, 2004)

Dh and I are crunchy and "AP"/NFL b/c it's sort of the way we were brought up. And it makes sense to us, intellectually AND emotionally. Neither of us could give a rat's ass how other people do things or what they think of us. We do like finding other people who do things the way we do b/c we tend to have more in common w/ them for 1, and for another, we actually feel comfortable letting our kids go to their houses w/out having to stay w/ them the whole time. I don't think we are very competitive. Sometimes I talk about what others are doing and say we need to do that. But it's not b/c I'm trying to keep up, it's b/c I think it's a great idea that I hadn't thought of myself.


----------



## Greensleeves (Aug 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 

Instead of helping women be the best mamas they can be, I sometimes feel like the AP movement can be a way to make women even more tortured about their choices -- because, sometimes, you really just can't be good enough.









Amen, and amen.


----------



## Greensleeves (Aug 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 

as for mainstream mama bashing here at mdc, you have to remember that for many of us, this is the only place that we can vent about stuff like that and get like-minded support and commiseration. so that definitely requires some consideration.

Hmm, this too, though.


----------



## Greensleeves (Aug 4, 2004)

I have a question, though. Does it matter what a person's motivation is for doing all the AP/NFL stuff, or is it enough that they're even doing it?

I guess for some people, a huge part of the appeal of AP/NFL is that it's kind of 'edgy'. If it became mainstream, would it still appeal to them as much?

It seems like in many movements, there is a pride of ownership in those who were there 'first'. And they feel like everyone who comes after them is somehow not as authentic. KWIM?

Arrgh, I will try to come back tomorrow to form more coherent sentences after some sleep.


----------



## kijip (Jun 29, 2005)

I think I have noticed IRL a lot of people assuming that it is all or nothing, like somehow there is a set of decisions that all go hand in hand and any variation from that is either a failure or some terrible contradiction. For example, I find it assumed that because I still wear my son (age 3) on a somewhat regular basis, I must be breastfeeding also or because we chose not to circ, we chose to delay vaxs. The truth is that I am a pro-choice Catholic, anti-circ and very ok with-vax, buy nearly all organic/whole groceries but am happy to grab a burger on the go every so often, washed my own cloth diapers but carried them home in plastic grocery sacks, I am interested in a VBAC but don't regret my c/s for a minute, did not do CIO but was happy to have my son in a separate crib based on his needs. Heck, I get Mothering AND Brain, Child AND the WSJ.







I don't see a need to put people into neat boxes, life is a little more mixed up than that. Before I had my son, I bought several soft carriers/slings and a co-sleeper and ended up with a stroller loving, crib loving kid. So I had to get a crib and a stroller, lol. I firmly believe that whatever works best for my family is the best route for us to take. I am very hardcore I suppose in many of my beliefs (against disposible diapers and for whole foods for example) but I don't try and convince others to do it the way it worked for me and my family because who the heck am I to say what the heck might work for their family? I used to work for a parenting non-profit and beleive me I have seen the judgements flying in all directions on parenting issues. However, in my area, the climate is a bit more skewed to the crunch factor.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kidspiration* 
as for mainstream mama bashing here at mdc, you have to remember that for many of us, this is the only place that we can vent about stuff like that and get like-minded support and commiseration. so that definitely requires some consideration.

I know a lot of people feel that way. And I have certainly "vented" myself, though I do not anymore. Why? Because I have learned it simply does not accomplish anything positive. It may make me feel momentarily vindicated, but in the long run, all I have done by my "venting" is spew out negativity.

And when the other people do come into commeriserate.. well, it sometimes looks like a mob-mentality cyber-space stone-throwing gang. A gang all mobilized to turn on some random mama at wallmart, or some mama from a playgroup, with metaphorical pitchforks and torches. And it is ugly as hell.

And maybe other mamas need that kind of commiseration to feel okay about themselves. But I don't find it healthy or helpful at all.

I know people will defend the "venting" to the death.

But I recently edited a "venting" post of my own for exactly those reasons.
Un-mindful, angry, judmental words accomplish nothing positive. And sometimes I really shudder at what gets said around here in the name of ap/nfl.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Well, I think it's hard not to take discussions as "holier than thou" when mothers who ask questions about crib sleeping are accused by other posters of putting their baby in a cage. Or when a mom goes on at length about how she could never ever ever let another human take care of her child for even an hour without being wracked with guilt.

Because, clearly, the people that post these sort of opinions feel that they *are* more AP than others. And they make other people, the ones that do use a sitter or don't cosleep, feel like crap.

The above examples are somewhat extreme (although very real ones from this site), but this happens every day here, in subtler forms.

This must be where we differ. (red part highlighted by me) I do not find it clear that because they do something different or have a different idea that they "think they are more" anything than me. I used a crib and we use sitters all of the time. I have been in those discussions. I know where I stand in the line-up, have reasons that are good for me, and am completely happy with my choices. They are right for me. I have explained why they are right for *me*. But if someone else feels like a crib is a cage, I respect that opinion and think it only makes sense that they choose not to use one. Is it automatically "holier than thou" to take one thing to an extreme if it is very important to that parent? I agree completely that attacking someone that does something different or name calling in the spirit you are describing would be "holier than thou". But I do not think that feeling compelled to do something and not being afraid to say why should have any inpact on me, even if it is extreme.

Should people that feel strongly that they need to "do it all" for whatever reason automatically be considered "holier than thou"? Should they just be quiet about thier choices? Where is the cut-off? While I do not "do it all", I do learn from people that do. I do not even want to do it all, but talking to people who do gives me perspective. I do not find it theatening. And frankly, I do not care if they look down on me for my choices, although it is rare that I feel that is truly the case.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Something I find a little amusing is that what we are discussing here varies so much by persepctive. On MDC, I am in the middle of the road somewhere. I will not list my "qualifications" but I do many things AP/NFL, but also do not do others. IRL, though, I am considered the "do it all" type. Breastfeeding past one year gave me that title. Maybe people think I am "holier than thou"? I am guessing a lot more would think so on a Babywise club, eh? We cannot hit a moving target. I do not think we can even sum up the profile of a "holier than thou" person as it differs from everyone's persepctive.

I really really hate when people bring up the "no one can make you feel bad unless you want to feel bad" argument, but this is one case where I feel it applies. When I start to feel like another person is "holier than thou" it is usually because *I* feel like I could do better. I feel threatened. Usually I recognize this, gather my thoughts, re-evaluate my own decisions, and either decide to change or decide I was wrong and am still happy with my original stance. Take cooking. I liek to cook. I am pretty good at it. When i talk to someone what makes everything from catsup to falafel from scratch, those familiar feelings creep up......"she thinks she is so great.....". Well, the fact is, *I* think she is so great. I want to do that. I am limited by time, resources, and experience. I do the best I can. After I think about it, I realize I have come a long way and I am still on a journey. It has nothing to do with the great cook. Then I can get past the garbage feelings and start to appreciate what she does and allow myself to learn from her. OTOH, the sitter argument does not even hit my radar. I KNOW I am confident in my decision to use them and while I appreciate persepctive, the "holier than thou" feeling does not even stir up in me because I know I do not need to reevaluate.


----------



## BunchaCrunch (Feb 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
Something I find a little amusing is that what we are discussing here varies so much by persepctive. On MDC, I am in the middle of the road somewhere. I will not list my "qualifications" but I do many things AP/NFL, but also do not do others. IRL, though, I am considered the "do it all" type. Breastfeeding past one year gave me that title. Maybe people think I am "holier than thou"? I am guessing a lot more would think so on a Babywise club, eh? We cannot hit a moving target. I do not think we can even sum up the profile of a "holier than thou" person as it differs from everyone's persepctive.

I really really hate when people bring up the "no one can make you feel bad unless you want to feel bad" argument, but this is one case where I feel it applies. When I start to feel like another person is "holier than thou" it is usually because *I* feel like I could do better. I feel threatened. Usually I recognize this, gather my thoughts, re-evaluate my own decisions, and either decide to change or decide I was wrong and am still happy with my original stance. Take cooking. I liek to cook. I am pretty good at it. When i talk to someone what makes everything from catsup to falafel from scratch, those familiar feelings creep up......"she thinks she is so great.....". Well, the fact is, *I* think she is so great. I want to do that. I am limited by time, resources, and experience. I do the best I can. After I think about it, I realize I have come a long way and I am still on a journey. It has nothing to do with the great cook. Then I can get past the garbage feelings and start to appreciate what she does and allow myself to learn from her. OTOH, the sitter argument does not even hit my radar. I KNOW I am confident in my decision to use them and while I appreciate persepctive, the "holier than thou" feeling does not even stir up in me because I know I do not need to reevaluate.

Well said!


----------



## DoctorGirlfriend (Dec 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah* 
I know a lot of people feel that way. And I have certainly "vented" myself, though I do not anymore. Why? Because I have learned it simply does not accomplish anything positive. It may make me feel momentarily vindicated, but in the long run, all I have done by my "venting" is spew out negativity.

And when the other people do come into commeriserate.. well, it sometimes looks like a mob-mentality cyber-space stone-throwing gang. A gang all mobilized to turn on some random mama at wallmart, or some mama from a playgroup, with metaphorical pitchforks and torches. And it is ugly as hell.

And maybe other mamas need that kind of commiseration to feel okay about themselves. But I don't find it healthy or helpful at all.

I know people will defend the "venting" to the death.

But I recently edited a "venting" post of my own for exactly those reasons.
Un-mindful, angry, judmental words accomplish nothing positive. And sometimes I really shudder at what gets said around here in the name of ap/nfl.

ITA. I've not been here long, but I have seen SO many threads crowing about some "mainstream" parenting behavior <insert "oh no, how awful, that poor baby, crying/throwing-up smiley"> right alongside a thread talking about how attacked a poster feels for their AP beliefs.

I can only speak for me, of course, but it's incredibly off-putting, and makes me think differently of the forum as a whole.

I'm rather sure this post will be deleted, but oh well.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

What bothers me the most is that so many AP/ NFL'ers will say "I'm doing it because its right for my family", but "mainstream" parents say it and they get treated like child abusers. While I may not agree with the "mainstream", I'm not going to trash them like I see happening so often here and other places. They have just as much of a right to raise their families how they see fit as we do. I think both sides could benefit from realizing that.

For us, many of our NFL tendencies have come out of sheer financial necessity. We could *not* afford disposable diapers, especially not for two kids. Add to that the gasoline and wear and tear on the car driving to and from the store to get them- it just wasn't possible. It just so happens that cloth dipes are way better for the kids, the earth, etc...And thats great!
I would have breastfed my kids regardless of our money situation, but even if I had wanted to ff once again we would never have afforded it. It was bad enough when I lost my supply during pregnancy and we had to sign up for WIC, lest my baby starve. I felt like the lowest, most horrible piece of white trash on the planet the day I went into the office to sign up. I had too much pride. "Me? On public assistance? This is not my life." So needless to say, you wouldn't find me getting free formula unless there was a REAL need....
Even when it comes to things like say, household cleaning stuff. A big box of baking soda and white vinegar and a bag of lemons goes WAY farther than a can of scrubbing bubbles, and won't make you choke when you're cleaning with it. We're NFL because we're broke and cheap









With regards to AP, my biggest inspiration for raising my kids that way is to directly counter how I was raised. My mother and I don't speak, but when we did she would say "Oh so the way I raised you wasn't good enough?" No, it wasn't. Deal with it.


----------



## DoctorGirlfriend (Dec 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Poot* 
What bothers me the most is that so many AP/ NFL'ers will say "I'm doing it because its right for my family", but "mainstream" parents say it and they get treated like child abusers. While I may not agree with the "mainstream", I'm not going to trash them like I see happening so often here and other places. They have just as much of a right to raise their families how they see fit as we do. I think both sides could benefit from realizing that.

Thank you for expressing this much more eloquently than I could.


----------



## BunchaCrunch (Feb 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Poot* 
For us, many of our NFL tendencies have come out of sheer financial necessity.

We were actually introduced to many NFL type ideas due to financial reasons. Even before becoming pregnant, I got my "foot in the door" so to say into natural living by using vinegar and baking soda for cleaning products and many other choices came from this starting point, like cloth diapers, for example. For me, it was really interesting to learn about things that have not only wound up being a necessity, but have come to be very appealing, as well as things I may have never been exposed to if I had not been brought to the "crunchy side".

Much of attachment parenting has always seem wonderful to me, as has breastfeeding, but much of our more NFL type lifestyle choices were learned along the way to parenthood.


----------



## pixiewytch (Feb 7, 2007)

I do tend to question anyone who follows a parenting system "by the book." That gives me the impression that they may not be following their own parenting instincts and confidence but that instead they have chosen to follow a certain ideology because they feel they need instruction from someone else or maybe they feel the need to fit in. When it comes right down to it, it's none of my business. Parenting is a very personal thing but since the question has been asked, that is how I think about it.

I think I'm fairly middle of the road but like others have said, I guess it all depends on what group you ask. I use what works for our family first and foremost. I always lean toward choices that are ecofriendly and more natural because those are very important aspects of my lifestyle. I'm also all about simplifying life and a bit of frugality. I'm no saint and I try not to sound preachy or act like I have an edge on something somebody else doesn't. Those choices simply reflect my personal values. So besides what works for us as parents I choose many "crunchy" options because they resonate with our family's moral value system. Having said that, I am again, middle of the road, and I do plenty things that have and will, I'm sure incite other AP'ers.

I do think AP/NFL has caught on with a bit of trendiness but I guess everything does. When you see the cost of cloth diapers, slings, and organic crib bedding, you can see why the well to do have caught on to this and maybe made it seem a little less authentic.


----------



## ~Nikki~ (Aug 4, 2004)

Quote:

What bothers me the most is that so many AP/ NFL'ers will say "I'm doing it because its right for my family", but "mainstream" parents say it and they get treated like child abusers. While I may not agree with the "mainstream", I'm not going to trash them like I see happening so often here and other places. They have just as much of a right to raise their families how they see fit as we do. I think both sides could benefit from realizing that.
I agree, but it does go both ways. Mainstream mothers may be ostracized _here_ for spanking their children, but on many mainstream boards I've been a part of, the AP mothers are accused of sexually abusing their children by breastfeeding them, or emotionally abusing them by leaving them intact (think of how they'll be made fun of as teens!)

As for the comment about "difficulty for difficulty's sake", there may be a reason for it. For example, I use cloth diapers - definitely more work than disposables - but I don't use them "just to be different" or to be a martyr or to make life harder. I use them because 1) it's cheaper; and 2) I hate creating garbage. I didn't get an epidural when I gave birth. Yep, this made it more painful. But again, I wasn't trying to prove myself to anybody. I knew that overmedication had contributed to my c-section during my previous birth, and didn't want to repeat that incident because c-sections are no fun.

I'm in the planning stages of moving out to a farm, where I will be growing my own food, lugging water up to the house until we get a well, and possibly even milking goats and having chickens for eggs. This is obviously more difficult than just going to the corner grocer. But for me, doing things for myself is much more fulfilling and rewarding than walking into a store and filling up a shopping cart.

Let people be. And let people live their own lives without mocking them or judging them. Again, this goes both ways. A woman who chooses to sew her own clothing isn't "better" than a women who buys her clothes at the local department store. And neither woman should judge the other.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

I wanted to add that I think some of it might have to do with how new someone is to AP. When I first came to MDC, I was trying to get pregnant and just learning about AP, Bfing, etc. I cringe when I think of some of the stuff I posted while I was pregnant and when dd was a newborn (okay, she's only 8.5 months...but still!)--I was especially critical of my sister who is completely mainstream, but, y'know, a good parent with good kids. I think when you first take on an (often life-changing) philosophy, you have that convert's zeal--I feel like I was the same way when I first became vegan. Over time, you mellow in your beliefs a bit, as the "fit" becomes more comfortable.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Poot* 
What bothers me the most is that so many AP/ NFL'ers will say "I'm doing it because its right for my family", but "mainstream" parents say it and they get treated like child abusers.

yes! Argh that drives me insane!

When I read "difficulty for difficulty's sake" I wasn't thinking of cloth diapers or natural childbirth so much as less evidence-based things, so to speak, like babywearing when your back is killing you, or going way beyond your household budget to make sure all the baby's clothes are organic cotton, or the dilemma threads where it's like "my baby fusses in his sleep for 1 minute sometimes...if I leave him alone, he goes back to sleep and is happy, if I pick him up, we're up all night, wwyd is this cio?" And some people say yes it's cio, stay up all night or you're damaging him. *brickwall*

Babywearing and organic cotton are nice, but they're not as central to health and wellbeing as say breastfeeding. And the idea of keeping mom AND baby up all night so the baby doesn't make noise for 60 seconds is ridiculous, IMHO.

But some people look down their noses at anyone who doesn't go that far, so the pressure's on. Especially online where I suspect many pretend to be more orthodox AP than they really are.







: Yeah you know who you are, sitting at the computer with a cupcake...

Some things that I feel I shouldn't share here about my parenting...it's truly absurd. Like we've been using the stroller a lot lately. We walk everywhere. I love the ergo but I messed my back up during pregnancy and birth and don't have the cash just now to see a chiro (soon I hope!) and it was getting to the point where going anywhere HURT like nobody's business. I realized I was going to develop PPD and start gaining back pregnancy weight if I didn't let myself get out WITHOUT having a 20 lb weight strapped to my front. She likes her stroller, oh sorry, her detachment parenting tool/baby containment device. She likes being able to look at the scenery oh sorry "people's knees and crotches." And I am feeling so much better! And I think we'll still be friends when she's 30.







:

Why should this be something to apologize for in AP circles? Honestly?


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
yes! Argh that drives me insane!

When I read "difficulty for difficulty's sake" I wasn't thinking of cloth diapers or natural childbirth so much as less evidence-based things, so to speak, like babywearing when your back is killing you, or going way beyond your household budget to make sure all the baby's clothes are organic cotton, or the dilemma threads where it's like "my baby fusses in his sleep for 1 minute sometimes...if I leave him alone, he goes back to sleep and is happy, if I pick him up, we're up all night, wwyd is this cio?" And some people say yes it's cio, stay up all night or you're damaging him. *brickwall*

Babywearing and organic cotton are nice, but they're not as central to health and wellbeing as say breastfeeding. And the idea of keeping mom AND baby up all night so the baby doesn't make noise for 60 seconds is ridiculous, IMHO.

But some people look down their noses at anyone who doesn't go that far, so the pressure's on. Especially online where I suspect many pretend to be more orthodox AP than they really are.







: Yeah you know who you are, sitting at the computer with a cupcake...

Some things that I feel I shouldn't share here about my parenting...it's truly absurd. Like we've been using the stroller a lot lately. We walk everywhere. I love the ergo but I messed my back up during pregnancy and birth and don't have the cash just now to see a chiro (soon I hope!) and it was getting to the point where going anywhere HURT like nobody's business. I realized I was going to develop PPD and start gaining back pregnancy weight if I didn't let myself get out WITHOUT having a 20 lb weight strapped to my front. She likes her stroller, oh sorry, her detachment parenting tool/baby containment device. She likes being able to look at the scenery oh sorry "people's knees and crotches." And I am feeling so much better! And I think we'll still be friends when she's 30.







:

Why should this be something to apologize for in AP circles? Honestly?

You shouldn't apologize. You are doing what works for you. When someone posts and asks if something is CIO, they should to expect to get a range of answers. That is, afterall, the point of a *discussion* board, right? Some people might not be comfortable with only 1 minute of crying. Others think those people are "ridiculous" as you say. Who is to decide? You might think it is really "hard" to stay up all night with a non-crying baby. Someone else may think it is equally "hard" to hear a baby cry for one minute. I really do not know anyone that will do something hard just to do something hard. There are reasons behind people's choices. Just because one does not agree or thinks it is too "hard" should others not be allowed to believe it is the right choice for them? I ask questions on here all of the time that get a range of answers. Some I agree with, others I don't. I thank everyone, take what seems useful to me, and leave the rest. No one is "gospel" in my book and therefore does not have the ability to make me feel bad about a well thought out choice.


----------



## ~Nikki~ (Aug 4, 2004)

Quote:

Yeah you know who you are, sitting at the computer with a cupcake...
*Guiltily eye's her Dr. Pepper*









I know what you're saying. I see the extremists, too (on both sides of the spectrum.) And sometimes I don't know if they really ARE that disciplined and/or stubborn, or if they're just playing it up on the message board so that they don't look "bad" to their peers.

Personally, when I ask for advice I tend to ignore what I don't agree with. Especially if it's extreme. Many parents will say that leaving your child to CIO is going to scar them for life. But for a mother at the end of her rope, and at the end of her patience, leaving the child alone for a few minutes is far less scarring than snapping and screaming at the child or worse.

Parenting really is about following your own instincts. If it feels wrong, it probably is. And if you need to use a stroller because you have a bad back or a heavy child, by all means, use one (I know I do). I don't have much guilt about what my children's clothing is made out of. Heck, I don't even know what some of it is made of. There are a handful of things I feel strongly about - keeping babies intact, and at least _trying_ breastfeeding being at the top. But even that, I don't voice any judgemental comments towards friends or family who have different views than me. I think we get louder objections here, because people aren't afraid of offending 'strangers on the interweb.' It's so easy to forget that the people posting are REAL people, who are only trying to do what's best for their children.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

I think, though, that by asking "is this CIO?" and responding to that question, we're already getting things backwards. It's turning it into an ideological discussion, not advice on practicalities. And while such discussions are fine, they aren't really relevant to the needs of children--they're more about the needs of adults to fit in with other adults. Then again I don't go around calling myself "AP" because I think having a parenting "style" with a name is very yuppy and somewhat ridiculous to start with.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Maybe I don't understand Attachment Parenting as well as I thought I did, but I can say something about how I got here and how I relate to the whole extremism question.

My mom hit me a lot growing up and lost her temper frequently. She wasn't that great at showing affection, and she offered (and continues to offer!) a lot of criticism. I lose my temper a lot and I was kind of scared to even have a kid. What if I turned out like my mom? The way that I learned about AP made it seem like I could form a stronger bond with my child (then in the womb!) and maybe have a less-reactive and less damaging parenting style.

I don't think I'm alone in this, either. I see that many people here came to AP because they wanted some kind of guideline to non-abusive parenting.

Subsequently, I learned from a friend who is a child psychologist that she considers AP "the Martha Stewart approach to parenting." She doesn't think that it enhances attachment at all to co-sleep or babywear or whatever.

She could be right. I don't know. I think those things made our lives easier. My son seems to be doing okay so far.

It's kind of scary, not knowing what is the magical behavior that makes a child grow up secure, healthy and loving, and that keeps parents compassionate, optimistic, and supportive of their children. I can see why people get attached to one practice or another. "If only they would just breastfeed, their children would be physically healthy and emotionally secure!" we say, for example. But you know, my mom nursed me, and that didn't stop her from hitting me. You just can't predict.

In some ways it's actually a beautiful thing that we all care about each other's kids so much that we are judgmental about parenting practices. Not that we should be giving people a hard time for using a stroller or something! I just mean that our desire to do this well, and our fervor to proselytize, come from a good place.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Especially online where I suspect many pretend to be more orthodox AP than they really are.







: Yeah you know who you are, sitting at the computer with a cupcake...









:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Some things that I feel I shouldn't share here about my parenting...it's truly absurd.

Yeah me too. Maybe I should come clean now about a couple things too. I use sposies and my dd now sleeps in her crib.







I am not even going to explain why or apologize because I shouldn't have to.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Like we've been using the stroller a lot lately. We walk everywhere. I love the ergo but I messed my back up during pregnancy and birth and don't have the cash just now to see a chiro (soon I hope!) and it was getting to the point where going anywhere HURT like nobody's business. I realized I was going to develop PPD and start gaining back pregnancy weight if I didn't let myself get out WITHOUT having a 20 lb weight strapped to my front. She likes her stroller, oh sorry, her detachment parenting tool/baby containment device. She likes being able to look at the scenery oh sorry "people's knees and crotches." And I am feeling so much better! And I think we'll still be friends when she's 30.







:?

I am glad you are feeling better. I am all about babywearing. I always advocate for it because I think it is great for baby's development and makes life easier for mama, at least it has for me. However, BOTH mama and baby should find it enjoyable, and nobody should ever suffer through it. I hope I have never come off as holier than thou or judgemental about it to anyone.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
But some people look down their noses at anyone who doesn't go that far, so the pressure's on. Especially online where I suspect many pretend to be more orthodox AP than they really are.







: Yeah you know who you are, sitting at the computer with a cupcake...


I think that something else that happens is that people read things that aren't there. Like people have accused me of being totally gung-ho (only organic clothes, no sugar etc) when I don't usually comment on those topics 'cause we sure don't live that way







Sometimes just because a person is outspoken about SOME aspects, people take that to mean that they're just as outspoken on everything- when there's nothing to say that.

-Angela


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Funny enough, my parents could have been members in good standing of MDC. Extended breastfeeding, cosleeping, babywearing before there were cool devices for it, cloth diapering for a while, etc. They didn't do GD, though I think they thought themselves very enlightened for only humiliating us and not beating us down physically. But they were terrible, terrible parents. The main warmth in my life came from my karo syrup formula-feeding, "mainstream" as heck grandmother.

So whenever I see a thread about those poor babies with mainstream moms, it angers me, but it angers me even more when I see someone going on about how dare anyone think so and so could be abusive, I mean, they're AP, after all! Like a sling could stop someone from treating their kid like crap.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
So whenever I see a thread about those poor babies with mainstream moms, it angers me, but it angers me even more when I see someone going on about how dare anyone think so and so could be abusive, I mean, they're AP, after all! Like a sling could stop someone from treating their kid like crap.

This is why gentle discipline is my single biggest childrearing soapbox issue. Being gentle with an infant is pretty easy, compared to when they become toddlers and older. I believe most adults looking back on their childhood would be more likely to be appreciative of beign raised gently and responsively than whether they had cloth diapers versus disposables, or ate organic foods versus McDonalds twice a week. Maybe it's more likely that if you're AP/NFL and "in tune" you'll be more likely to be GD, but it's clearly not a sure thing.

I think the most important thing I've taken away from the boards recently has been living responsively, thoughtfully and intentionally...which I think can lead to a more AP/NFL lifestyle. BUT, that doesn't mean I don't like me a Wendy's frosty and vegging in front of the tube sometimes, too.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
I believe most adults looking back on their childhood would be more likely to be appreciative of beign raised gently and responsively than whether they had cloth diapers versus disposables, or ate organic foods versus McDonalds twice a week.

Well, fwiw, I was spanked (VERY occasionally) as a child, and looking back, I don't care about that at all. However, I'm _deeply_ appreciative of my mom's efforts to feed us a healthy diet.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Well, fwiw, I was spanked (VERY occasionally) as a child, and looking back, I don't care about that at all. However, I'm _deeply_ appreciative of my mom's efforts to feed us a healthy diet.

True - I guess i'm talking about the people in 'the middle", which I think many, many of us are on MDC....that eatign McDonald's a couple times a week in teh grand scheme of things isn't that big a deal...and I'm talking about gentle parenting as more than just an occasional spanking. I guess I'm just not expressing myself well on this particular topic. Sorry.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

There's this female version of macho, too, whose birth was more unattended, who is more willing to be vicious to formula feeders, who is willing to psychically bleed to death for the sake of "constant contact," etc. I make an effort to reject it. Sometimes that puts me in the "bad" column for AP, sometimes not. I'm trying not to care.
I could have written this. I totally agree. I have seen some lives, marriages, and women badly damaged by going to martyrdom extremes. Though it's anathema to say so on MDC, I think I martyred myself too much in the name of BFing. I was in a very bad (and fortunately rare) spot with it and basically "lost" DD's babyhood to constant pain, worry, and obsession. Looking back, I was indeed psychically bleeding to death, to my and my child's detriment. I have seen other women do this with cosleeping and nightparenting, and with always being the only true "parent" all the time, even when they're literally losing it, because they're afraid to leave their child with the father.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
You shouldn't apologize. You are doing what works for you.

I agree with this, but I think the problem is that we all draw the line at different places. Do I personally think it's okay for someone to use a stroller if they have a bad back (or, heck, even if they don't)--of course. Do I think it's okay for someone to formula feed by choice--well, I think it's unfortunate that our culture doesn't do more to encourage bfing, but I don't think it's useful to shame individuals. Do I think it's okay for someone to "blanket train" their 4-month-old by using a switch--no, I don't. I just don't. And in that last case, yes, I WILL condemn the behavior, even if the mom says it's "working for her family."

The issue of "what works for you" becomes complicated when people genuinely believe others are harming their children. I truly believe it is harmful to use physical force to discipline a child--but there are plenty of "experts" and books that disagree with me. So what about that mom who truly believes that you are endangering your child (and hers) by not vaccinating or that nursing a 4 year old is sexual abuse? How much can either side really condone "what works for you" when what works for you is just morally wrong to me?

ETA: If anyone is really sitting out there with cupcakes...will you send one my way? I've already polished off the box of chocolate dh got me for Valentine's day.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

It makes sense to me. You're talking more about the attitude behind GD than the actual details of practicing it, right? The attitude that kids are people. I'm sure Storm Bride's parents had that attitude also, even though they didn't practice GD, and that's why she feels positively about them.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
True - I guess i'm talking about the people in 'the middle", which I think many, many of us are on MDC....that eatign McDonald's a couple times a week in teh grand scheme of things isn't that big a deal...and I'm talking about gentle parenting as more than just an occasional spanking. I guess I'm just not expressing myself well on this particular topic. Sorry.

No worries. I think I'm in a contrary mood today...


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

NYCVeg, that's why I prefer to go with the idea of something being evidence based. That and weighing harms. There's massive evidence against formula feeding by choice. There's paltry little evidence against stroller using by choice. There are studies showing TV can be bad for kids in excess, but little evidence on what small amounts can do. The flipside of that is that if 20 minutes of quality TV is what allows mom to get the time to write in her journal that keeps her from bursting at the seams from PPD, TV is the lesser of evils by far--objectively.

I know it's impossible to be completely objective about such personal matters as what is involved in childrearing, but I think keeping the actual evidence in sight helps a lot with perspective.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
It makes sense to me. You're talking more about the attitude behind GD than the actual details of practicing it, right? The attitude that kids are people.

Right - I guess maybe I'm just for *thinking* about how you raise your child, looking into the various options available, instead of just doing something because everyone else is, or it's the way it's "supposed" to be, or it's the easiest thing to do. That kids are human beings and deserve to be treated respectfully in all aspects of their lives. I'm not a big fan of mommy martyrdom, but it really bothers me when children are seen as an irritation or inconvenience (though my 3-yo can be pretty irritating sometimes!














) AND, I think that it is possible to be responsive and fully entrenched in mainstream society; it's probably just more difficult.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
No worries. I think I'm in a contrary mood today...

Hey, we all get that way. No prob.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
NYCVeg, that's why I prefer to go with the idea of something being evidence based. That and weighing harms. There's massive evidence against formula feeding by choice. There's paltry little evidence against stroller using by choice. There are studies showing TV can be bad for kids in excess, but little evidence on what small amounts can do. The flipside of that is that if 20 minutes of quality TV is what allows mom to get the time to write in her journal that keeps her from bursting at the seams from PPD, TV is the lesser of evils by far--objectively.

I know it's impossible to be completely objective about such personal matters as what is involved in childrearing, but I think keeping the actual evidence in sight helps a lot with perspective.

I agree with this as well, but...my evidence and someone else's evidence aren't the same. For one, I think many issues are not so clear cut--on vaccinating, for instance, I'm sure most people would say that the majority of the evidence says overwhelmingly that I should vaccinate my child. I read the evidence differently. Many moms might read Ferber and say that the evidence supports CIO as a good way to get baby to sleep--and to help that mom with PPD get the rest she needs. For many issues, I think the waters are just too muddied with competing experts, ideas, and styles. And on things like formula, the pro/con factors get skewed in the eye of the beholder--what seems like just an inconvenience on the road to bfing to one mom might make another say that the cost of bfing is just too high.

I'm eagerly awaiting the results of that stroller-by-choice study, though...let me know if you find one.


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

Wow, you guys are so, um, civilized!







: What's going on? Inhaled too many cupcakes or something?

Moderation and common sense are the keys to everything in life.







Yes, that's my take on it.







: Where's that darn golden key smiley....

My kids are happy. My dh and I are happy. Our needs are met emotionally & physically. We fit nicely in our state and community where the norm is do whatever the heck you want and keep out of my business.









My inlaws (here in town now) probl. see us as WAY over there pegging the crunchy anti-establishment scale but my folks are pretty much the same as us.









Party On, Ladies! And, if you choose to use sugar in your cupcake or to make them vegan...who cares...ENJOY









Thus has Busymommy spoken


----------



## oldcrunchymom (Jun 26, 2002)

BelgianSheepDog, you should talk. I still remember when I found you, friendless, helpless, hopeless, unemployed... in GREENland!








Sorry, couldn't resist TPBness.

To me, the crunchiness has always been more about attitude and intentions than anything else. I used a stroller tons with my kids. I had no car/license and it's not comfy to "wear" your 20lb baby while walking 3 miles across the city in 80 degree heat. I never felt guilty about using a stroller or an exersaucer and honestly I can't think of a reason why I should have. The kids were/are certainly attached to me the rest of the time! Same with watching TV, etc. Unless you are strapping your child into the babyseat and plunking him down in front of the TV for hours every day (like one mother I know), I don't believe that TV=non-AP. If you don't want to use these "devices," that's great, but simply owning a stroller or a TV does not disqualify a person from being AP/crunchy.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

There's a recognized social psychology phenomenon in which, as groups of liked-minded people discuss their positions, they gradually become more extreme over time. I definitely see that happening at times in AP/NFL communities. It's like the bar is continually set higher and higher - first for what is considered ideal, and then for what is considered *minimally* acceptable.

For example:

Mothers should breastfeed for at least a year.
Mothers should breastfeed for at least a year, without EVER supplementing with formula.
Mothers should breastfeed for at least TWO years without supplementing.
Mothers should breastfeed for at least two years, AND breastmilk should be the primary source of calories until children are over two.
Mothers should breastfeed for MORE than two years.

Or, for GD:

Parents should not use physical punishment or humiliation.
Parents should not use time-out.
Parents should not use ANY form of punishment.
Parents should not criticize.
Parents should not use rewards.
Parents should not praise.
Parents should rescue their children from natural consequences.
Parents should not use distraction or playful techniques which are manipulative.
Parents should be careful not to indicate approval or disapproval of their children's behavior.

The "right way" keeps getting redefined to include fewer and fewer people. Delaying solids until 6 months is no longer enough - now people are being urged to start later and later, and then to only give "tastes" of solids until after the first year. Keeping your child rear-facing to the seat's weight limit is no longer enough - now people are being urged to buy new seats with higher rear-facing limits. And so on.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

OK, how did you see me eating that cupcake?







I was polishing off my Maggie's birthday cake from yesterday when I stumbled on this thread!

Yes, I gave her chocolate cake and took pictures of her pigging out. I also changed her cloth diaper this morning with chocolate cake poop.

I too have seen extremes in NFL circles and the more mainstream type circles. We carry Maggie everywhere. I wear her in my sling or dh wears her in the Babybjorn (more macho looking I guess







). When the weather breaks in the Spring and we start walking more at night, we might finally invest in a stroller for her but I still havent gotten to that point. Last summer, she only weighed about 6 lbs so she was worn everywhere. She loves to be worn right now everywhere. But she also stopped breastfeeding. She is only 1 yrs old. Its killing me since I nursed my older one until she was 2 1/2 and upped and did a child led wean. Maggie also did a child led wean but on her own schedule. I am now wondering how I will get thru the tot time without nursing!


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
NYCVeg, that's why I prefer to go with the idea of something being evidence based.

One of the problems there though is that the "evidence" changes. I would venture a guess that in 1975 you probably could have found plenty saying that formula feeding was at least just as good as breast feeding.

-Angela


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
Rather than keeping up with the Jones, she's keeping up with the Raynbow Arwen Starrs.

























I think that it is the nature of the beast for a message board to tend to an extreme, whether it's NFL or AP, or who can make their child cnform to a more rigid schedule than the next person.

Yes, you get the discussions of whether having your husband present make it a real UC, or whether it's negligent to not change wet nappies every two hours all night long, but that's neither the opinion or the aspiration of the majority. And you get some very prolific, very opinionated posters who just go all over the place putting one line judgements on everything.

It is better for everyone to eat as much whole food as possible, minimise our impact on the earth, etc, etc. And I don't think that's incompatible with feminism. Why would it have to be the female who cooked the food, or hung the nappies on the line? Of course she's the only one who can breastfeed, but you can still share the total tasks equally between the sexes. So while you're feeding the baby he's doing the dishes or washing the floor.

But I maybe have a non-traditional view of feminism - I see it as the freedom for all humans to choose the roles they want to play. So if I was told my choice to stay at home with my child for a couple of years was derided as not feminist, then isn't feminism just the opposite sort of restriction? Surely it's not meant to make working out of the home compulsory? If it was, does that make my husabnd a feminist, and if he was at home, would it make him an anti-feminist?

Quote:

One of the problems there though is that the "evidence" changes. I would venture a guess that in 1975 you probably could have found plenty saying that formula feeding was at least just as good as breast feeding.
Actually, Angela, no, there were never any large randomised controlled trials to show that formula feeding was anywhere near as good as breastfeeding. That's why evidence based parenting is the way I go.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
Actually, Angela, no, there were never any large randomised controlled trials to show that formula feeding was anywhere near as good as breastfeeding. That's why evidence based parenting is the way I go.

Right, no full-on trials, but plenty of "experts" For so many things, there ISN'T any real evidence yet. (after all, who pays for those studies?) So I think there are many things worth taking a stand for that can't be demonstrated *yet* with randomised controlled trials.

-Angela


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
Or, for GD:

Parents should not use physical punishment or humiliation.
Parents should not use time-out.
Parents should not use ANY form of punishment.
Parents should not criticize.
Parents should not use rewards.
Parents should not praise.
Parents should rescue their children from natural consequences.
Parents should not use distraction or playful techniques which are manipulative.
Parents should be careful not to indicate approval or disapproval of their children's behavior.

Excellent example. GD is an area I have the hardest time with in this regard.

I'm a totally gentle mom. I know in my heart that I am. GD works great in our house. And yet, the other day, when leaving a play area with DD, she had a minor melt down. We had to go, she didn't want to. I worked with her for as long as I could. There were a few minutes where she wasn't really happy. She's 2. This is normal. But I felt like the biggest loser on the face of the earth, and I beat myself up all the way to our next appointment (while, I might add, DD was singing happily).

Why? Because I could feel the invisible eyes of the GD Righteous glaring down on me. It didn't matter that I spent the entire day doing gentle things with my daughter. It didn't matter that my personal philosophy is that it IS okay to draw a line and say after appropriate preparation, we're going NOW, I'm sorry if you don't like it but we have an appointment we cannot miss. It didn't matter that we *couldn't* stay if we'd wanted to, because the space was being used for something else. It didn't matter that our next destination was one that my daughter had been looking forward to and that she enjoyed very much. Oh, no. All I could think of was how I wasn't GD enough, because I *made* my daughter put on her coat and boots when she wanted to play some more, instead of coming up with a better solution. And my inability to find that solution made me feel LIKE CRAP. You'd think I'd swatted her in the face, the way I felt.

It took me several hours to talk myself down from the fact that I was applying a standard that was unattainable to my parenting. A minor blip - three minutes - in the course of my ENTIRE DAY with DD where things didn't go smoothly. Did I mention she's 2?

I was thinking about posting that situation in the GD forum, but I didn't, because I knew I would have been told by multiple posters that if I had been _just resourceful enough_, I could have come up with a mutually agreeable solution and DD wouldn't have been unhappy.

It's enough to make me reconsider all the research and time I put into parenting by reading these boards. Because they just make me feel inferior sometimes.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
Actually, Angela, no, there were never any large randomised controlled trials to show that formula feeding was anywhere near as good as breastfeeding. That's why evidence based parenting is the way I go.

True...but doctors, magazines, books, and other mothers consistently reinforced the idea that formula was scientific and easier than and superior to bm. In the 50s, all the doctors and experts would have told you that spanking and CIO were necessary if you wanted your child to delvelop properly. There was no internet to search for alternative information. Many of the studies on bfing hadn't been done at that point either, even if you were a mom with the time and resources to go to the library to pore through medical journals looking for "evidence".

I think Angela's point is a good one. "Evidence" is ideal, but there are serious limitations. There will always be an absence of studies on certain issues (erm, vaccination anyone?), as well as a disparity among experts (how else to account for the fact that some people on this board think that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a "nourishing traditions" type diet is best, while others think the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a vegan diet is healthiest?). The other problem with "evidence" is that relying too muc on studies and experts can seriously deaden one's parenting instincts--which is what happens often with CIO, I think.


----------



## Abarat (Jan 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NYCVeg* 
There was no internet to search for alternative information. Many of the studies on bfing hadn't been done at that point either, even if you were a mom with the time and resources to go to the library to pore through medical journals looking for "evidence".

IThe other problem with "evidence" is that relying too muc on studies and experts can seriously deaden one's parenting instincts.

I wholeheartedly agree on those two points. First off, we can get so caught up in certain ideas, traditions and studies that we forget to listen to our own instincts. We all have them because each child is different, and who better to know that child and understand what s/he needs than their mother/caretaker, etc.? Not every child is going to respond to a certain technique or parenting style the same way.

And about the formula....my DP's mother was told not to breastfeed with all three of her children (and my DP's the youngest, born in '69) because it formula was more nutritious...for who knows better than science? (meaning the science of making formula) I actually had to use one of their bedrooms to breastfeed when we visited because it made them so uncomfortable. I could have pushed the issue, but it wasn't worth it to me.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

I think we should all stop caring about what other people on a message board think of us and what we do









Really, something to take into an account is that I think there is always an "arc" of development among our beliefs and who we are. I came to this board just because of cloth diapering... being here has changed what I believe about parenting and we now do many of the "ap/gd" things... but there was definately a point after really subscribing to this ideal that I was fanatic about it. I wasn't trying to mean or better than thou... it was just my sheer excitement about finding something that really resonated with me and that I really believed in. Over time I still have those same beliefs and probably have developed them to further extreme thanks to this board







BUT I am not so adamant or voiceful over them anymore. Part of growing older and wiser has helped me realize that there isnt a set solution for ANYTHING and all things must be considered and sometimes you have to set your ideals aside. I think everyone who comes to this board and is young and new to it probably goes through a similar process and journey.

chinakat - I try very hard to be a non coercive/non punishing child, but sometimes things just dont go as well as i planned. You sometimes just have to let go because you can't change what has already happened. Take note, think about what you could do differently (if anything) and move on. No one in the GD forum wants anyone to feel bad all day because of for 3 minutes out of the day you weren't your best. The GD forum is a lot of things tho.. besides just a forum for practical advice it hosts a lot of philosphy based discussions and that has to be taken into account


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Excellent example. GD is an area I have the hardest time with in this regard.

I'm a totally gentle mom. I know in my heart that I am. GD works great in our house. And yet, the other day, when leaving a play area with DD, she had a minor melt down. We had to go, she didn't want to. I worked with her for as long as I could. There were a few minutes where she wasn't really happy. She's 2. This is normal. But I felt like the biggest loser on the face of the earth, and I beat myself up all the way to our next appointment (while, I might add, DD was singing happily).

Why? Because I could feel the invisible eyes of the GD Righteous glaring down on me. It didn't matter that I spent the entire day doing gentle things with my daughter. It didn't matter that my personal philosophy is that it IS okay to draw a line and say after appropriate preparation, we're going NOW, I'm sorry if you don't like it but we have an appointment we cannot miss. It didn't matter that we *couldn't* stay if we'd wanted to, because the space was being used for something else. It didn't matter that our next destination was one that my daughter had been looking forward to and that she enjoyed very much. Oh, no. All I could think of was how I wasn't GD enough, because I *made* my daughter put on her coat and boots when she wanted to play some more, instead of coming up with a better solution. And my inability to find that solution made me feel LIKE CRAP. You'd think I'd swatted her in the face, the way I felt.

It took me several hours to talk myself down from the fact that I was applying a standard that was unattainable to my parenting. A minor blip - three minutes - in the course of my ENTIRE DAY with DD where things didn't go smoothly. Did I mention she's 2?

I was thinking about posting that situation in the GD forum, but I didn't, because I knew I would have been told by multiple posters that if I had been _just resourceful enough_, I could have come up with a mutually agreeable solution and DD wouldn't have been unhappy.

It's enough to make me reconsider all the research and time I put into parenting by reading these boards. Because they just make me feel inferior sometimes.









Well, that certainly does not sound like it was very pleasant, eh?

But I guess what I have been getting at during my posts on this thread is what exactly do you want people to do about that? There are some people in the world that may have done something different than you did. Should they not because it makes you feel bad? Should they do what they want but never talk about it because it makes you feel bad?

Suppose you had posted that on the GD forum. Those posts are always there. The "this happened and I did not like how it went, what could I do differently?" threads. I tend to not reply to those. It is almost always going to be a trainwreck because the OP is usually not actually looking for suggestions. They want everyone to say "you are right, there is absolutely no alternatives to that situation except exactly what you did". When someone posts asking for suggestions, by mind starts brainstorming and I might pass along ideas or my own experiences. Or at least I did, until I discovered that indeed, they are looking for validation rather than suggestions. I think it is perfectly fine to ask for validation. But to ask for "suggestions" and then start calling posters "holier than thou" for making suggestions that unbeknownst to them are unacceptable to the OP is not really productive for anyone.

So my point? Guilt is not good. It is either a manifestation of deeper feelings about a situation or it is useless baggage caused by knowing people do it different even if you think what you did is perfectly fine. The first case should be examined and the second should be discarded. It sounds like your case was in the second catagory. You like the way you discipline. You are not interested in changing it as you feel it works fine for your family. Then you do not need to worry what anyone else thinks. To do so is damaging for you.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

But NYCveg, it was not ever evidence based (formula over BFing). It was popular, but not evidence based, just as, for example, routine epidurals are popular but not evidence based these days.

Evidence based parenting is not about choosing what's popular or unpopular, or making decisions based on hearsay or anecdotes but about what has good quality evidence to back it up.

Quote:

we can get so caught up in certain ideas, traditions and studies that we forget to listen to our own instincts. We all have them because each child is different, and who better to know that child and understand what s/he needs than their mother/caretaker, etc.?
But what about the mother whose first instinct is to put her crying newborn down alone to sleep, or whack her whinging two year old across the face? Instincts can be bad as well as good.

Quote:

"Evidence" is ideal, but there are serious limitations.
I would agree with that excpet in the context of your post, which is that I'll go alomg with it until I disagree and then I'll ignore it. How would you feel if your midwife ignored the evidence that epsiotomies are mostly harmful and cut one anyway because she had a gut feeling that heads couldn't fit through vaginas? Or if she didn't tell you your child was a footlng breech stargazer because she had a feeling you'd be fine at home? It cuts both ways. You can't cite the WHO BFing recommendations as applicable to first and third world countries unless you also cite their vaccination ones, for example.

Quote:

OTOH, I have RARELY seen mainstream mamas do that[gang up]. Is that inherently part of ap/nfl?
You just don't read the right boards. Mainstream parents are just as willing to annihilate a woman they saw feed their child coke in a bottle as anyone here is.

Quote:

I think, though, that by asking "is this CIO?" and responding to that question, we're already getting things backwards. It's turning it into an ideological discussion, not advice on practicalities. And while such discussions are fine, they aren't really relevant to the needs of children--they're more about the needs of adults to fit in with other adults.
yes, exactly, belgiansheepdog, exactly!


----------



## Nikki98 (Sep 9, 2006)

I've been following this discussion and I'm really enjoying reading the posts. I think the biggest thing that worries me about this "extreme" is the illusion of control. What I mean by that is that we can become so _consumed_ by making the best choices for our dc that we think that end up feeling completely overwhelmed.

As most of us know you can do everything right per say, but still be surprised by the result. Life has many curve balls, of course it isn't easy- but trying to control everything in terms of parenting can lead to disappointment and confusion. I am all for doing the best for our dc and making the most sound decisions we can as parents, but when I start to think that I can control _everything-_ I'm only fooling myself.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
But NYCveg, it was not ever evidence based (formula over BFing). It was popular, but not evidence based, just as, for example, routine epidurals are popular but not evidence based these days.

Evidence based parenting is not about choosing what's popular or unpopular, or making decisions based on hearsay or anecdotes but about what has good quality evidence to back it up.

Yes...but I think we need to be realistic about AVAILABLE evidence. Not everyone has access to all the evidence. Not everyone agrees on what the quality evidence is. In many cases, quality evidence simply doesn't exist to address an issue (the safety of ultrasound for fetuses, for example).

And there are issues on which the "quality" evidence might point one way, but parental instinct or other evidence points another--for instance, vaccines, where the status quo is so engrained, that truly useful clinical trials are not performed (that is, trials on vaccines generally compare groups getting one vaccine with groups getting another, not large populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated children). I don't think we should totally dismiss anecdote or instinct. A mom whose child exhibited serious behavioral changes and was diagnosed with autism shortly after his MMR shots, might quite understandably stop vaccinating that child--even though the peer-reviewed medical journals say that there is no link between the two.

I believe this is true of bfing as well. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that, in the 50s and 60s, there WERE no (or at least not many) studies demonstrating all the risks of formula feeding. So, if your doctor and parenting books and your friends and family were your only sources, how could you possibly know all the risks?

Which leads me to another point: people seem to be equating "quality" evidence with studies published in medical journals. But, if you study the background of these journals and of the scientific community in general, you'll find that much of this evidence is ust as biased, pre-determined, and politically influenced as everything else. Which is not to say it should just be disregarded...but that there is no one true source that any of us can depend on, so many sources, even--gasp!--anecdotal evidence and instinct can and should be taken into account.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

There's a big difference between evidence and experts on the practitioner level. I love my doctor to pieces, but she has shown me evidence that her grip of statistics isn't that great...and if I can tell, having gotten through two terms of stats for psych majors by the skin of my teeth, it's BAD. I don't consider the opinions and sayings of practitioners to be "evidence." Studies are evidence. Replicable studies. That's a good start. And yeah, you have to be educated to interpret that kind of data. So it would be nice if practitioners were reliable interpreters. But since they aren't, good data from good studies is the best I, personally can do right now. Knowing I may be proved incorrect on a point years later doesn't bother me. That's how science works. It's nothing personal.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

On babywearing - I think it's obvious, IME, that babywearing is a good thing. My kiddo never wanted to stay in the stroller for a whole outing, she loved to ride high up on my hip or back and look at the world.

But then around here it seems like strollers are demonized, and you are supposed to wear your baby *all* the time, without factoring in or providing disclaimers for those for whom it doesn't work. And then mamas start feeling guilty for putting babes in strollers, even if babywearing doesn't work for them and babe is happy in the stroller. And they get judged as not AP enough.

That seems really ridiculous to me. Provide info and encouragement for babywearing, and let mamas ourselves figure out the balance in our own lives between carrying them or pushing the stroller. Kwim?

I always did both with my kiddo, and I didn't feel guilty at all. If she is happy why should I try to live up to some internet standard of perfecton?

How do you CD and babywear anyway? That was always an enigma to me. I could fit a sposie in the Mayawrap pocket, or I could take the stroller and CD's. But not both.


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

It IS easier now that I've gotten older- it's easier not to give a flip, &







, & do my own thing. (Reading Mothering mag helped too, but unfortunately not enough for things like my mil giving my dd formula when I had perfectly good milk to leave with her- now I would say, "Here's her milk, you old bag, & if you don't like it don't keep her for the day.")

I think the mainstream bullying is so intense it's hard not to get a little pushy in backlash, for sheer earnestness & gratitude that we've found something better.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
On babywearing - I think it's obvious, IME, that babywearing is a good thing. My kiddo never wanted to stay in the stroller for a whole outing, she loved to ride high up on my hip or back and look at the world.

But then around here it seems like strollers are demonized, and you are supposed to wear your baby *all* the time, without factoring in or providing disclaimers for those for whom it doesn't work. And then mamas start feeling guilty for putting babes in strollers, even if babywearing doesn't work for them and babe is happy in the stroller. And they get judged as not AP enough.

That seems really ridiculous to me. Provide info and encouragement for babywearing, and let mamas ourselves figure out the balance in our own lives between carrying them or pushing the stroller. Kwim?

I always did both with my kiddo, and I didn't feel guilty at all. If she is happy why should I try to live up to some internet standard of perfecton?

How do you CD and babywear anyway? That was always an enigma to me. I could fit a sposie in the Mayawrap pocket, or I could take the stroller and CD's. But not both.

I always used a messenger bag as my diaper bag, one big enough to fit my cloth diapers.... I Actually made mine own with a quick release clip so I could take the bag off while I had the baby in the sling if I needed to! but anyway I would wear a sling on one shoulder and the messenger bag off the other shoulder.

But I used a stroller too, I just found the stroller more annoying and inconvenient for me most times


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

I was never the prepared diaper bag person, but I would put a diaper and cover of some sort in a purse or bag, or leave diapers in the car, or just go on outings where I wasn't going to change the diaper while I was gone. Or sometimes I'd tuck stuff in the sling. Or if I felt like disposables were more convenient for longer outings, I'd take those.

Rivka, interesting post about the progression of things.

Yeah, I have some instincts and urges I have to tamp down. Don't mess with the silverback, as my husband says. And definitely mainstream boards are just as judgmental if not more so.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nikki98* 
I think the biggest thing that worries me about this "extreme" is the illusion of control. ... As most of us know you can do everything right per say, but still be surprised by the result.

nice post!

I think that some parents (regardless of style) parent like they are following a recipe. They seem to believe that if they do everything just right, their child will turn out a certain way. I find it sort of creepy. I had children because I wanted to watch them become who they are, not because I wanted to make them into what I thought they should be.

I parent the way that I do because I feel it is the most respectful of them of human beings.

Part of that is being aware of evidence, part of that is listening to my own heart, and part is just watching my kids because they often let me know what they need.

BTW, most of the crunchy parents I've met IRL are super nice people. I think that kind, emotionally healthy people are drawn to this style of parenting.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
If she is happy why should I try to live up to some internet standard of perfecton?











And that's pretty much it right there.

That said, it still ticks me off when anyone implies that I am messing up my sweet, beautiful, spirited, brilliant, amazing daughter who my husband and I created and who I grew inside my body and who I continue to grow outside my body with milk that I make and who I care about more than anything else in the world by doing or not doing [insert random AP/NFL/GD tenet here].







: I know I shouldn't take snarky people online too seriously, but it is really hard for me not to take stuff concerning my daughter personally because it it is such a personal issue.


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
...it is really hard for me not to take stuff concerning my daughter personally because it it is such a personal issue.

Yeah, I guess that't the crux of the matter, isn't it? Because these are our kids we're talking about.

I think some of the criticism comes from fear, like if you don't acknowledge that I'm right to make enormous sacrifices for XYZ, then how will I justify those choices?

I've really enjoyed this thread (though I'm showing up late to the party). I teach babywearing/AP classes at a birth center, and it's astonishing to me how many of the women show up pale, drawn, and exhausted because they believe that to do right by their babies, they have to basically lay down their personhood. I spend most of my time, when teaching those classes, talking about balance and urging the moms (and the occasional dad) to care for themselves, to find a way to sleep that gets everybody gets the rest they need. They KNOW how to do attachment; they have to re-learn self-care. I wish I had a dollar for every woman who burst into tears when I looked her in the face and said, "You are still a person; you deserve to have your needs met, too!" Strollers, playpens, babysitters, cribs, and bottles are like c-sections: way over used, but still valuable and useful when used appropriately.


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viola* 
Don't mess with the silverback, as my husband says.

My dh says that too.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptownzoo* 
Strollers, playpens, babysitters, cribs, and bottles are like c-sections: way over used, but still valuable and useful when used appropriately.

I don't know, I agree that they're sometimes overused but even the c-section comparison seems a little overdramatic. (I know you weren't trying to do that.) C-sections are risky even when they're needed. The other things...I'd say they're a lot more neutral. They are tools that can be useful or not, used properly or used inappropriately, just like a hammer or a saw. I think we give the material accoutrements of modern industrialized first world parenting too much power and weight, whether we're talking about "baby buckets" or fancy slings.

Someone needs to start laying an AP guilt trip on my daughter, though. No one told her that she should hate strollers and playpens. The fact that she will happily sit in the playpen and throw socks around (socks are toys, toys are just weights to hold the floor down) for half an hour or so saves my sanity. I have a big dog and if I want to use the bathroom, sweep the floor, and make my lunch without having a nervous breakdown, either the 8 month old or the Sheepdog or both need to be "penned." Guess which one doesn't whine and scratch the door when in her "pen"?









And no, peeing, eating, and breathing are not negotiable to me. I won't hold it until my husband gets home, I won't kill my back trying to potty with the ergo on, and I won't live off nuts and granola bars until she's 6. It's







: that I feel gutsy putting my foot down about that.


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
I don't know, I agree that they're sometimes overused but even the c-section comparison seems a little overdramatic. (I know you weren't trying to do that.) C-sections are risky even when they're needed. The other things...I'd say they're a lot more neutral. They are tools that can be useful or not, used properly or used inappropriately, just like a hammer or a saw.

Yes, you're right. I guess I missed my own point: we too often throw the baby out with the bath water and demonize things (or practices, or procedures, or whatever) out of hand. I get so frustrated when I read or hear something like, "Oh, I would never use a baby swing! That's just neglect!" Well, no, it's not. It's a baby swing. Should a baby be left in one for hours? Of course not. Is a baby swing bad? Again, of course not. It's like we're afraid of ourselves, if we let a little "convenience" into our lives, that we'll be sucked into a world of forced-independence parenting and there'll be no going back. And I recently got attacked for using allopathic medicine for my youngest child's allergies/asthma, so I have a whole inner diatribe about western medicine happening in my head; you know, not evil, just overused, etc..









And I guess some of my feelings on the topic come from the fact that I changed parenting styles mid-stream, and dramatically. I cared for my eldest children in a fairly mainstream style when they were little. I think AP is better (and my youngest benefitted from my education), but my 13 and 11 year olds are wonderful people, and we have very attached relationships. This despite the fact that they went in their bucket seats when we shopped! So this whole notion that we're going to "ruin" our children with cribs or strollers or bucket seats or whatever just rings so hollow. Yes, I was mainstream. I was also head-over-heels in love with them, and bottom line, that's what I think matters. I did some things I would like to have done differently, but I couldn't possibly have asked for a better outcome, because let me tell you, those are some fabulous people, my kids.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptownzoo* 
It's like we're afraid of ourselves, if we let a little "convenience" into our lives, that we'll be sucked into a world of forced-independence parenting and there'll be no going back.

You'd almost think our society was founded on Calvinism.







:







:


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
You'd almost think our society was founded on Calvinism.







:







:









Almost!


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
There's a recognized social psychology phenomenon in which, as groups of liked-minded people discuss their positions, they gradually become more extreme over time. I definitely see that happening at times in AP/NFL communities. It's like the bar is continually set higher and higher - first for what is considered ideal, and then for what is considered *minimally* acceptable.

For example:

Mothers should breastfeed for at least a year.
Mothers should breastfeed for at least a year, without EVER supplementing with formula.
Mothers should breastfeed for at least TWO years without supplementing.
Mothers should breastfeed for at least two years, AND breastmilk should be the primary source of calories until children are over two.
Mothers should breastfeed for MORE than two years.

Or, for GD:

Parents should not use physical punishment or humiliation.
Parents should not use time-out.
Parents should not use ANY form of punishment.
Parents should not criticize.
Parents should not use rewards.
Parents should not praise.
Parents should rescue their children from natural consequences.
Parents should not use distraction or playful techniques which are manipulative.
Parents should be careful not to indicate approval or disapproval of their children's behavior.

The "right way" keeps getting redefined to include fewer and fewer people. Delaying solids until 6 months is no longer enough - now people are being urged to start later and later, and then to only give "tastes" of solids until after the first year. Keeping your child rear-facing to the seat's weight limit is no longer enough - now people are being urged to buy new seats with higher rear-facing limits. And so on.

The longer I am here at MDC and hanging with out with other AP/NFL minded folks this seems really true.

So many good thoughts have been expressed in this thread but I willsay what saddens me is when a Mama come here asking questions like is this CIO, etc? I had my first kid 15 years ago and there was no internet to hop on and "do research" and in many ways it was probably a good thing. Sometimes with my dd who is 18 mos, I feel like my behavior borders on obsseive with the need to research everything.









I finally had to put the AP checklist down and go with my instincts. I remember when dd was about 6 mos, I was so conflicted about leaving her even for just an hour and I know that came from my warped perception of AP. Thankfully I am now working on finding balance of being a mindful parent as well as a mondful partner to my dh. I think sometimes balance gets lost in the shuffle.

Shay


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
You'd almost think our society was founded on Calvinism.







:







:









: Bwa ha ha!


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
I don't know, I agree that they're sometimes overused but even the c-section comparison seems a little overdramatic. (I know you weren't trying to do that.) C-sections are risky even when they're needed. The other things...I'd say they're a lot more neutral. They are tools that can be useful or not, used properly or used inappropriately, just like a hammer or a saw. I think we give the material accoutrements of modern industrialized first world parenting too much power and weight, whether we're talking about "baby buckets" or fancy slings.

Ah, well, now there was a recent study that found breathing difficulties in babies sleeping for long periods in baby capsules, along with the bad effect of the spine being in that position for extended periods. And there's evidence to show that touch is very important to normal development, so if those tools were over-used it could be risky for the child. But for average use (ie, a proper flat stroller, not a travel system, and actually holding the child when fussy rather than ignoring, etc) I agree with you.


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saraann* 
Wearing the baby makes getting things done around the house possible, while still meeting my baby's needs and it is much easier to manuever then a stroller.

Visualizing someone pushing a stroller around the house as they stack the dishwasher
















~Nay


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptownzoo* 
Yes, I was mainstream. I was also head-over-heels in love with them, and bottom line, that's what I think matters.

I think this is very true - being head-over-heels, and the responding to their needs...both of which can be done in a 'mainstream' upbringing

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
And no, peeing, eating, and breathing are not negotiable to me. I won't hold it until my husband gets home, I won't kill my back trying to potty with the ergo on, and I won't live off nuts and granola bars until she's 6. It's







: that I feel gutsy putting my foot down about that.

Word.

My firstborn needed an AP guilt trip, too. He was happy as a clam in any number of 'containers', loved his little umbrella stroller; though he is a poster child for cosleeping, always needed me to sleep (until well over 2 yrs old), and still climbs into bed with us half the nights out of the week (and we







it). My daughter, on the other hand, "puts the *attach* in attachment parenting" (a funny my mom made last time we were visiting them)







. She LOVES her mama....and most of the time only mama will do when she's awake. But, she's happy to sleep on her own in her little sidecar, not touching me.







. Yet another reason why I'm convinced that parenting *responsively* is at the heart of loving parenting - responding to the variable needs of individual children.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Very interesting thread.

A couple of comments. The prevailing attititudes on MDC are defintely a lot stronger than I personally have - but that I am closer to the MDC approach than on other parenting boards. And frankly, I am glad to get a range of perspectives - I think reading more mainstream boards and hanging around parents IRL and then reading MDC helps me get a broad range of ideas and tools to use on parenting.

MDC has also challenged my thinking on several issues - but not really changed my mind on most of them - instead clarified my real beliefs. I actually am more authoritative/directive with my kids NOW than I was before reading GD boards. I think reading them, trying to put some of the ideas into practice, seeing what worked and didn't, and then determing that I needed to be stronger in my leadership of my kids than I feel the GD forum supports was right for us. What I took most out of the GD forum was the need to be thoughtful of our parenting method - that we are modelling behavior we want our children to follow. This alone has become a fundamental part of my parenting philosophy.

It is very hard to not become extreme on the internet. As others have said, and as my dh points out about all message boards (even software development boards, believe it or not), it is easy to keep raising the bar to exclude more and more people.

And the voices we hear most clearly are the extreme, judgemental ones. Unfortunately, the vast majority of posters may be very diplomatic or non-judgmental - but if I read 100 posts, I remember the 2 or 3 most extreme and insulting ones. Nature of the beast, unfortunately.

I came to MDC with too thin a skin. I stay now with a much thicker one. I refuse to participate in certain conversations. I learn a lot from others. I think that is the best that any of us can do, really.

Oh, and I do encourage everyone (and remind myself) to push back when we see any human being attacked or demeaned. Because, after all, if we shouldn't do it to our children, why on earth would it be okay to do it to another adult?

My 2 cents.


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
Oh, and I do encourage everyone (and remind myself) to push back when we see any human being attacked or demeaned. Because, after all, if we shouldn't do it to our children, why on earth would it be okay to do it to another adult?










It breaks my heart when I see someone get trounced. Sometimes it's just plain bullying, and how many people ever had their mind's changed because they were bullied? It's so hurtful. And I always wonder something else, too: if you wouldn't say it IRL, why is it OK to say it on a message board? Because it still hurts when it comes through on the other end.

My youngest DS was HN to an indescribably degree. He cried _all the time_. I got it from every side -- mainstream folks were convinced that I was spoiling him by carrying/nursing him all the time, and AP folks were convinced that I somehow wasn't APing "right" because all the books say an APed baby doesn't cry, right? And people just pushed and shoved and judged and it was a nightmare. I was constantly defending myself, often pointing to my very well-adjusted older children as proof that I'm not a total incompetent! That experience taught me how very, very far a little support can go. Because honestly, even if some of the people who were so critical of me had some good ideas, I wouldn't know it, because I shut them off in a big hurry. How sad it that?


----------



## Snowdrift (Oct 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
You'd almost think our society was founded on Calvinism.







:







:


----------



## Snowdrift (Oct 15, 2005)

This response wold fit better on page one or two of this thread, but I didn't post then bc I wasn't in the mood, but my are are as follows on teh whole issue:

I must be much less sensitive about my parenting than oh, *everything* else. I just don't feel the condemnation. The only hints of acrimony I've felt have been from one or two posters here who were obviously trying to "out-AP" everyone else to the point of ludicrosity and self-condemnation. It is easy to ignore those. The other time was in an IRL group when I mentioned MDC and anoother woman said, *very* snippily that MDC is all about out-parenting, yadda yadda, and not to bother.

I found the suggestion that I was all about the "out-parenting" board to be hurtful.

But other than that, everyone I knwo within my local AP-ish community and the one I used to live in (and still hang out with when possible) is just kind and helpful. Never a hint that I'm a bad mom when I pass my baby around to others because I am tired of holding/wearing her. Never a thought of judgement about people who use baby buckets--just the occassional worried comment about a particular baby in a particular situtation and always with a "how could I have helped/I was worried so I did x to help" things like that. Maybe MI mamas are just more charitable and kind?

I dunno. I'm just not feeling the acrimony except in a very few cases, easily ignored.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Of course. Because sexism and the patriarchal structures that uphold it is the water we swim in. We may congregate into different schools, but the water stays the same.

I agree

I once found an article discussing sexism in "alternative" culture. They were talking about modern day "hippies" (the word they used) and how women were being objectified and treated in a sexist manner. Just because people were outside the mainstream didn't mean they weren't living the same patriarchal, sexist values.

Also "crunchiness" does not equal liberal values. People with many different value systems can be "crunchy"


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 
Also "crunchiness" does not equal liberal values. People with many different value systems can be "crunchy"


I really wish more people understood this, that crunchy does not mean liberal at all.

Shay


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
OTOH, maybe I'm just clueless. I'm not particularly crunchy, and have never used the terms "AP" or "NFL" to describe my approach to life and parenting...

I do what I think is best for me and my family, and it mostly falls more into AP than otherwise, but I'm not hung up on the label at all.

I couldn't read this part and not respond. I totally agree, and that is exactly, to the letter, how I feel as well.

I love MDC in that I can relate a lot more to the wisdom here then I can on "mainstream" boards. I also LOVE to learn more about AP, NFL, GD, etc then what I know from pretty mainstream upbringing, but it's not about following a set of rules, or being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

I didn't even know that what I was doing as a new mother even HAD a name, I just did what came naturally to me. It wasn't until I began "sticking out like a sore thumb" among other groups that I even began to seek out other mothers like me.. which led me to MDC.

Sometimes I feel like I fall into the "not crunchy enough for MDC" catagory. Some days that bothers me, and some days I don't care. If anything, being a mother has tought me more about following MY instincts and being true to myself then anything else I have ever done.


----------



## witchbaby (Apr 17, 2003)

i constantly joke to my husband about "getting negative ap points" when i do something like put one of the kids in the stroller, give them junk food or happily leave them with their grandparents. what i do is best described as ap, but i do a lot of stuff that would generate a "can you believe this mother?!" post on mdc, as well.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 
I agree

I once found an article discussing sexism in "alternative" culture. They were talking about modern day "hippies" (the word they used) and how women were being objectified and treated in a sexist manner. Just because people were outside the mainstream didn't mean they weren't living the same patriarchal, sexist values.

Also "crunchiness" does not equal liberal values. People with many different value systems can be "crunchy"

Yep. An interesting point to note also is that historically, the second wave of feminism originated from women disgruntled with sexism in the civil rights movement and the "student" movement which encompassed many of the folks we call the hippies. So in particular, just because a man is "crunchy" doesn't mean he's not going to expect you to wait on him hand and foot and embody his madonna/whore complex.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
So in particular, just because a man is "crunchy" doesn't mean he's not going to expect you to wait on him hand and foot and embody his madonna/whore complex.

Or vice versa. DH isn't particularly crunchy - probably even less so than I am. (He's willing to go along with me on a lot of things, though...and I think he kinda likes the cosleeping, even though it also drives him nuts.) But, he'd also never expect me to wait on him in any way and I think he'd be boggled by the entire madonna/whore thing. He sees me as a whole person, not a set of stereotypes.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I've been thinking about this topic with respect to food a lot lately. Is it just me, or is there a tendency here (MDC) to think people are either feeding their kids Wonderbread, Lunchables, and McDonalds, or they're feeding them a 100% organic diet with everything made from scratch.

I honestly don't know anybody who does either. I know a few who are very close to the "Wonderbread and McDonalds" thing, and a few others who are almost 100% organic. But, I don't know anybody who is 100% on either end. It's as though the whole spectrum is totally invisible, except the really extreme ends.

Maybe it's just me. I have a lot of issues with food, so I might be hyper-sensitive on this topic.


----------



## stirringleaf (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AntoninBeGonin* 
Visualizing someone pushing a stroller around the house as they stack the dishwasher
















~Nay

um after my c-section i could not sling my son and i did just that! my sister has terrible back problems and did this with her babies, too! it is really possible to push a stroller into each room you are in so you can set the baby down and have him able to see you and you see him while you wash a dish or make lunch.
that way you are within arms reach at all times, which, if you are an AP mom, ie someone who wants to respond to the babys cries in order to promote attachment, you can respond ASAP if they start to fuss, and they are near you instead of in the other room laying somewhere cuz you cant lift them for more than 5 minutes while standing.

again, its really hard to say these tools are bad. i am glad i had a stroller. my son did not live in it and spent much more time in my arms or in his dads arms, but when his dad was at work and i needed to get up and do a few things, i was glad i thought of keeping the stroller inside. we didnt own a crib or a playpen, nor did we want to, so this was really helpful for me and my infant.


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I honestly don't know anybody who does either. I know a few who are very close to the "Wonderbread and McDonalds" thing, and a few others who are almost 100% organic. But, I don't know anybody who is 100% on either end.

It's funny, I was laughing at my "tribal forum" the other day as almost everyone (active that is) was comparing their favorite fast food and chain restaurants.







It just never seemed to dawn on anyone that spending money there on cr*ppy food seems at odds w/slings and bf.


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Great thread.

Rivka, very interesting post.

All I have to add is that babywearing, cosleeping, and breastfeeding are AP tools. They are not AP. AP is an attitude towards parenting.

That being said - having found that the AP philosophy resonates with me, I am finding it easier to wade throuh the reams of information on parenting supplied by my doctor, the health region, my bookstore, my mommy friends, my mother, her book club, my in-laws, the internet, Dr. Phil, strangers in the checkout line, and the guy begging for bottles at the recycling bin. A little dogma every once in awhile just makes life easier.


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I've been thinking about this topic with respect to food a lot lately. Is it just me, or is there a tendency here (MDC) to think people are either feeding their kids Wonderbread, Lunchables, and McDonalds, or they're feeding them a 100% organic diet with everything made from scratch.

I honestly don't know anybody who does either. I know a few who are very close to the "Wonderbread and McDonalds" thing, and a few others who are almost 100% organic. But, I don't know anybody who is 100% on either end. It's as though the whole spectrum is totally invisible, except the really extreme ends.

Maybe it's just me. I have a lot of issues with food, so I might be hyper-sensitive on this topic.

No, it's not just you! I mean, we do our best. We don't eat much organic except a few key things that are known to be more contaminated; it's just too expensive for us. But we do eat mostly whole foods. Except when we don't! I mean, I would never, ever, ever spend money on those crappy lunchables. Except that I did when we were remodeling out kitchen. Like you said, I know a few people who are at either extreme, but most people are just like us -- pretty good habits most of the time, but not averse to the occasional fast food meal. I'm having surgery tomorrow, and you can bet that DH will be heating up some frozen pizzas and/or taking the kids to a burger joint for dinner! It's not the best, but in the big nutritional picture, I don't think it'll hurt any of us.

But I digress. Yes, I think there's that impression or feeling or whatever. That if you're not 100% organic vegan, then you're just shoving crap down your kids' throat day and night.


----------



## rainbowmoon (Oct 17, 2003)

:

this thread is so interesting! I find in alot of circles your NFL or crunchiness is like a competition of sorts.







:

also I think it's "trendy" latley to be NFL.

I also think there's a bit of insecurity about choices involved too. I see it alot on MDC too, I don't need to read your checklists or justify my own choices!







we are all doing our best!

my kids do watch tv (dvd's) and we do eat junk on occasion (and sometimes more often) what business is it of anyone else though? don't pity me for my choices! (that's almost laughable!)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uptownzoo* 
But I digress. Yes, I think there's that impression or feeling or whatever. That if you're not 100% organic vegan, then you're just shoving crap down your kids' throat day and night.

Thanks. As I said, I know this is a topic that I'm sensitive about. But, sometimes, I come away from here feeling like I'm shoving crap down my kid's throats - then I say something about my feelings to dh, and he just laughs at me. He says I feed our family better than anyone else he knows. I guess I just focus too much on the fact that we only eat half whole wheat pasta (too expensive







) and we have white rice in the house because it's quick, and we eat non-organic veggies. I totally overlook that my kids are snacking on cheese, nuts and fruit and that we eat almost all whole grains and things like that. Maybe food is the area that I have the most trouble giving myself credit in...


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Is it just me, or is there a tendency here (MDC) to think people are either feeding their kids Wonderbread, Lunchables, and McDonalds, or they're feeding them a 100% organic diet with everything made from scratch.

I find that with A LOT things, not just food. There seems to be two very different extremes in a lot of things. But as for food, I agree with you. We eat a lot of less then (MDC) perfect things for various reasons, but are by far the most conscientious people we know. When people come to our house to eat they are always taken aback by the fact that we eat from scratch. I made beef stew for dinner last night and my FIL's girlfriend stopped by after work and had a bowl, then proceeded to ask what brand of packaged stew mix I used! She was shocked that it was "home made" and tasted so good, AND was low sodium, and about 60% organic. So while everything may not be totally organic, I can at least take solice in the fact that we eat low sodium whole foods that are not chalked full of preservatives, fillers, and other junk.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
We eat a lot of less then (MDC) perfect things for various reasons, but are by far the most conscientious people we know.

I hear you.

I realized the other day that my 3 year old is a more accomplished cook than one of my closest male friends.

Seriously, my 3 year old knows how to make banana smoothies, turkey sandwiches, and porridge (though he needs help with the stove). My friend J can boil hotdogs and make toast and that is about it - I swear, he also needs help with the stove and he is 37.

The baseline is pretty darn low, I am finding.


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
It's like the bar is continually set higher and higher - first for what is considered ideal, and then for what is considered *minimally* acceptable.

For example:

Mothers should breastfeed for at least a year.
Mothers should breastfeed for at least a year, without EVER supplementing with formula.
Mothers should breastfeed for at least TWO years without supplementing.
Mothers should breastfeed for at least two years, AND breastmilk should be the primary source of calories until children are over two.
Mothers should breastfeed for MORE than two years.

Or, for GD:

Parents should not use physical punishment or humiliation.
Parents should not use time-out.
Parents should not use ANY form of punishment.
Parents should not criticize.
Parents should not use rewards.
Parents should not praise.
Parents should rescue their children from natural consequences.
Parents should not use distraction or playful techniques which are manipulative.
Parents should be careful not to indicate approval or disapproval of their children's behavior.

The "right way" keeps getting redefined to include fewer and fewer people. Delaying solids until 6 months is no longer enough - now people are being urged to start later and later, and then to only give "tastes" of solids until after the first year. Keeping your child rear-facing to the seat's weight limit is no longer enough - now people are being urged to buy new seats with higher rear-facing limits. And so on.

Rivka, you have forgotten the diaper part:
- Parents should change a wet/dirty diaper
- Parents should only use cloth
- Parents should only use EC: diapers are not GD

I enjoy this discussion. It shows that guilt is a very, very strong motivator for so many people, me included. A lot of posters post with guilt of not having performed to the highest ideal of GD or AP. Then, yes, as Yooper was saying a couple pages up on this thread they're really looking for someone to ease this guilt but noone can really do that...The very best advice I got from this community - and I got a lot - was when I asked for advice without feeling guilty over what I'd done wrong, just with a genuine wish to do better in the future. Our children will thrive even if we raised them less than ideal -- whatever our ideal was. They will thrive so long as they see their parents accepting of themselves, of their choices and showing the same acceptance for them as kids. What counts is just trying to do better than what we did yesterday --in the sense of having a more peaceful and harmonious relationship with those around us. Not that we will succeed every day...


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

For me we do nfl for health reasons and no other reason. I have an interest in health and nutrition and want to have my kids the healthiest they can be. I am not interested in the politcs that come along with being crunchy cause I dont ever want to be labelled or put in a box. Funny alot of people go crunchy to get out of a box and just end up back in one. I dont consider myself crunchy. I do everything that a "crunchy" person" might do but I tend to shy away from people liking me for what I do, rather than just being who I am. What I do could change tomorrow, but I hopefully will be the same person.


----------



## chloeM (Feb 12, 2007)

What I dont understand is this, if someone can clarify this for me that would be great! #not aloud to spank turns into not aloud to ground or give time ours turns into not aloud to give consequences unless"natural" turns into why the heck does anyone have parents anyways? DOnt understand why, but It doesnt seem right, Im all for balance, but it seems people have taken GD and crunchiness toooo far. Am I the only one who feels this way? And please explain to me why you parent that way? respectfully)


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
What I dont understand is this, if someone can clarify this for me that would be great! #not aloud to spank turns into not aloud to ground or give time ours turns into not aloud to give consequences unless"natural" turns into why the heck does anyone have parents anyways? DOnt understand why, but It doesnt seem right, Im all for balance, but it seems people have taken GD and crunchiness toooo far. Am I the only one who feels this way? And please explain to me why you parent that way? respectfully)

That is probably a question for the GD forum specifically







But I would like to point out that just because a family does not use punishments does not mean there are not boundries or guidance for children. I parent in a way that I feel is most respectful to my kids and to the rest of our family and I assure you that is far cry from what you would expect to see of children with no parental figures at all







:


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I made beef stew for dinner last night and my FIL's girlfriend stopped by after work and had a bowl, then proceeded to ask what brand of packaged stew mix I used! She was shocked that it was "home made" and tasted so good, AND was low sodium, and about 60% organic. So while everything may not be totally organic, I can at least take solice in the fact that we eat low sodium whole foods that are not chalked full of preservatives, fillers, and other junk.

Sorry to go







but North of 60, could you please PM me or post here the beef stew recipe? Would be much appreciated!

I WISH that I had some holier than though NFL/AP mommy friends. Pretty much all of my close mommy friends are very mainstream and when if our conversations happens to even touch upon things such as breastfeeding or organic food or discipline or giving birth, I pretty much have to keep my mouth shut because if I proffer an opinion, I will be perceived to be judgmental of their choices. So I stay quiet. (And I am not even that granola - only managed to breastfeed under a year, have never co-slept, used sposies...).


----------



## lolo'smom (Dec 30, 2006)

Loving this thread.

I am still new here and it was just recently that I noticed the "dark" side of MDC'ers (see now mod review thread "MIL pushy about CD") and how judgemental some mama's here are. But I think it's just that. Some mama's here. And that has nothing to do with NFL or AP, that is just people being critical and needing that acceptance from others. And that is anywhere you go. Seems like when people are secure with themselves and what they do, they are okay to let others figure things out alone, or offer a helping hand and not bash them all over the forum.

What's funny is, this all-or-nothing way of thinking that we're discussing reminds me of an expirement in which a group of children, maybe 10 years old, someone help me with the specifics, heard a story of a man who stole drugs from a pharmacy for his sick wife that he could not afford. When asked if this was right or wrong, the boys in the group almost unanimously felt that this was wrong because stealing is wrong. Very black and white, very immature thought pattern. The girls, OTOH, thought that the man should have talked with the pharmacist and explained his situation, found assistance somehow. Very grey, very willing to see his situation and cater specifically to it.

What has happened to us?!!

When I met my husband I was happy that he was so different from the norm, until I realized that he would never like some of my music, or even listen to it, share all of my views, etc. Then I realized that I had assumed that since he was different, he would be open minded. This was not necessarily true. Still love him, stubborness and all, but to make a point, I think this happens here, too.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

This is a great discussion! I haven't read each and every response, but have looked at quite a few and I agree with so many things being said here.

I LOL'd when I saw the "crunchier than thou" phrase. My good friend lives in one a pretty competitive NFL communities, and she has mentioned this. Meanwhile, we live in an area that is definitely on the mainstream side, and we consider ourselves to be much more on the crunchy/granola side ourselves, and we do fall into the camp of doing "what feels right for our family."

But I also have personally experienced a bit of negative judgment when I brought up in a post that we use disposables. It was a little frustrating b/c there are soooooo many things we do that fit in w/ the NFL lifestyle (no circ, BF, organics, gardening, delayed and selective vax, GD, holistic health, whole foods - mostly vegan, etc) but a few people really wanted to get mad at the *one* thing we don't do. So, was this being "crunchier than thou"?? Maybe, or maybe it just hit a nerve.

Another example, is that my son has always LOVED his stroller. We did a lot of baby-wearing, but due to a pretty severe accident I was in a few years ago, it got harder for me as he grew bigger and heavier. So, I brought him out and about in his stroller, and he honestly loved it. It shouldn't be a problem for anyone, yet, I have felt some judgment (not from MDC since this is the first time I've mentioned it, but from a NFL local group I'm involved in).

Funny thing is&#8230;I never would have guessed that strollers would be so controversial!!









I like this discussion b/c it helps remind me to chill out and not worry so much, and to also take a chill pill about judging what other parents do.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

I think this is hilarious. I always find the necessity for "pedigrees" to be vastly amusing.

Thou are not Natural Enough! Gasp.

I go back and forth about being on this board. Some days I think I don't fit. Other days I think I fit BEST here compared to anywhere.

For example, I use disposables. I also do EC.







Go ahead! Classify ME! I dare you.


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
What I dont understand is this, if someone can clarify this for me that would be great! #not aloud to spank turns into not aloud to ground or give time ours turns into not aloud to give consequences unless"natural" turns into why the heck does anyone have parents anyways? DOnt understand why, but It doesnt seem right, Im all for balance, but it seems people have taken GD and crunchiness toooo far. Am I the only one who feels this way? And please explain to me why you parent that way? respectfully)









No, you're definitely not the only one who feels this way. I never visit the GD board, because I absolutely don't fit there. GD for me means that I don't spank or hit, and I don't use discipline methods that I feel are demeaning; i.e., name-calling, shaming, etc. I do, however, give consequences that aren't necessarily "natural" (time-outs, loss of privileges, early bedtimes, etc.).

So, anyway, the hard-leaning GDers (it's called consensual living; it's worth reading about, even if you're not interested in implementing all the ideas) have something great going in their households, but it's definitely not true that 100% of us lean the same!


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
What I dont understand is this, if someone can clarify this for me that would be great! #not aloud to spank turns into not aloud to ground or give time ours turns into not aloud to give consequences unless"natural" turns into why the heck does anyone have parents anyways? DOnt understand why, but It doesnt seem right, Im all for balance, but it seems people have taken GD and crunchiness toooo far. Am I the only one who feels this way? And please explain to me why you parent that way? respectfully)

Amen. I am right there with you.


----------



## MomInFlux (Oct 23, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
What I dont understand is this, if someone can clarify this for me that would be great! #not aloud to spank turns into not aloud to ground or give time ours turns into not aloud to give consequences unless"natural" turns into why the heck does anyone have parents anyways? DOnt understand why, but It doesnt seem right, Im all for balance, but it seems people have taken GD and crunchiness toooo far. Am I the only one who feels this way? And please explain to me why you parent that way? respectfully)

Because for me, the more I learned about GD, GD became less about "not spanking" and more about "respectful parenting". I'm not all the way to consensual living, but I'm working on it, and it's something I wouldn't know anything about if it weren't for the EXTREME mamas here on MDC









In fact, I don't think MDC would have anything of value for me if not for the EXTREME mamas. I wouldn't have learned a darned thing from this site if all the information were middle-of-the-road :yawning:


----------



## jazzharmony (Nov 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MomInFlux* 
In fact, I don't think MDC would have anything of value for me if not for the EXTREME mamas. I wouldn't have learned a darned thing from this site if all the information were middle-of-the-road :yawning:

Brilliant


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Why? Because I could feel the invisible eyes of the GD Righteous glaring down on me.
...
It didn't matter that my personal philosophy is that it IS okay to draw a line and say after appropriate preparation, we're going NOW, I'm sorry if you don't like it but we have an appointment we cannot miss.
...
It took me several hours to talk myself down from the fact that *I was applying* a standard that was unattainable to my parenting.
...
It's enough to make me reconsider all the research and time I put into parenting by reading these boards. Because they just make me feel inferior sometimes.









Bolding mine . . . this is really unfair to people who genuinely are able to come up with a non-child-grabbing solution. Fwiw, I would likely have done the same thing. Then, if I was feeling badly about the way it went, I would have realized, as you said, that *I was the one setting the ideal* - NOT other people.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
Suppose you had posted that on the GD forum. Those posts are always there. The "this happened and I did not like how it went, what could I do differently?" threads. I tend to not reply to those. It is almost always going to be a trainwreck because the OP is usually not actually looking for suggestions. They want everyone to say "you are right, there is absolutely no alternatives to that situation except exactly what you did". When someone posts asking for suggestions, by mind starts brainstorming and I might pass along ideas or my own experiences. Or at least I did, until I discovered that indeed, they are looking for validation rather than suggestions. I think it is perfectly fine to ask for validation. But to ask for "suggestions" and then start calling posters "holier than thou" for making suggestions that unbeknownst to them are unacceptable to the OP is not really productive for anyone.

That's a real shame. Although I pretty much never get around to posting on the GD board, I try to evaluate what I've done with my dd's and often almost post a "this is what I did, what could I have done" thread (I'm just usually too exhausted and then I forget until next time I run into the same situation). If I ever post a question like this, respond, okay? It'll be genuine.


----------



## caligirl (Jul 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 

The problem I see is that an unreachable standard is being set here....

Mamas worry that if their baby cries for three minutes, EVER, that the child will suffer horrible psychological damage. They ask pleadingly if it's "okay" that their kid accidentally saw half an episode of Mr. Rogers once, or if the baby sits in a bouncy seat while the mom takes a five minute shower. They write of the angst they suffer for leaving their child in the care of their husbands for an hour, for the first time, when the child is over three years old.

Again and again I see mamas posting with guilt -- crushing guilt -- about not meeting some sort of AP super standard at ALL TIMES. And attempting to meet most of these standards entails this huge, astonishing self-sacrifice on the mother's part. ...

Instead of helping women be the best mamas they can be, I sometimes feel like the AP movement can be a way to make women even more tortured about their choices -- because, sometimes, you really just can't be good enough.










OMG OMG OMG!!!!
It's like the words were copied right out of my brain!!!
I feel like this a lot lateley....
Sadly it's the reason why I don't come to MDC much anymore.
At one point in my life shortly after my second DD was born I was so obsessed with doing everything AP/NFL/ yada yada yada, that I had totally alienated myself from all of my friends because I felt like "nobody understood" and that they were "lame" for not making the same sacrafices I was, for their children. I became very judgmental. Of almost everyone and everything. I became like the OP mentioned.
I hated myself. I hated that my life had become so difficult. I felt like I was going crazy.

I had bad BF problems with #2 and put so much pressure on myself to keep up with it despite it being nearly impossible. I remember one day in particular when it was beautiful outside and all of the neighborhood was outside enjoying the day, but me. I watched from a rocking chair. A rocking chair I had been sitting in for pretty much the whole day, trying to nurse and get dd to sleep. I refused my husbands offer to give her a bottle and me a break because I literally felt like formula was evil (even though looking back she really needed supplementing then)l. I didn't dare put her down or give her to my husband because she would cry, and I wouldn't allow it. She needed me and only me. I felt like an insane person.

I had a mini nervous break down that evening and just cried that I was so tired of no sleep, sleeping with a baby attached to my breast all night, and just spending my days with her up in that rocking chair trying to get her to nurse and nap.
Every time I came on MDC for support all I got was "keep it up" and "you're doing what's best for your baby" when I really needed to hear " youv'e been doing the best you can, but it's OK to give yourself a break."

I remember one time ( a humiliating experience) of trying to nurse in public. I really felt like I wanted to cover up but after posting about purchasing a nursing cover up I was bullied into feeling like I shouldn't have to cover up, so again I set that standard fro myself. Instead of listening to my own gut, I was trying to keep up with the "AP Jonses", and it just wasn't working for me any longer. I felt like I couldn't breath.

Thankfully I have rebounded and landed somewhere in the middle of Crunchy and mainstream. I still try to do everything as AP and natural as possible, but I won't beat myself up about it if it dosen't work out.

I still very much value MDC and the women here that teach their knowledge and offer support.
Thanks for listening, I've wanted to get that off of my chest for a while now.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chloeM* 
What I dont understand is this, if someone can clarify this for me that would be great! #not aloud to spank turns into not aloud to ground or give time ours turns into not aloud to give consequences unless"natural" turns into why the heck does anyone have parents anyways? DOnt understand why, but It doesnt seem right, Im all for balance, but it seems people have taken GD and crunchiness toooo far. Am I the only one who feels this way? And please explain to me why you parent that way? respectfully)

For me, it comes down to the fact that my parents didn't spank (mom's actually EXTREMELY against spanking), but still used punishments such as time outs, etc, and I remember what that felt like . . . I remember very distinctly what it was like to be a kid, why I "misbehaved" and what I didn't learn with regards to how to express myself in a socially acceptable way - I refer to it as "fair weather parenting" . . . yk, "You must be alone when you're not pleasant to be around" - consequently when I did become self-destructive and suicidal with no real "reason", and was unable to be completely eloquent about it, I figured my mom would just be mad at me for being "overemotional" and didn't bother to talk to her. Because I didn't trust that she was there for me.
I wasn't punished a lot as a child. By the time I actually remember, it was very rare, I was a pretty good kid. I knew darn well my parents loved me. I didn't feel that they tried to understand me though. They just assumed I was being overdramatic and manipulative. When I was punished, I calmed down - by thinking about how much I hated my parents and how much I couldn't wait to get away from them. I got really good at not getting caught. I still don't feel I can really be myself around my parents.

I do believe natural consequences are a good thing - even logical consequences. I'm not perfect at all, I yell at my daughter and I really wish I wouldn't. I even resorted to time out once because I couldn't think. We use "time in" a lot to help dd1 cool down. And "be windy" (she has to inhale deeply in order to be the wind). I don't believe I should shield my children from consequences because I think it causes them to believe they can't handle life.

Anyway, those are my philosophical objections and reasons. I'll admit, I'm not doing well with it lately. I think punishing would be far easier - I just want to raise emotionally healthy adults.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"Mamas worry that if their baby cries for three minutes, EVER, that the child will suffer horrible psychological damage. They ask pleadingly if it's "okay" that their kid accidentally saw half an episode of Mr. Rogers once, or if the baby sits in a bouncy seat while the mom takes a five minute shower. They write of the angst they suffer for leaving their child in the care of their husbands for an hour, for the first time, when the child is over three years old. "

I hear you so much about that! When I got in that zone, what I found really helpful was looking at all the people around me who are happy, healthy, wonderful people and didn't have that kind of upbringing.

My dad was extremely ill for the first nine months of his life. He had to be in a hospital several hours away from my grandparents' farm, and they could not afford to pay for my grandma to stay in town with him. In fact, she had to be on the farm to work as they let go of two hired men to pay for the hospital bills. I'd be surprised if he saw his parents for more than a couple hours once a week. Despite coming from a non-ideal situation after birth, he's a loving, responsible, stable and all around great person.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

As time goes on I am less hard on myself about being the perfect natural parent. It seems like every other time I read another post or article I have just unknowingly bought something toxic, did something emotionally/physiclaly damaging to my child or the Earth and so on.

You can only research and try and do the perfect thing so much. I like AP/NFL concepts and they made my family's life better, but I now know that I can't do everything perfect without sacrificing somewhere else (mentally, my marriage, finances, energy). So I just "eat the fruit, and spit out the pits" and do what is reasonable for us.

I don't know who the AP/NFL police are but most of them are probably in my imagination or just online. It is easy to think people are living a certain way when you don't see them in everyday real life. I also wanted to add that we all have our "specialties". Some moms have tons of anti vax info, others on GD, others on homebirth. So it can seem overwhelming like everyone has all the ansers while everyone has some piece of the answer instead.

Jen


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MomInFlux* 
Because for me, the more I learned about GD, GD became less about "not spanking" and more about "respectful parenting". <snip>
In fact, I don't think MDC would have anything of value for me if not for the EXTREME mamas. I wouldn't have learned a darned thing from this site if all the information were middle-of-the-road :yawning:


Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
I refer to it as "fair weather parenting" . . . yk, "You must be alone when you're not pleasant to be around" - consequently when I did become self-destructive and suicidal with no real "reason", and was unable to be completely eloquent about it, I figured my mom would just be mad at me for being "overemotional" and didn't bother to talk to her. Because I didn't trust that she was there for me.
I wasn't punished a lot as a child. By the time I actually remember, it was very rare, I was a pretty good kid. I knew darn well my parents loved me. I didn't feel that they tried to understand me though. They just assumed I was being overdramatic and manipulative. When I was punished, I calmed down - by thinking about how much I hated my parents and how much I couldn't wait to get away from them. I got really good at not getting caught. I still don't feel I can really be myself around my parents.

I do believe natural consequences are a good thing - even logical consequences. I'm not perfect at all, I yell at my daughter and I really wish I wouldn't. I even resorted to time out once because I couldn't think. We use "time in" a lot to help dd1 cool down. And "be windy" (she has to inhale deeply in order to be the wind). I don't believe I should shield my children from consequences because I think it causes them to believe they can't handle life.

Anyway, those are my philosophical objections and reasons. I'll admit, I'm not doing well with it lately. I think punishing would be far easier - I just want to raise emotionally healthy adults.









: to all of the above. While *I* am not extreme, being able to read 'extreme' viewpoints on this board have helped me not only learn new things to incorporate into my own family, but also to flesh out the things I *don't* agree with and become more confident in myself


----------



## RumiWithAView (Jan 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
They didn't do GD, though I think they thought themselves very enlightened for only humiliating us and not beating us down physically.

I hope it's not cruel of me to find humor in this. I don't know why it touched my funny bone... maybe because I know people like this. Anyway, I'm just making my way through this thread and I had to tell you Belgian, that I love your posts.

You,too, chinakat. Loved the clockwork orange reference.

OK, back to reading.


----------



## RumiWithAView (Jan 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
There's a recognized social psychology phenomenon in which, as groups of liked-minded people discuss their positions, they gradually become more extreme over time.

I think this is intriguing. It would explain so much... outside of message boards, even. How do rational folks that start out with certain ideals become maniacal fanatics?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PatchyMama* 
Really, something to take into an account is that I think there is always an "arc" of development among our beliefs and who we are.

This is another great point. I'm reading a book right now about the ego and the effects of it on your life. What I take from it is that, at times, a person tends to try to condemn or convert others to feel better about their own choices. Once one is truly confortable, they no longer feel the need to make others see things their way. If we could stop seeing our Selves in our choices we wouldn't be so touchy/defensive about them. We identify with the roles, labels, and icons because it is easier than understanding what our true identity is... which is what is left when all that "stuff" is stripped away.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

So, what's the deal here? Those of us that actually do hold some extreme views in our heart of hearts must put a disclaimer on everything that we write 'i believe' on that also states '*I understand that other people do not come from the same place and see the world through different filters and I'm okay with that*'? Honestly, if a person were to think so little of me that they wouldn't think I know that, I have to say I really don't give a rat's arse if they judge me judgmental.

A big long-winded example: no, I don't believe you should go to your crying baby if you're going to throw her out the window. Yes, I do believe the reason you feel that way is largely because you're either depleted in key nutrients or your body is unable to properly process what you take in. Does that mean I believe you're a bad person if you continue to eat MacDonald's twice a week? Uh, no, that's what happens when you don't have the energy to cook for yourself. So if I say *insert nutrients here* might help, or that studies show being low in *somesuch* can be caused by intake of *something else* or whatever. I'm not saying "you're bad if you don't do it or if you turn to meds", because I understand it's not that simple. But do I really need to water down the message and come across sounding like all sides are equal, you'll still be mentally ok if you persist in doing what you're doing (assuming a tendency toward depression or whatever). It's like doctors who say formula is just as good as breastmilk because they're afraid of making women feel guilty.

Guilt is what you feel when your actions conflict with *your* ideals. Not someone else's.

Most of my views are extreme. I have a vision for my descendents that I am trying to live towards.That doesn't make me a bad person. I'm certainly not "following the crowd", I've never had any use for people who do things based solely on someone else's actions. I don't meet my own ideals all the time, and I'm actually okay with that. I'm human.
I have realized that my "causes" are all selfish - I'm concerned about my great great great grandchildren (even just about my own DNA), so environmental concerns are big with me. So I get frustrated sometimes when others do things that slap Mother Earth in the face. Even being anti-spanking is selfish - it's about the assault on my own fragile psyche when I have to see/hear/think about it.


----------



## maxsmum (Nov 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stirringleaf* 
aside from that, i agree with you to a degree. but i also, to use a cliche, dont think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. deciding that the ap/NFL lifestlye is altogether not feminist is incredibly generalizing. there are plenty of women that choose healthy lifestyles for themselves and their children simply becasue they feel it is healthy, and they dont go all dogmatic about it and become martyrs. i know plenty of people who do this lifestyle within reason. i eat like 85 percent organic but somethimes i eat salsa con queso fake nacho cheese sauce. sometimes i dont drive my car for a week. but sometimes i drive it every day and even use it to drive my son to sleep on a mommy meltdown kind of night. i dont hide either experince nor do i feel shame about them. i do get a stomachache from the fake cheese, however.

This cracks me up, I LOVE fake cheese. Almost everything I eat is organic, healthy etc. but I cannot resist nachos with fake cheese. This is what always brings me back down from my high and mighty opinions about nutrition parenting etc. Sometimes I just have to remind myself that it is the overall picture that is important not every little detail.

Anyway, I think the problem is that baking cookies and caring for your home are not valued in our society as worthy tasks. It took me YEARS to come to terms with that. I wanted so badly to be what I believed a feminist was - someone with a real powerful job, sexually empowered, smart and financially independent. This caused me so much emotional angst until I finally decided I could be a feminist and still bake cookies, and clean my house, and stay at home with my son and work in the helping professions. I want to have CHOICES and OPTIONS to do whatever I want and I want my work to be valued. This is what feminism means to me.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
So, what's the deal here? Those of us that actually do hold some extreme views in our heart of hearts must put a disclaimer on everything that we write 'i believe' on that also states '*I understand that other people do not come from the same place and see the world through different filters and I'm okay with that*'? Honestly, if a person were to think so little of me that they wouldn't think I know that, I have to say I really don't give a rat's arse if they judge me judgmental.

A big long-winded example: no, I don't believe you should go to your crying baby if you're going to throw her out the window. Yes, I do believe the reason you feel that way is largely because you're either depleted in key nutrients or your body is unable to properly process what you take in. Does that mean I believe you're a bad person if you continue to eat MacDonald's twice a week? Uh, no, that's what happens when you don't have the energy to cook for yourself. So if I say *insert nutrients here* might help, or that studies show being low in *somesuch* can be caused by intake of *something else* or whatever. I'm not saying "you're bad if you don't do it or if you turn to meds", because I understand it's not that simple. But do I really need to water down the message and come across sounding like all sides are equal, you'll still be mentally ok if you persist in doing what you're doing (assuming a tendency toward depression or whatever). It's like doctors who say formula is just as good as breastmilk because they're afraid of making women feel guilty.

Guilt is what you feel when your actions conflict with *your* ideals. Not someone else's.

Most of my views are extreme. I have a vision for my descendents that I am trying to live towards.That doesn't make me a bad person. I'm certainly not "following the crowd", I've never had any use for people who do things based solely on someone else's actions. I don't meet my own ideals all the time, and I'm actually okay with that. I'm human.
I have realized that my "causes" are all selfish - I'm concerned about my great great great grandchildren (even just about my own DNA), so environmental concerns are big with me. So I get frustrated sometimes when others do things that slap Mother Earth in the face. Even being anti-spanking is selfish - it's about the assault on my own fragile psyche when I have to see/hear/think about it.

Yep.

I asked this question a while back. What should MDC be then? Can only people within certain boundaries post? I am probably extreme on some issues in some people's minds and mainstream in other areas. I never feel judged or like I am not good enough in those mainstream areas. They are choices I have made for a reason and I am happy with them. There are other areas I am trying to improve upon. I appreciate learning from the people that are where I want to be. Or even past where I want to be.

I guess I see no point in the exaggerated whining. Why do you care if I chose not to use "logical consequences"? I do not post that people who do are bad bad bad. I post my reasons, when asked. I post suugestions, when asked. I never crash onto a thread and start stomping that anyone who is different than me is wrong. And I very rarely see that from anyone else. Of course, on a message board this big, you are going to run into confrontational people on BOTH sides, but I think the vast majority of people here are respectful. And one could view this very thread in the same light. I will not say I am "offended" because I am not. But I do feel like it is purposely belittling to highlight certain subjects and that calling people that hold those views fanatical. How is that any better? So ignore the stuff you do not want to read about and move on.


----------



## jazzharmony (Nov 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 

Guilt is what you feel when your actions conflict with *your* ideals. Not someone else's.


What a fantastic sig line that would make


----------



## RumiWithAView (Jan 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
So, what's the deal here? Those of us that actually do hold some extreme views in our heart of hearts must put a disclaimer on everything that we write 'i believe' on that also states '

Honestly, I don't profess to have all the answers on what is the "right" way for people to behave on message boards. I understand that some people are just naturally more abrasive than others. I also think it is easier, at times, to treat people a certain way on here because they are strangers whom we'll never meet.

I am a definite newbie on these boards and don't know all the ins and outs. I know tolerance works both ways and that people with strong opinions should be respected as much as those that try to temper their responses so as not to offend. However, I also know what the effects of feeling overly judged are. When I found out my soon-to-be firstborn was a boy (by the evils of ultrasound







: ), I started wondering about circumcision. I come from a rather mainstream family and community, so my initial thoughts were "of course I'm going to circ", but something kept nagging at me about it. I started looking into it many places, here included. But I never felt comfortable posting my questions here because of the tone of the posts I read. At times, I felt I could sense the rabid foam coming from barking mouths of certain posters. People posted that they would disown family members for choosing to circumcise and that stunned me. It made me feel that even the fact I was waffling about the decision meant I was a terrible person in their eyes. How dare I even be concerned about "locker room trauma"? Why should I let DH have a say? That sort of thing. It wasn't until I met with other people IRL and in other forums that had admitted to struggling with the decision that I could finally feel okay with my concerns enough to squelch them. (I don't know if that makes sense, but it's how it happened.) In the end, I'm so happy that I've decided not to circ. I feel wonderful about it. But I also think it's important to remember that if you practice a little acceptance and open-mindedness, people might feel comfortable enough to discuss their concerns and have them answered. I just think that sounding militant can be very alienating, and if the point of an intactivist is to save as many foreskins as possible, they might want to consider their approach.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RumiWithAView* 
But I also think it's important to remember that if you practice a little acceptance and open-mindedness, people might feel comfortable enough to discuss their concerns and have them answered. I just think that sounding militant can be very alienating, and if the point of an intactivist is to save as many foreskins as possible, they might want to consider their approach.

I know what you're saying here - IMO, a lot of it is that a lot of those (angry!) people are speaking out of _self-defense_. It's like a psychic assault on them and causes a reactionary response. I was guilty of it myself recently in a spanking debate on another board - I managed to completely muddle the point because of my anger. I experienced it here when I first posted on the vax board as well, so I do know what you're talking about. I just ignored the tone and looked through it to the actual message (although I know that I was fortunate to be in a state of mind that I could do that).
At the same time, when someone is feeling vulnerable, they also have a tendency to perceive malice _where there is none_. That's what I find frustrating. Noone can talk about the risks of choosing a c-section (choosing without medical reason), and how crazy they think that decision is if it's just for convenience sake, etc, without someone chiming in to say their c/s saved their lives or they feel judged or whatever. Or talking about problems with formula and someone chimes in to say "you're calling me stupid because I was formula fed".
Both of these things are problems.
Maybe MDC should have a subforum on effective communication in activism or something.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Rude, nasty, "yelling", name-calling, etc.... is against the user agreement. It is pretty easy to report anything like that. What I see in this thread is that people want posters that happen to be at the "extreme" end of any topic and have the "audacity" to post about it should be quiet and go away. So you get rid of those people and start chipping away at the next layer. Soon you are on babycenter. While I do not think it is ever OK to come onto a thread and purposely make people feel bad, I do think that people who post on a NFL board should be aware that NFL topics will be discussed and that anyone coming on here stating that they do things that are not NFL/AP should expect to have that challenged. Like I love Taco Bell. I eat there up to once a week. I am happy with that decision and not looking to change it. But I am not going to come on here and expect everyone to pat me on the back and tell me how wonderful Taco Bell is when i know full well that it is not healthy, not natural, bad for the environment/workers/sprawl, etc...... I do not discuss it at all on the board because there is simply no reason to. It is not NFL. So you like disposables/circ/CIO/Walmart......? Great. This is not the place to declare your love for that and expect pats on the back.

I personally come on here to learn, to grow, to see new perspcetives that are in line with NFL/AP. Are other people here for different reasons? Am I missing the boat?


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Yooper [I said:


> Like I love Taco Bell. I eat there up to once a week. I am happy with that decision and not looking to change it. But I am not going to come on here and expect everyone to pat me on the back and tell me how wonderful Taco Bell is when i know full well that it is not healthy, not natural, bad for the environment/workers/sprawl, etc...... I do not discuss it at all on the board because there is simply no reason[/I] to.
> QUOTE]
> 
> AHA, Your secret's out now!!!
> ...


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
Like I love Taco Bell. I eat there up to once a week. I am happy with that decision and not looking to change it. But I am not going to come on here and expect everyone to pat me on the back and tell me how wonderful Taco Bell is when i know full well that it is not healthy, not natural, bad for the environment/workers/sprawl, etc...... I do not discuss it at all on the board because there is simply no reason to.



AHA, Your secret's out now!!! LOL. I think many of us have something we do that is not 100% nfl/ap. Glad to see I'm not the only one.

Oh. And like you, I enjoy learning so many new things and different perspectives from the board!!


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

Quote:

While I do not think it is ever OK to come onto a thread and purposely make people feel bad, I do think that people who post on a NFL board should be aware that NFL topics will be discussed and that anyone coming on here stating that they do things that are not NFL/AP should expect to have that challenged. Like I love Taco Bell. I eat there up to once a week. I am happy with that decision and not looking to change it. But I am not going to come on here and expect everyone to pat me on the back and tell me how wonderful Taco Bell is when i know full well that it is not healthy, not natural, bad for the environment/workers/sprawl, etc...... I do not discuss it at all on the board because there is simply no reason to. It is not NFL. So you like disposables/circ/CIO/Walmart......? Great. This is not the place to declare your love for that and expect pats on the back.










I think I have said that same thing on a past thread that was similar to this LOL. Tho I think I said I loved McDonalds







It isn't about who is or isnt 100% perfect in the NFL/AP way... no one is! It IS about respecting what this board is about and what the purpose is and realizing that some subjects are going to be challenged here and that it is not a personal attack on the poster, but a respectful discussion. Discussion is always useful, we learn and grow through it. If there were not people here 4 years ago promoting what I at the time thought was "extreme" I wouldn't be the parent or person I am today.

Obviously if someone is violating the UA and attacking a person personally or name calling it should be reported tho... but if a discussion is respectful then no personal offense should be taken. People are talking about actions and choices, not who you are as a person.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caligirl* 
Instead of listening to my own gut, I was trying to keep up with the "AP Jonses", and it just wasn't working for me any longer. I felt like I couldn't breath.

This phrase sums it all up for me. You will NEVER feel good about what you are doing if you are always trying to "keep up", because you are not being true to yourself while doing it. You are trying to be true to someone else's guidlines for living....how unfair to cheat yourself like that. It is so unfortunate that our society has taken away the right to just go with our gut insinct (thanks to the kajillion parenting/discipline,etc. books out there). Whatever happened to "just being?" Just "BE" ladies! No need to list all of your AP accomplishments, just live them.

I find so many times that these things (AP/NFL/EC/BF/blah, blah, blah) become a competition to so many. Heck, there are people on here who are competing with the amount of posts that they have. Are they just posting for posting sake? Are you APing for APing's sake or do you believe in it?

I think it is incredibly unhealthy to consider yourself anything other than just a human being, because that is really all that we are and nothing else. Stop with the labels and pour that energy into taking care of yourself and your family instinctually. If we truly love isn't that enough?


----------



## *LoveBugMama* (Aug 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Maybe MDC should have a subforum on effective communication in activism or something.

Totally OT, but this is a great idea!

I am the administrator of Norways first AP-messageboard. And we actually have a subforum where we can discuss, learn and talk about how to communicate Non Violent. As in, NVC NonViolentCommunication written by Marshall Rosenberg.









Maybe that would be possible here at MDC, too?

Ooh, and I totally agreee with your posts in this thread, by the way.


----------



## woobysma (Apr 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greensleeves* 
I have a question, though. Does it matter what a person's motivation is for doing all the AP/NFL stuff, or is it enough that they're even doing it?

I guess for some people, a huge part of the appeal of AP/NFL is that it's kind of 'edgy'. If it became mainstream, would it still appeal to them as much?

It seems like in many movements, there is a pride of ownership in those who were there 'first'. And they feel like everyone who comes after them is somehow not as authentic. KWIM?

Arrgh, I will try to come back tomorrow to form more coherent sentences after some sleep.









I actually think it's ALL about the motivation. AP is about being *attached* to your kids. If creating that bond and maintaining a connection throughout your child's life is the basic focus of your parenting, then you're AP, IMO.
*HOW* you maintain that bond will vary from child to child and from year to year. What works for DC1 may not work for DC2, what works at 1 year probably will not work at 13 or 25 or 40.

It's all about being motivated to maintain that connection and bond.

I think it gets tricky when you start mixing NFL & AP. Cloth diapering is not AP, organic lentils and soy milk are not AP, being "crunchy" does not equal being "attached". I come here mainly for the AP side of things. I'm comfortable with my semi-crunchy status and I'm not ashamed to say I occationally eat fast food & have no good veggie chili recipes & have used mainly sposies for the last 6 months. I'm not offended by the "Crunchier than thou" statements. Being more "crunchy" will not make me a better mom and "going through the AP motions" will not make me more attached.


----------



## salmontree (Mar 29, 2004)

I'd like to read this thread but it's too wide! Why is it doing that?







:
I hate scrolling back and forth every two seconds.


----------



## woobysma (Apr 20, 2004)

I don't know why it's like that - it was doing the same thing to me earlier and then it "fixed" itself somehow.........


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"What I see in this thread is that people want posters that happen to be at the "extreme" end of any topic and have the "audacity" to post about it should be quiet and go away. So you get rid of those people and start chipping away at the next layer. Soon you are on babycenter. While I do not think it is ever OK to come onto a thread and purposely make people feel bad, I do think that people who post on a NFL board should be aware that NFL topics will be discussed and that anyone coming on here stating that they do things that are not NFL/AP should expect to have that challenged. Like I love Taco Bell. I eat there up to once a week. I am happy with that decision and not looking to change it. But I am not going to come on here and expect everyone to pat me on the back and tell me how wonderful Taco Bell is when i know full well that it is not healthy, not natural, bad for the environment/workers/sprawl, etc...... I do not discuss it at all on the board because there is simply no reason to. It is not NFL."

See -- I disagree with this. I see alot of people on these boards doing "reality checks" -- looking at how other mothers manage their lives. If we don't share our "taco bell meals", it provides a distorted picture of ourselves and increases the heat on mothers who may be struggling in certain areas.


----------



## woobysma (Apr 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
See -- I disagree with this. I see alot of people on these boards doing "reality checks" -- looking at how other mothers manage their lives. If we don't share our "taco bell meals", it provides a distorted picture of ourselves and increases the heat on mothers who may be struggling in certain areas.


I agree. Frankly, I like to hear about people who occationally eat fast food or love their baby swing or (gasp) question aspects of AP-a-la-Sears. I'm not at one extreme or the other. My life functions better with a balance of "super NFL" and "mainstream". It's actually good to hear that there are others who have found ways to pick and choose, too.


----------



## ladybugchild77 (Jun 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
I think it is incredibly unhealthy to consider yourself anything other than just a human being, because that is really all that we are and nothing else. Stop with the labels and pour that energy into taking care of yourself and your family instinctually. If we truly love isn't that enough?

Amen, sister.


----------



## jazzharmony (Nov 10, 2006)

Well labels are useful. I don't walk around calling my family an "AP family" but I did seek out a forum to express myself amongst like minded parents and, more importantly, learn from those people. That forum happens to have a NFL/AP label









The label doesn't define me but labels are useful tools on the internet. I understand the sentiment that getting caught up in labels without understanding what they are about or trying define yourself or others within one's narrow concept of what that label means but to declare that labels need to be thrown out isn't realistic or useful.

I am not interested in reading posts about babies being spanked and left to cry so I do look for the AP "label" on a site. Unfortunately, labels aren't doing much here at MDC anyway. Still have to read pro spanking/CIO posts







:


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jazzharmony* 
Unfortunately, labels aren't doing much here at MDC anyway. Still have to read pro spanking/CIO posts







:

Well, if it makes you feel any better you do get the pleasure of seeing anybody who posts that way get an immediate slap upside the head, internet style.

Seriously, if pro-spanking/cio posts are your worst criticism of MDC you might want to try not being so critical about stuff. Because those two points of view are really not tolerated here.


----------



## jazzharmony (Nov 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Well, if it makes you feel any better you do get the pleasure of seeing anybody who posts that way get an immediate slap upside the head, internet style.

Seriously, if pro-spanking/cio posts are your worst criticism of MDC you might want to try not being so critical about stuff. Because those two points of view are really not tolerated here.

I have seen a whole bunch of crap tolerated here in the name of being "non-judgmental" that never would have flown when I first joined 4yrs ago.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
What I see in this thread is that people want posters that happen to be at the "extreme" end of any topic and have the "audacity" to post about it should be quiet and go away. So you get rid of those people and start chipping away at the next layer. Soon you are on babycenter. While I do not think it is ever OK to come onto a thread and purposely make people feel bad, I do think that people who post on a NFL board should be aware that NFL topics will be discussed and that anyone coming on here stating that they do things that are not NFL/AP should expect to have that challenged. Like I love Taco Bell. I eat there up to once a week. I am happy with that decision and not looking to change it. But I am not going to come on here and expect everyone to pat me on the back and tell me how wonderful Taco Bell is when i know full well that it is not healthy, not natural, bad for the environment/workers/sprawl, etc...... I do not discuss it at all on the board because there is simply no reason to. It is not NFL. So you like disposables/circ/CIO/Walmart......? Great. This is not the place to declare your love for that and expect pats on the back.

I think there are two issues here. First is the issue of "catching more flies with honey", and second is the issue of people respecting this community for what it is - AP/NFL.

On the first issue, I think people can be extreme in their views without being rude. Being belligerent and militant is not synonymous with being extreme, passionate, or fanatic. It's just plain rude. Period.

For example, I am VERY extreme about formula feeding and breastfeeding. I am low supply mom and worked my heiny off to be able to exclusively breastfeed my daughter. I pumped so much that at one point my hands cracked from washing pumps parts 10-12 times a day. So when someone gets on here and says they're working hard to pump and then I find out it's only 3 or 4 times a day, oh boy, I get steamed. HOWEVER, that does not give me permission to be rude, because I will not get my point across by making myself sound more committed to breastfeeding then the person who only wants to pump 4 times, not 12.

And on the second issue, I think there is a fine line in preserving this AP/NFL community and alienating people who are still walking the fence. While I whole heartedly agree that people should read the MDC mission statement before posting, I also think it is in extremely bad taste to lambaste someone for coming here to research about CIO, circ, cloth diapers, or vaccinating. You catch more flies with honey...

Having said that, it is REALLY frustrating when some people tend to perpetuate a non AP/NFL sentiment in a place that should uphold AP/NFL. At a certain point one must put their foot down and point up the *NATURAL FAMILY LIVING* banner to remind people why they are here.

I DO think there is a difference in finding your way, and simply flaunting what is not AP/NFL on an AP/NFL forum. To use the Taco Bell analogy, it would be the equivalent of someone coming here to genuinely inquire about how bad Taco Bell is, and someone else continually suggesting that others eat it because they do and they haven't keeled over yet.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think rudeness, belligerence, and snarkiness can or should be tolerated under the guise of being extreme or passionate.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jazzharmony* 
I have seen a whole bunch of crap tolerated here in the name of being "non-judgmental" that never would have flown when I first joined 4yrs ago.




























-Angela


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

I admit, I have read only the last few posts here, so I hope I am getting the jist of things...

Something used to occasionally happen in my women's studies classes long ago. In the interest of being nonhierarchical and accepting, anyone could put forth an idea about one of our readings and it would be accepted. The amount of actual debate or constructive criticism would be approximately zero--unless someone unthinkingly put forth an idea that could be found sexist, or else an idea that was not politically correct. Then they'd get yelled at.

The problem here was not the PC thing, though that has its issues. What I really hated was the fact that you could say the dumbest, least-analyzed idea possible and nobody would really question you--because doing so was somehow oppressive. But this just meant that the level of discussion was incredibly bland and predictable. When you start accepting all points of view, simply out of some vague ideal usually expressed as "everyone has their opinion," then you just end up with something dull and flat and mediocre. MDC is mostly women, and women are famous for not actually arguing their points too much and, if they do, shutting down the minute someone disagrees. But I don't think this serves us very well.

I am actually all for MDC being fairly 'extreme' in its granola point of view. I really like that I find people here who are even more granola than I am--I learn new stuff all the time. I do not like the idea that we should become an all-inclusive place and water the whole thing down. MDC *IS* a granola extreme--and that's the way I like it. If you use 100% disposable diapers or eat at Taco Bell, that's fine, it's your life--but I don't think you should expect that people here are going to think that's normal or desirable. (I suppose you could get a charge out of being 'rebellious', though








...)

I think that if we let MDC become watered down, the super-granola people will leave and the site will become fairly mainstream. It will become mostly Whole Foods shoppers who are uncomfortable spanking, instead of the homesteaders with the acre-sized garden and the milk goats who do 'elimination communication' and are practicing Buddhists or geez, even polyamorous pagans. The site does serve a purpose in 'educating' those WF shoppers to a lifestyle even more extreme than the one they imagined they were living...but. There's a reason many hardcore granola types sort of drop out of society...and it's often because they are tired of 'educating' and want to just live.

Well. No one can accuse me of not being ready to make a speech about a thread I haven't even read!


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
I am actually all for MDC being fairly 'extreme' in its granola point of view. I really like that I find people here who are even more granola than I am--I learn new stuff all the time. I do not like the idea that we should become an all-inclusive place and water the whole thing down. MDC *IS* a granola extreme--and that's the way I like it. If you use 100% disposable diapers or eat at Taco Bell, that's fine, it's your life--but I don't think you should expect that people here are going to think that's normal or desirable. (I suppose you could get a charge out of being 'rebellious', though







...)

I think that if we let MDC become watered down, the super-granola people will leave and the site will become fairly mainstream. It will become mostly Whole Foods shoppers who are uncomfortable spanking, instead of the homesteaders with the acre-sized garden and the milk goats who do 'elimination communication' and are practicing Buddhists or geez, even polyamorous pagans. The site does serve a purpose in 'educating' those WF shoppers to a lifestyle even more extreme than the one they imagined they were living...but. There's a reason many hardcore granola types sort of drop out of society...and it's often because they are tired of 'educating' and want to just live.

Interesting. The only problem with your logic is that in real life, the drop-out extremists are more likely to have consumed Taco Bell in the past week, year, or ten years than the less-extreme GD Whole Foodies. Because they have less money, and fewer pretensions. I have spent far more time living without electricity than most MDCers - and I also have eaten far more Taco Bell.

And drop-out extremists are least likely of all to do a checklist. What comes up again and again and again is the reality that doing a full checklist is a luxury. A few months ago there was a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG thread over whether it was rude to refuse a piece of fruit at someone's house because it wasn't organic. Some people appear to have completely taken leave of the humane values that were supposed to drive this philosophy in the first place.

I believe it was BelgianSheepDog who recently said that she finds the whole idea of having a parenting "style" with a name to be silly and bourgeois. I'm tempted to look up the exact quote and make it my signature.

Just look at some of the input whenever class/welfare issues are discussed. There are *A LOT* of people on this site who have no idea how the other half lives, and we make a major mistake if we think that doesn't color our collective concepts of AP/NFL purity and what it takes to achieve it.

I also think that rigorously adhering to the whole checklist is a sign of lack of independent thought. Which is not to say that everyone who happens to do everything on the list lacks independent thought - but the pursuit of the list as such is frankly kind of sad.

I guess what I am inarticulately and somewhat ungraciously trying to say is that MDC's collective self-image as "crunchy" rings false for me because it doesn't seem to have that much in common with the concept of the countercultural lifestyle and aesthetic I would previously have designated as "crunchy granola" before discovering MDC. A large part of that lifestyle is individualism and nonconformity, not only from the "mainstream" rules but from the whole idea of living by a rulebook, in general. I see many, many references to lifestyle choices that lie beyond the purview of MDC's specific AP/NFL obsession that would instantly disqualify someone from being "crunchy" in my perception if I met them in real life. That's not a judgment, it's just reality. It partly refers to me; I am not the epitome of countercultural lifestyle, myself. But I have not allowed MDC groupthink to colonize my lifestyle concepts. Anyone who thinks you can tell how "granola" someone is by enumerating from a finite list of specific practices doesn't know what "granola" means.

By strict MDC logic, the trim blonde McMansion-dweller who spends thousands on hyena fluff is crunchier than the tattooed inner-city punk mama who uses sposies because she has neither a washing machine nor a car to get to the laundromat. (Or make up whatever example you want.) It's patently absurd.

IOW, it's _already_ mostly WF shoppers who feel uncomfortable spanking, and the crunchier-than-thou dynamic doesn't help matters. The rest of our lives are just too messy.

Another thought: in any given MDC discussion, a huge red flag goes up for me when someone starts saying "Noone can _make_ you feel guilty" in defense of something they or others have said to...well....make people feel guilty. I think "noone can _make_ you feel guilty" is the MDC equivalent of Godwin's Law! Much of what I see on this thread is the same idea generalized to the site as a whole.

Beware of the mentality that only people with everything checked off the list fully belong here and the rest of us should just be sitting at their feet. Life is full of ambiguity. This is a discussion site. If the only thing that matters is either/or determinations with regard to a few specific practices, what is there to discuss?


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
Another thought: in any given MDC discussion, a huge red flag goes up for me when someone starts saying "Noone can _make_ you feel guilty" in defense of something they or others have said to...well....make people feel guilty. I think "noone can _make_ you feel guilty" is the MDC equivalent of Godwin's Law! Much of what I see on this thread is the same idea generalized to the site as a whole.

Yes. The whole "No one else can _make_ you feel guilty" routine is functionally equivalent to, "I can trash you as much as I like, and if it hurts you, it's your own damn fault."


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Working through this thread. It's hard to know who's extreme really, imo, b/c a poster who may be extreme in one area might not be as extreme in another area. It's easy to assume that those who are the resident experts in diapermaking 101 are also the resident experts in gardening, soap making, gentle discipline, whatevering. I learn a lot from people here, "extreme" or not, but I only find it holier than though when the tone is condescending and tends to assume the worst on behalf of the poster. I see it enough, but I think it's still in the minority. It's why I mostly stay out of certain forums, actually.

I think the ideas behind NFL are wonderful and feminist and earth friendly, and sometimes I think they go so far full circle that they wind up being even more sexist than mainstream parenting expectations. I think it should be about common sense, responding to your kids, and respect for little ones- not so much mommy martyrdom. There's always room for improvement for me I think, but there is just no way I could do it ALL right now in my life- and it's not helping anyone when women feel like they have to be complete, self-sacrificing, one-woman shows, producing everything their family needs and being the epitome of a gentle spirit 100% of the time. I love the tenets of AP, but I don't think they every really existed or exist outside of the vacuum of patriarchy in any form, so it's not really surprising that there are the same pressures and endless rounds of guilt for moms, even if they are doing some great things for themselves and their family (because you could always do more...)


----------



## jazzharmony (Nov 10, 2006)

On the "noone can make you feel guilty" sentiment, I have seen many people trashed after just mentioning gently the two words cloth diapers in another's disposable diaper thread. I haven't seen much trashing of the "mainstream" thinkers here but I have seen a lot of vicious bashing of the poor mother who comes here to express her sadness at the baby being left to cry upstairs alone at the dinner party she attended the night before. Or how dare someone suggest that a toddler shouldn't live on coke and muffins (remember the infamous pink muffin thread) I mean really. I have felt plenty of guilt myself and I know it has to do with my own standards which are very reasonable and still sometimes not always attainable. Guilt is not a four letter word. I don't even agree with the many who say guilt is a useless emotion


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Actually I don't think the coke/muffin thing or similar threads have anything to do with nfl/ap or people defending the practice or people here sliding into the babycenter.com. I think it has to do with the separate issue of mothers (or parents) being judged relentlessly, in all circles, and some of us knowing how hard it is to be perfectly nfl/ap, and how much we get judged for being nfl/ap. You can't always tell what's going on by a two minute observation in the park.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jazzharmony* 
Guilt is not a four letter word. I don't even agree with the many who say guilt is a useless emotion









No emotion is useless. They all point to areas of ourselves that need attention and self love.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
You can't always tell what's going on by a two minute observation in the park.

Very true but I do see moms in the park dole out coca-cola to their 2 years olds and, well, it DOES make me shudder. I am sorry, call me judgmental if you want, but HOW can someone give their toddler that stuff? I can understand offering formula to a newborn better than I can understand giving coke to a 2 year old. And least with the formula you have the "well, it's my body and I don't feel like breastfeeding" argument. I can't say I understand that sentiment but I do understand the reasoning. I _cannot_ understand giving cocacola to a 2-year old.

But I also can see how, apart from the food one gives to a child or maybe seeing a parent physically harm her child, it is difficult to tell what is going on by seeing 2-minute scenes in the park.

I also agree with a previous poster that when we are told not to voice our opinions for fear of judging, in the end, noone expresses any negative opinion at all and anything goes. Once at a playgroup where mothers in charge of the snack were specifically told to please bring fruit. I saw potato chips sitting on the table for all children to take. I nearly lost it. I actually asked out loud and in a voice that manifested my dismay, WHO BROUGHT POTATO CHIPS? At which point this very soft voice said, "Oh, I did. I'm sorry. I didn't realise that anyone would mind and could not think of what else to bring". At which point I apologised for sounding so harsh and explained that I was, um, rather particular about what DD ate.

But you see, in the end, it was not she who was in the wrong for bringing chips, it was I who was "too fussy".


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 

By strict MDC logic, the trim blonde McMansion-dweller who spends thousands on hyena fluff is crunchier than the tattooed inner-city punk mama who uses sposies because she has neither a washing machine nor a car to get to the laundromat. (Or make up whatever example you want.) It's patently absurd.

I don't get that feeling at all. Not in the least. There have been a few displays of one up manship, but generally speaking, I don't think the vast majority of MDC members rely on a checklist to determine who is the crunchiest. At least I would hope not. I'm just proud of the things I do because I love doing them, and if there ever was a place to "brag" about what normally makes me a wacko in real life, I'd hope MDC was that place.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

I agree with so many points you've made.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
Interesting. The only problem with your logic is that in real life, the drop-out extremists are more likely to have consumed Taco Bell in the past week, year, or ten years than the less-extreme GD Whole Foodies. Because they have less money, and fewer pretensions. I have spent far more time living without electricity than most MDCers - and I also have eaten far more Taco Bell.

And drop-out extremists are least likely of all to do a checklist. What comes up again and again and again is the reality that doing a full checklist is a luxury. A few months ago there was a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG thread over whether it was rude to refuse a piece of fruit at someone's house because it wasn't organic. Some people appear to have completely taken leave of the humane values that were supposed to drive this philosophy in the first place.

I believe it was BelgianSheepDog who recently said that she finds the whole idea of having a parenting "style" with a name to be silly and bourgeois. I'm tempted to look up the exact quote and make it my signature.

Just look at some of the input whenever class/welfare issues are discussed. There are *A LOT* of people on this site who have no idea how the other half lives, and we make a major mistake if we think that doesn't color our collective concepts of AP/NFL purity and what it takes to achieve it.

I also think that rigorously adhering to the whole checklist is a sign of lack of independent thought. Which is not to say that everyone who happens to do everything on the list lacks independent thought - but the pursuit of the list as such is frankly kind of sad.

I guess what I am inarticulately and somewhat ungraciously trying to say is that MDC's collective self-image as "crunchy" rings false for me because it doesn't seem to have that much in common with the concept of the countercultural lifestyle and aesthetic I would previously have designated as "crunchy granola" before discovering MDC. A large part of that lifestyle is individualism and nonconformity, not only from the "mainstream" rules but from the whole idea of living by a rulebook, in general. I see many, many references to lifestyle choices that lie beyond the purview of MDC's specific AP/NFL obsession that would instantly disqualify someone from being "crunchy" in my perception if I met them in real life. That's not a judgment, it's just reality. It partly refers to me; I am not the epitome of countercultural lifestyle, myself. But I have not allowed MDC groupthink to colonize my lifestyle concepts. Anyone who thinks you can tell how "granola" someone is by enumerating from a finite list of specific practices doesn't know what "granola" means.

By strict MDC logic, the trim blonde McMansion-dweller who spends thousands on hyena fluff is crunchier than the tattooed inner-city punk mama who uses sposies because she has neither a washing machine nor a car to get to the laundromat. (Or make up whatever example you want.) It's patently absurd.

IOW, it's _already_ mostly WF shoppers who feel uncomfortable spanking, and the crunchier-than-thou dynamic doesn't help matters. The rest of our lives are just too messy.

Another thought: in any given MDC discussion, a huge red flag goes up for me when someone starts saying "Noone can _make_ you feel guilty" in defense of something they or others have said to...well....make people feel guilty. I think "noone can _make_ you feel guilty" is the MDC equivalent of Godwin's Law! Much of what I see on this thread is the same idea generalized to the site as a whole.

Beware of the mentality that only people with everything checked off the list fully belong here and the rest of us should just be sitting at their feet. Life is full of ambiguity. This is a discussion site. If the only thing that matters is either/or determinations with regard to a few specific practices, what is there to discuss?


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
Yes. The whole "No one else can _make_ you feel guilty" routine is functionally equivalent to, "I can trash you as much as I like, and if it hurts you, it's your own damn fault."

Except that in this particular case, I was stating it about _guilt_, not _hurt_ . . . and also with a mind to a conversation that goes more like this:

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

THAT is the reality on MDC. I do understand what you're saying and the types of situations where people expect others to not have any feelings, but I don't see those convos very often.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

OT But....Someone was defending giving Coke to a 2 year old?!?!

Wow! I try my darndest not to judge, but I am definitely not okay with that!


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I inwardly go ballistic over the pre-K snacks that other parents bring (sun chips, hawaiian punch, CHEETOHS, krispe kreme, no joke). I don't think I'm too fussy or or judgmental for thinking those snacks suck, complaining to the teacher, and being disappointed that they aren't following the guidelines. But if I came here and was like "what crappy parents" I think it's a different ball game. There are so many threads here where it starts "this mom in target was so evil to her kid" and maybe she was , but yk, some really gd moms have yelled at their kids in public, and you just never know what's going on behind the scenes. Not that that excuses the poor parenting, but it seems like there is more a focuxs on the parent being bad than the behavior being really repugnant.
_
By strict MDC logic, the trim blonde McMansion-dweller who spends thousands on hyena fluff is crunchier than the tattooed inner-city punk mama who uses sposies because she has neither a washing machine nor a car to get to the laundromat. (Or make up whatever example you want.) It's patently absurd._

I get that you're just making up a random example/ silly composite, but I don't see how somehow being blonde and trim and wealthy is alignment with being a mcmansion dweller who is only crunchy in the expensive, whole foods way. Not trying to be nitpicky, but I see that a lot here, like it's bad to be conventional in some harmless ways. Anyway, I agree about the checklist thing. When I first had my baby, honestly, I agreed with most AP stuff (natural birth, bf'ing, co-sleeping) and yet I shunned the term b/c it sounded cult-like to me. I don't know, as a new parent it just struck me as odd.


----------



## ^guest^ (Jul 2, 2005)

I think it's human nature to do this. I see it in EVERY subculture I've ever hung around. Crunchier than thou, harder-core-than-thou (respect to DK right there ^_~), more-traumatized-than-thou...you name it. Human egos inspire pissing contests.

For some people, it's a desperate need to prove themselves, to themselves. Sometimes they want to prove themselves to others. Sometimes it's just something to do, something to put energy into. And sometimes people recognize it for what it is, and get on with their lives without giving a rat's patootie what other people think. I've always known I could never win in a game of who's-the-most-(insert ANYTHING here), so I've never tried.


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Am I alone in thinking that the problem is not in the content, but in the delivery?

I mean, really. I'm an unusual person with an unusual lifestyle. Most of us here are like that. I don't think most of us are scared of stuff that's to the left of center. It's when people come after me, jumping down my throat, telling me all that I've done wrong and all that I must do right that I get skeeved.

OTOH, when someone posts something to me like, "Well, when my child had such and such a similar problem, we did x y and z, and it worked great. Here's where I got the information; here's how we decided." I mean, that's entirely different. Then, even if I look at how you handled it and think that it's not for us at all, I'm armed with new information and I haven't been attacked.

I don't think we're "watering down" the primary focus of MDC by having a little human compassion and flexibility, and by remembering that we're all in charge of our own lives!


----------



## devster4fun (Jan 28, 2007)

Hazelnut said:


> Not trying to be nitpicky, but I see that a lot here, like it's bad to be conventional in some harmless ways. QUOTE]
> 
> Interesting thread and I like this poster's point. On the surface, I would think MDC and those folks drawn to it, would be the least judgemental type of mama. Interestingly, I often notice the opposite. I wonder...if people made assumptions about me based on how I look, where I live and the cars I drive, they would be very, very wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

No uptownzoo, that's what I was trying to say. I see that a lot, esp. in the gd forum, which was mentioned. It's not always just "well you could try this" but it's sometimes couched in really condescending language that is making a lot of assumptions about the poster. Although, I agree with whoever said that most posts don't do this, but the few that do really stick out. It's almost like you're assumed to be very mainstream (in the not so good sense) unless you make 100 disclaimers to the contrary.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
I get that you're just making up a random example/ silly composite, but I don't see how somehow being blonde and trim and wealthy is alignment with being a mcmansion dweller who is only crunchy in the expensive, whole foods way. Not trying to be nitpicky, but I see that a lot here, like it's bad to be conventional in some harmless ways.

Well what I was more getting at is that MDC defines "crunchy" in a way that could perfectly fit people that nobody would ever call "crunchy granola" (regardless of if they think that's good, bad, or neutral) if they met them in real life. Which again, is not a judgment, but does indicate a certain departure from RL cultural reality. There have been threads where moms have gotten piled on for not doing everything even when it was apparent that socioeconomic circumstances were a factor. And don't think for a minute that the "perfect" moms I see at Whole Foods (and whom I never see at our local organic coop) never join in on that. I have no way of knowing exactly how much of the NFL trend is spoiled American "nothing but the best for my kids" mentality, but I'm sure it's more than zero. A lot more than zero.

And yes, some of us do think that deliberately embodying mainstream feminine aesthetics is undesireable. But lately it seems like there's no end of "OF COURSE I never leave the house without full face makeup!!!!!!!!!!" If you can't get away from such expectations on a site that never shuts up about how danged "crunchy" it is, where can you? Nowhere I guess.







:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *devster4fun*
've seen a few MDC members on the "mainstream" boards, preaching their views and beliefs ad nauseum. I'm not sure why some feel the need to be the chosen converter of all "mainstream" parenting ideals. If you want to CIO, spank and give formula...be my guest. Just don't bring it to MDC. And, the opposite is true. The babycenter folks probably aren't interested in GD, cloth diapers and non-vaxing.

You know, I recently checked out some of these "mainstream" places for the first time and was surprised, although I shouldn't have been. Those sites are not dedicated to CIO and formula the same way MDC is to AP, and it is really an unfair characterization. I saw a lot of AP discussion when I looked over there. Probably made by people who understand that in order to do something it's not necessary to have an attitude of elite purism about the fact that you do it.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *devster4fun* 

PS...I've seen a few MDC members on the "mainstream" boards, preaching their views and beliefs ad nauseum. I'm not sure why some feel the need to be the chosen converter of all "mainstream" parenting ideals

In my experience, simply suggesting what has worked for me, or stating my opinion IS taken for trying to convert people. When I respond to "trouble with breastfeeding threads" my suggestions on how to make it successful are seen as formula bashing, 'cause I mean heaven forbid you work hard to avoid it. By being determined not to do something you are automatically seen as "anti [insert parenting choice here]".

And THAT is why I no longer frequent "mainstream" boards. Or even voice my opinion in real life for that matter. I can't innocently say that my daughter is breastfed and that we don't use formula without coming across as anti formula. It gets old.

At a recent gymboree class we were all talking about different brands of clothes and how some fit differently in the waist and how it's different from girls clothes to boys clothes. I made the innocent comment about my daughters cloth diapers sometimes making it hard to find pants that fit without being too long to make up for room in the butt. I could see about 3 different women all start squirming at the mention of cloth diapers, and before I knew it the conversation morphed into the million reasons why these women choice not to (or rather "couldn't") cloth diaper. WTF?









I don't squirm or get uncomfortable when there is a conversation about what brand of sposies is best, or about what brand of formula is best, and I think that's because I'm comfortable in my parenting choices. When people come across as preachy, judgmental, and converting I think that half time it's because the other party is NOT comfortable in their decisions.


----------



## devster4fun (Jan 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
Those sites are not dedicated to CIO and formula the same way MDC is to AP, and it is really an unfair characterization.

Yes, it was a sweeping generalization. I think it does depend on the site. I've actually never been to the one I mentioned in a previous post. The mainstream site I DO go to, you're correct, is not "dedicated" to anything really. I suppose that's my issue. (Trust me, I'm a walking contradiction and dichotomy







) They accept discussions of just about everything...which is how I got my first exposure to some of the AP/NFL ideals. So, the good side is, I found MDC and a general way of parenting that I truly believe is best for my family. (plus a subscription to Mothering from a friend) The not-so-good side, if say, circ is regularly discussed as a good idea and the norm...doesn't it get harder and harder to convince the "mainstream" that's it's just not necessary?

Sorry, it's hard to explain myself with typing...


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
Those sites are not dedicated to CIO and formula the same way MDC is to AP, and it is really an unfair characterization. I saw a lot of AP discussion when I looked over there. Probably made by people who understand that in order to do something it's not necessary to have an attitude of elite purism about the fact that you do it.

Exactly. I HAVE seen forums (or threads) specifically dedicated to sleep training, and I stay out of them for the same reason I would hope that CIO supporters would stay out of our night time parenting forum. However, I got SO SICK of being the odd ball fanatic converter preachy person on the one mainstream board I was a member of after every "help me with breastfeeding" thread turned into a discussion about people defending their need for formula. And heaven forbid I post a link.


----------



## devster4fun (Jan 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
At a recent gymboree class we were all talking about different brands of clothes and how some fit differently in the waist and how it's different from girls clothes to boys clothes. I made the innocent comment about my daughters cloth diapers sometimes making it hard to find pants that fit without being too long to make up for room in the butt. I could see about 3 different women all start squirming at the mention of cloth diapers, and before I knew it the conversation morphed into the million reasons why these women choice not to (or rather "couldn't") cloth diaper. WTF?









Yikes...how would they know they couldn't CD, if they've not tried??

I've had countless similar experiences around co-sleeping. One lady told me I was going to wake up with a dead baby. Oh great...thanks so much for the help.

Like you, to some extent...I've given up the "fight."


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Whenever I read the "no one can make you feel guilty" line, I always assume the writer has inserted a silent "despite me trying hard to make you, darn you" afterwards. : )

I keep coming back to the golden rule. Passion and knowledge about a subject is wonderful - it is why I post here. I love hearing about alternative lifestyles that I most likely will never have nor want.

But we need to treat each other (and I include all the "mamas who feed their 8 month olds coke and cheese puffs" in that definition of other) the way we'd wish to be treated - we all know what it is like to have both your decisions and your moments of weakness thrown back against you in judgement.

My rule is this: if I wouldn't treat my child with disrespect, judgement and shame, what would give me the right to treat another adult, another mother that way? Even if she is not actually present on the group?

I think it is very easy to take the basic anxiety and insecurity we feel at being a parent and channel it into vitriol and antagonism towards others who are not like us, as a way to prove to ourselves that we are doing okay. As mothers, we are often damned if we do and damned if we don't. The stress and frustration we feel by trying to navigate rather tight boundaries of "acceptable" mothering sometimes leads us to lash out at others who are pushing against those boundaries. The only difference on MDC is that our boundaries are different than "mainstream" groups - who, btw, are sometimes more tolerant of reality and practicality than some of the more militant NFL/AP groups.

Fundamentally, when I am not feeling dispirited by the negativity on MDC, I find this place fascinating. I love the strong personalities and willingness to question assumptions. I love how women have no fear of having their voices heard and will not back down when confronted. And I love the passion.

However, with that strength and passion comes responsibility to ourselves and others. It isn't easy and it won't be fixed by a magic bullet. It requires ongoing vigilance by all of us and committment to a higher value of love and compassion.

My 2 cents.

Siobhan


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *devster4fun* 
Yikes...how would they know they couldn't CD, if they've not tried??

I have no idea. But the one thing I do know is, is that if I'd said "I never thought I could keep up with the laundry either, but I've found that doing 'x, y, z' makes it so much easier" it would have been taken as me trying to convert them. So I basically just sat there and listened to them all bash cloth diapers. One of them even said "I have better things to do then spend my day scrubbing shitty under pants, like play with my son." Great, so I'm basically ignoring my daughter so I can wash diapers all day. No matter what I would have said, it wouldn't have made a difference.

Same thing goes on mainstream boards, or in real life. Even with the complete absence of rudeness, I have found a lot of people to be unnecessarily guilty of one thing or another (CIO, formula, bucket seats, pacifiers, you name it). There is truth to "no one can make you feel guilty but yourself". I know from personal experience. I am extremely guilty of a lot of things, and not because I can do better, but because I know better would be best for my daughter but I am physically unable to go through it. Like baby wearing. I get pangs of guilt when I hear mothers say they don't use strollers. It was not their intention to make me feel guilty, it just truly IS my own issue.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

It's so funny you guys have this thread going...I just left the babycenter group because it was getting way to mainstream for me....every day there was a post from a mainstream mom wanting to be reassured she was AP enough to be on that board...
I just wanted to be someplace where there were some EXTREME AP mammas who I could look up to as the GODDESSES they are and have them make me question things I do to see if they can be improved! I'm secure enough in what I'm doing to not worry about whether or not I'm "AP ENOUGH" or granola enough...personally I like being made to think. And sometimes it makes me feel better about the "non-granola" choices I make because I'm forced to think them through.
Anyway, interesting thread! Long live the Granola Queens!
peace,
robyn


----------



## devster4fun (Jan 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Great, so I'm basically ignoring my daughter so I can wash diapers all day. No matter what I would have said, it wouldn't have made a difference.

OMG...too, too funny. I LOL'd!! Only because I hear that crap all the time.

I work 19 hours a week and my mom watches DD during those hours. I have co-workers who work full-time and constantly say things like this. I was really tired one day at a meeting. I told them I had been up every hour, all night, responding to her cries. Their answer...well that's great you have so much EXTRA time to do that. OR, as long as that's what makes you happy. Um, thanks for the support ladies. (BTW one of them has twins who have been in full-time daycare since 6 weeks. Trust me, only because they have to afford their 750K house and Ann Taylor suits) Do I make comments to her about daycare? Never!

Wow...I'm on a super-soapbox today. Sorry. DD is SLEEPING ALL NIGHT and I feel like I have super powers from all the rest


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
One of them even said "I have better things to do then spend my day scrubbing shitty under pants, like play with my son."

How very...bizarre. I've been using cloth diapers since I had ds1 in 1993. I have never _once_ "scrubbed" shitty underpants. I've also never "spent my day" doing diapers. That's one of the most off-the-wall comments on cloth diapering that I've ever heard - and I've heard plenty.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
How very...bizarre. I've been using cloth diapers since I had ds1 in 1993. I have never _once_ "scrubbed" shitty underpants. I've also never "spent my day" doing diapers. That's one of the most off-the-wall comments on cloth diapering that I've ever heard - and I've heard plenty.

I agree, but like I said above, I didn't say anything because I no doubt would have come across as the pushy preachy cloth diaper lady. I've actually had a lot of people think that washing cloth dipes is this all consuming process, but the implication that you won't have time to play with your children because your days will be spent washing diapers was a new one for me too.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

_And yes, some of us do think that deliberately embodying mainstream feminine aesthetics is undesireable_

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

Plus, like someone said, I don't think one can always tell who is crunchy in practice by appearance. I know what you're saying about how we don't always factor in privilege and all, and how that is a huge factor in not being able to determine someone's dedication to their granola level, so to speak. But sometimes I might look pretty mainstream (even with that conventional make up) and I don't carry a sign that indicates how organic and green our household is, or how I co-sleep, cd, and breastfeed my toddler and all that jazz.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
Whenever I read the "no one can make you feel guilty" line, I always assume the writer has inserted a silent "despite me trying hard to make you, darn you" afterwards. : )

I think since I was the one that said the "guilt" thing, this bears repeating:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Except that in this particular case, I was stating it about _guilt_, not _hurt_ . . . and also with a mind to a conversation that goes more like this:

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

THAT is the reality on MDC. I do understand what you're saying and the types of situations where people expect others to not have any feelings, but I don't see those convos very often.

People here get offended by things that were very clearly NOT the intention of the accused guilt-monger. That is a problem. It happens very frequently.

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

When someone tells you that XYZ makes you a bad mother, that's HURTFUL, _not_ guilt-inducing (unless you agree with that person). Being hurtful is not OK, but it also is not the same thing.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I think guilt happens sometimes when you feel upset with yourself for not living up to some ideal, and I also think it happens when we're made to feel like we should be doing more than we can handle. Women are expected to do A LOT in the home, and I don't think it's always a sign of some inner weakness if one succumbs to that.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Please forgive me Hazelnut, it was not my intention to dig on blondes.







I was literally visualizing some specific mamas I have seen at my local Whole Foods. My best friend is blonde AND dyes her hair (albeit with henna). She's also as thin as a rail. But you would never mistake her for mainstream. By "trim" I didn't mean just happening to be slender, but playing it up with clothes and such in all the ways mainstream culture rewards, and exercising the kind of subtle social dominance we are taught belongs to such women - casting disapproving glances at the _really_ crunchy people next to them in line.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

So I come back to the same question: What should happen here?

Some people really are "extreme". Are they suppose to shut up? Are they suppose to fabricate stories about something non-AP they did to make sure no one feels guilty? To make them more "Real"? We have a UA. It prevents posters from attacking. Posts designed to purposely and obviously guilt people can be reported. If it does not fall under that catagory, I think it is pretty pretentious to assume the poster is trying to guilt anyone. I think the meer presense of strong opinions is always going to invoke guilt in someone. Even if everyone tiptoes around. At some point you have to own your guilt. Like, back to Taco Bell. If I wander on to a thread where people are discussing fast food and how bad it is. Someone might post that they THINK feeding kids fast food is "child abuse." That might start to tug on my guilt strings since I have fed my dd Taco Bell. But then I have to step back and say "OK, this person THINKS it is child abuse......I do not......I am comfortable with what I am doing." Or i might say "Hmmmm, that person has a point....maybe it is a bad idea, I should mull that over...." But to come back on and say "Hey you are trying to guilt *me*, STOP IT!" is just silly. Nothing on this board is all about *me*.

That is what I see on this thread. People want to tailor how others post so they feel better. What is the point of that? Isn't the whole point of thoughtful discussion about pushing your confort zone, questioning your ideas, learning new things, hearing strong opinions, articulating your beliefs, and allowing those beliefs to be questioned/challenged?

I also think that anyone that participates on a messgae coard needs to remember that written words and tone are interpretted differently by each person. Oftentimes I see people accusing others of tone that I just do not see. I try to always assume the best intentions when interpretting tone. That has saved me from many a flame-war.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
That is what I see on this thread. People want to tailor how others post so they feel better. What is the point of that? Isn't the whole point of thoughtful discussion about pushing your confort zone, questioning your ideas, learning new things, hearing strong opinions, articulating your beliefs, and allowing those beliefs to be questioned/challenged?

I also think that anyone that participates on a messgae coard needs to remember that written words and tone are interpretted differently by each person. Oftentimes I see people accusing others of tone that I just do not see. I try to always assume the best intentions when interpretting tone. That has saved me from many a flame-war.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Fuller - amen sister. If I have to attend one more women's group or similar where everything is supposed to be done by unanimous group think, and competition and debate are looked down on (unless of course you deserve to be beaten to death for not being group-think enough) I may burst a blood vessel in my head or poke my own eye out with a pen.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I'm not seeing people trying to censor what others say. I think this is all part of what you are talking about Yooper, organic discussion where people get challenged, express their beliefs, and comfort zones get prodded a little.

This time it is around extremism and judgment. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I don't see it either. I see people just wanting the condescension checked at the door, with maybe a little understanding if someone isn't up to snuff in all departments.

Thanks Galatea. Sorry if I was getting very particular, but that always gets me.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:

Someone might post that they THINK feeding kids fast food is "child abuse."
I just don't see how statements of "It is child abuse to [fill in the blank]..." [....feed fast food, let them watch TV, use disposable diapers, a harness, model traditional gender roles, use non-"natural" consequences, etc etc etc...] is a constructive form of discourse. It is a deliberately exaggerated statement which serves only to project a greater level of negative emotional judgment than the person is prepared to rationally justify or spell out in other terms.

Several posters seem to want to privilege those whose parenting practices are "extreme" or pure AP in a sort of pecking order where it's OK to talk down to people and use inflammatory rhetoric and they cannot be challenged because they are some kind of core group. But this isn't about our actual parenting practices. It's about behavior on a discussion forum. And it's a huge logical fallacy to assume that the people who are insensitive to others are the most hard-core APers. So what this is going to end up doing is privileging the people, not with the most knowledge or experience, but with the most attitude. This is already the case on MDC to a large extent. People who object to incompassionate communication are constantly getting it turned around on them and told their objections are nothing more than a sign of a guilty conscience.

I really think the UA and the moderation on this board are so strict because they have to be. I shudder to think what people would do to each other without them.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
My rule is this: if I wouldn't treat my child with disrespect, judgement and shame, what would give me the right to treat another adult, another mother that way? Even if she is not actually present on the group?

Such an excellent point. Thank you.

None of us believe that the best way to guide our children's behavior is by heavy applications of guilt, shame, lecturing, shunning, derogatory language, or snap character judgments. But somehow people seem to believe that those techniques are an effective way of making other women into better mothers.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Wow, I think that was really well said.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
I just don't see how statements of "It is child abuse to [fill in the blank]..." [....feed fast food, let them watch TV, use disposable diapers, a harness, model traditional gender roles, use non-"natural" consequences, etc etc etc...] is a constructive form of discourse. It is a deliberately exaggerated statement which serves only to project a greater level of negative emotional judgment than the person is prepared to rationally justify or spell out in other terms.

Several posters seem to want to privilege those whose parenting practices are "extreme" or pure AP in a sort of pecking order where it's OK to talk down to people and use inflammatory rhetoric and they cannot be challenged because they are some kind of core group. But this isn't about our actual parenting practices. It's about behavior on a discussion forum. And it's a huge logical fallacy to assume that the people who are insensitive to others are the most hard-core APers. So what this is going to end up doing is privileging the people, not with the most knowledge or experience, but with the most attitude. This is already the case on MDC to a large extent. People who object to incompassionate communication are constantly getting it turned around on them and told their objections are nothing more than a sign of a guilty conscience.

I really think the UA and the moderation on this board are so strict because they have to be. I shudder to think what people would do to each other without them.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
I just don't see how statements of "It is child abuse to [fill in the blank]..." [....feed fast food, let them watch TV, use disposable diapers, a harness, model traditional gender roles, use non-"natural" consequences, etc etc etc...] is a constructive form of discourse. It is a deliberately exaggerated statement which serves only to project a greater level of negative emotional judgment than the person is prepared to rationally justify or spell out in other terms.

Several posters seem to want to privilege those whose parenting practices are "extreme" or pure AP in a sort of pecking order where it's OK to talk down to people and use inflammatory rhetoric and they cannot be challenged because they are some kind of core group. But this isn't about our actual parenting practices. It's about behavior on a discussion forum. And it's a huge logical fallacy to assume that the people who are insensitive to others are the most hard-core APers. So what this is going to end up doing is privileging the people, not with the most knowledge or experience, but with the most attitude. This is already the case on MDC to a large extent. People who object to incompassionate communication are constantly getting it turned around on them and told their objections are nothing more than a sign of a guilty conscience.

I really think the UA and the moderation on this board are so strict because they have to be. I shudder to think what people would do to each other without them.

That is why i very carefully included "think" in that sentance. I have actually never in any thread called anything "child abuse". I was just using it an an example. Someone might really *think* it IS child abuse. You are allowed to *think* that. You are allowed to say you *think* it. It is different than just calling it abuse. I guess it is just an example similar to the people that *think* CIO is child abuse.

I also never said that i think *anyone* should be allowed to talk down to people or purposely be rude/condescending/etc..... What I said is that "extreme" people should not have to be quiet and go away because someone feels guilty about thier very existense.

But. This is an AP/NFL board. People should be free to respectfully (within the UA guidelines) express their opinions without worrying that someone not-yet-there is going to feel guilty.

I am not one of the "extremes" on this board. Or at least i do not think so. I do plenty of things that I have thoughtfully chosen to do that might go against the AP/NFL "checklist". I am OK with that. I do not need validation from everyone on this board to feel Ok with those decisions. I am here to talk about the AP/NFL topics that I am either doing or interested in learning about.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
Such an excellent point. Thank you.

None of us believe that the best way to guide our children's behavior is by heavy applications of guilt, shame, lecturing, shunning, derogatory language, or snap character judgments. But somehow people seem to believe that those techniques are an effective way of making other women into better mothers.


I have not heard anyone say that they think people should be treating people this way. My concern are the posters that are saying that people who hold extreme views or live thier lives in extreme ways should be quiet. I am also concerned that people think we should sit around talking about how great disposables and formula are to keep from offending anyone. It is a NFL board. It is OK to say that you *think* disposables are irresponsible. Respectfully and within the UA guidelines. Attacking another poster for using them is an entirely different manner and I have not seen anyone defend that practice on this thread.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
My concern are the posters that are saying that people who hold extreme views or live thier lives in extreme ways should be quiet.

Okay, and *this* is what I'm not seeing. I'm seeing objections to the judgment and rudeness, not to 'extreme' ways of living.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *devster4fun* 

Sorry, it's hard to explain myself with typing...

Yep, same here, but I am going to get better at it.


----------



## pixiewytch (Feb 7, 2007)

It sucks that we tend to label people based on appearance but I know I'm guilty of it to some degree myself as well as being the victim of such judgement.

Several years ago I had all natural dreadlocks, didn't shave, didn't wear makeup, and went to the health food store with my canvas shopping bags and birks on. I got plenty of dirty looks from the more "mainstream" crowd. It wasn't a phase but an exploration in boycotting beauty standards I was going through at the time...very self healing btw but that is another discussion.

At any rate, I am now the bottle blonde, sometimes with a patchwork bag and sometimes with a designer bag, sometimes wearing juicy sweats and makeup, sometimes wearing hemp. Anyway, I'm sure I've been mistaken as the suburbanite mom with an SUV which is far, far from the truth based on how I look now vs. the way I looked several years ago. The truth of the matter is that I'm the same person inside I was then...still crunchy, still caring about the environment, social change, and still going to those hippie festivals. So you can't always judge a book by its cover, that's for sure.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
I am not one of the "extremes" on this board. Or at least i do not think so. I do plenty of things that I have thoughtfully chosen to do that might go against the AP/NFL "checklist". I am OK with that. I do not need validation from everyone on this board to feel Ok with those decisions. I am here to talk about the AP/NFL topics that I am either doing or interested in learning about.

The thing is, this is not a purely educational/informational board and I really don't think most people perceive it as such. It is very much a community, that people start to identify with after a while. And it can be hurtful to have the support of that community withdrawn because one doesn't have this or that box checked off. It's conditional friendship and all it will do is cause people to be dishonest about their lives for fear of getting hurt. It will become a venue for displaying an online persona and crowing over one's own purity rather than discussing natural parenting. Which is already enough of a problem as it is IMO.

As for the child abuse Taco Bell example, "I think that..." is nowhere near a sufficiently strong disclaimer for deliberately inflammatory, exaggerated rhetoric. Yeah they may THINK that, but what are they trying to achieve in SAYING it?


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiewytch* 
It sucks that we tend to label people based on appearance but I know I'm guilty of it to some degree myself as well as being the victim of such judgement.

Several years ago I had all natural dreadlocks, didn't shave, didn't wear makeup, and went to the health food store with my canvas shopping bags and birks on. I got plenty of dirty looks from the more "mainstream" crowd. It wasn't a phase but an exploration in boycotting beauty standards I was going through at the time...very self healing btw but that is another discussion.

At any rate, I am now the bottle blonde, sometimes with a patchwork bag and sometimes with a designer bag, sometimes wearing juicy sweats and makeup, sometimes wearing hemp. Anyway, I'm sure I've been mistaken as the suburbanite mom with an SUV which is far, far from the truth based on how I look now vs. the way I looked several years ago. The truth of the matter is that I'm the same person inside I was then...still crunchy, still caring about the environment, social change, and still going to those hippie festivals. So you can't always judge a book by its cover, that's for sure.

I look more mainstream than I am, which isn't saying much. But I hit a rough patch in life and for several years had much bigger things to worry about than whether my paisley skirts were REAL Indian block prints or industrial repros. I should have been clearer that I am not talking about people who merely _look_ mainstream, but those who actually _are_ mainstream in areas of life outside the strict technical definitions of AP. I don't know if the ladies I saw at WF are among them, but I know they exist, because they post to MDC about how no respectable woman would ever dream of leaving the house without "full face makeup."

I think the word I'm looking for is "co-opted." And I think the snarky crunchier-than-thou phenomenon is, in part, a confused and counterproductive attempt to deal with such.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

I love my friends that go to Mickey D's
I love my friends that are raw food eatin' vegans
I love myself for the die hard carnivore that I am
I love my friends who wouldn't dig in the dirt for fear that they would get it under their fake nails
I love my friends who say "what does *organic* mean?
I love my friend who gives her child a pacifier and tries to convice me to do the same
I love myself who does cloth & disposable
I love myself who wouldn't dare go to any sort of gathering without makeup.
I love myself for carrying my child in a sling, but sometimes my back hurts so she gets put in the stroller
I love my friend who puts her child in their crib on the second floor and they sleep on the first.

I don't judge any of these loved ones for they way that they choose to parent and live.

Well, the point I am trying to make is that we can't all be the same and I look at the differences in my friends as the people in my life that "smooth out the edges of *me*". I've learned things from them and they have learned things from me. That is why I like MDC. No, I don't label myself with any parenting label. We are who we are. I don't want everyone to be like me, because if they were, then there would be nothing more to learn from others.


----------



## Krystal323 (May 14, 2004)

: i read to page 4 and wanted to sub







:


----------



## devster4fun (Jan 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 

Well, the point I am trying to make is that we can't all be the same and I look at the differences in my friends as the people in my life that "smooth out the edges of *me*". I've learned things from them and they have learned things from me. That is why I like MDC. No, I don't label myself with any parenting label. We are who we are. I don't want everyone to be like me, because if they were, then there would be nothing more to learn from others.









A woman after my heart....Koom bay ah....


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
The thing is, this is not a purely educational/informational board and I really don't think most people perceive it as such. It is very much a community, that people start to identify with after a while. And it can be hurtful to have the support of that community withdrawn because one doesn't have this or that box checked off. It's conditional friendship and all it will do is cause people to be dishonest about their lives for fear of getting hurt. It will become a venue for displaying an online persona and crowing over one's own purity rather than discussing natural parenting. Which is already enough of a problem as it is IMO.

I guess I have never seen this. I have no idea if people are lying. None of us do. Of course, I am actually a 50 yo male with no children







I have never seen anyone shooed off because they do not do something on some sort of checklist. I HAVE seen people chastised for declaring they love Hummers because of the way they look and would buy one if they had the cash. I do not think it is OK to attack or belittle someone for declaring that. But I do think it is perfectly acceptable to state you feel that opinion is irresposible. It IS a NFL board after all.

What I do see over and over is someone saying "I think toilet paper is wasteful and I cannot afford to buy it, give me suggestions". Then all sorts of people come on with suggestions that the OP shoots down one after another. Turns out the OP actually wants everyone to say "yeah it is wasteful but you gotta do what you gotta do, here are some pats on the back". If that is what we have to do to make everyone feel all happy inside, then forget it. It is a waste of my time to post suggestions in what turns out to be cleverly disguised just-give-me-pats threads.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
As for the child abuse Taco Bell example, "I think that..." is nowhere near a sufficiently strong disclaimer for deliberately inflammatory, exaggerated rhetoric. Yeah they may THINK that, but what are they trying to achieve in SAYING it?

Well, they might be trying to say they think it is child abuse. Obviously, this fictional example is getting a little silly. But depending on the context of the thread and the parameters around it, a statement like that might be useful to someone who feels strongly about it. If I were posting on that thread, I would think "gee that person has some strong views" and move on since I love TB way too much to worry what some unknown person thinks about me taking my kid there.


----------



## pixiewytch (Feb 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
I look more mainstream than I am, which isn't saying much. But I hit a rough patch in life and for several years had much bigger things to worry about than whether my paisley skirts were REAL Indian block prints or industrial repros. I should have been clearer that I am not talking about people who merely _look_ mainstream, but those who actually _are_ mainstream in areas of life outside the strict technical definitions of AP. I don't know if the ladies I saw at WF are among them, but I know they exist, because they post to MDC about how no respectable woman would ever dream of leaving the house without "full face makeup."

I think the word I'm looking for is "co-opted." And I think the snarky crunchier-than-thou phenomenon is, in part, a confused and counterproductive attempt to deal with such.

I hear ya. I didn't have time before but let me tell you that I have my own hangups about judging people who have "co opted" as you put it. I have an issue with going to the health food store in my little beat up Geo amongst a sea of Lexuses and SUV's. I have an issue with organic style magazine and how organic or ecofriendly has now become an interior design issue. I have issue with how being green is now a trend and that instead of making real lifestyle changes people buy some "green" product and claim they are making a real difference.

So there you have it. That is awfully judgemental...but then I realized that people are probably judging me too. In fact, let me help you out. How can I bleach my hair with all those chemicals and buy organic? How can I wear a designer bag made of leather? How can I eat vegan one night and then taco bell the next? How can I drink organic juice but drink several glasses of wine or beer the next? I could go on and on.

I've just come to a point of realizing that we are all human and nobody is perfect. When I looked the part so to speak I really did attempt the granola extreme and found as you were saying about paisley skirts which was very funny btw, that no matter what something wouldn't be good enough or granola enough or crunchy enough. Then I looked at the way I judged others for their decisions the same way others were probably judging me. I decided to be human, to accept that if I really wanted to bleach my hair it was okay..that if I really want to wear designer clothing because I think it is prettier than hemp or organic, that is okay. I'm not always proud of those decisions. I tend to see them as vices even, but I think if we try too hard we will still never walk a straight line and if we take ourselves too seriously we will never enjoy life.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
So I come back to the same question: What should happen here? Some people really are "extreme". Are they suppose to shut up?

...

I also never said that i think *anyone* should be allowed to talk down to people or purposely be rude/condescending/etc..... What I said is that "extreme" people should not have to be quiet and go away because someone feels guilty about thier very existense.

I don't see people being made to feel guilty or inferior by _just_ a persons extremism, or _just_ their crunchiness. It is the entire attitude these so-called extremists embody, and like someone else has already said, that attitude is not favored by many here when dealing with children, but somehow it is acceptable when dealing with adults?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
I also think that anyone that participates on a messgae coard needs to remember that written words and tone are interpretted differently by each person.

I think that is a two way street. Yes, people need to keep in mind that the "tone" they are reading may not be intentional, but at the same time, it would be nice if people would also take into concideration the "tone" they may be projecting.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I'm not seeing people trying to censor what others say. I think this is all part of what you are talking about Yooper, organic discussion where people get challenged, express their beliefs, and comfort zones get prodded a little.

This time it is around extremism and judgment. What's wrong with that?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
I don't see it either. I see people just wanting the condescension checked at the door, with maybe a little understanding if someone isn't up to snuff in all departments.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
But this isn't about our actual parenting practices. It's about behavior on a discussion forum.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I'm seeing objections to the judgment and rudeness, not to 'extreme' ways of living.









:


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

Hmm--Getting back to the idea that having to give your parenting a name is bourgeois. Actually, though, all segments of our society get names or identify themselves culturally by common behaviors and common lifestyles, common things they buy (and I do mean 'segments'--our culture is all about demographic fragmentation, mostly for marketing purposes). Like, you have the Nascar people, the Bergdorf Goodman people, the Stop-n-shop people, the ****** drinkers, the microbrew drinkers.

But maybe this is bourgeois, since all these people would probably call themselves middle class. Do the very wealthy call themselves anything? Do the very poor?

The thing is, though, that like it or not, people DO tend to connect with each other in the U.S. via shared brand names or shared lifestyles (that usually involve purchasing products). Things like buying piercings and tattoos are totally mainstream, even cliche, if you're in that group.

So the AP label serves a purpose. I think when people first start out 'doing' AP, they are often so swept away that they DO make it into a list of sorts. We're so used to being told what to do by experts--we're so used to NOT using our own instinct and judgement for anything--that switching to AP is sometimes just continuing to do that.

If you look at the history of consumption in the 20th century, you see that as time passes we become a more and more fragmented society. Identity politics played into this beautifully. Some people say it's why we are so far from achieving deep, lasting social reform that benefits everyone (like paid maternity leaves, nat'l health insurance). In the U.S., we just don't think of ourselves as a 'people.' We think of ourselves as belonging to some subcategory. The constant emphasis on individualism goes very well with this too. Both the left and the right pride themselves on their individualism--it's just being 'individualist' about different things. (The right is about economic individualism, the left is about cultural individualism.) Most of our cultural energy seems to go into finding ways we are different from everyone else rather than in finding ways to get together. A really good book on this is Lizabeth Cohen's A Consumer's Republic.

(Not that individualism is all bad. I am always fascinated by people here wishing they were in a 'tribe' to raise their children...but they forget that tribes can be pretty conformist places. And--Hmm. Wait a minute...)


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
The constant emphasis on individualism goes very well with this too. Both the left and the right pride themselves on their individualism--it's just being 'individualist' about different things. (The right is about economic individualism, the left is about cultural individualism.)

excellent point. I think one area where women are especially hit hard by individualism is that having children is often portrayed as an individual choice by the family. I'd even go so far as saying that many parenting decisions are called "lifestyle choices".

The upside of this is that it allows for more diversity of styles and, well, choices. The downside is that if something is a choice, then it is your responsibility - you chose to have a child, you chose that lifestyle. Therefore, the community has NO OBLIGATION to support you in that choice. And if your choice suddenly does require support from the community because you cannot do it alone, then you lose your right to have free choice.

So we benefit and we get burned. I guess you cannot get the good without taking the bad too? Interesting situation to be in.

Siobhan


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jazzharmony* 
On the "noone can make you feel guilty" sentiment, I have seen many people trashed after just mentioning gently the two words cloth diapers in another's disposable diaper thread. I haven't seen much trashing of the "mainstream" thinkers here but I have seen a lot of vicious bashing of the poor mother who comes here to express her sadness at the baby being left to cry upstairs alone at the dinner party she attended the night before. Or how dare someone suggest that a toddler shouldn't live on coke and muffins (remember the infamous pink muffin thread) I mean really.

I'm in a fix here; I'd like to give examples of posters being trashed for not willing to go to the extremes of AP/NFL, but I'm pretty sure that's considered a UA. Suffice to say that I've seen plenty of examples. (I don't remember anyone being "viciously bashed" for being sad about a baby left to CIO during a party, though - want to PM me a link?)

I will point this out, though: none of your examples involve crunchier/"extreme" posters being criticized for being crunchy or for posting about their extreme crunchiness. They're examples of crunchier/extreme posters being criticized for making harsh judgments of other people's parenting. There's a big difference.

I feel as though when people in this thread say "Extreme posters are being stifled! They shouldn't have to censor themselves!" what they really mean is that extreme posters should be able to criticize others, without in turn being criticized for being judgmental. No one has given an example of an MDC mama being told that she is too crunchy in her own practices (although people have given examples from their outside-the-net lives). Instead it all seems to be about the right to criticize mainstreamier mothers without having other posters disagree with your approach.

I guess I just don't get what's supposed to be positive and affirming about the dozens and dozens of threads that boil down to, "I saw someone parenting in a way that I wouldn't parent. Don't they suck?", followed by twenty follow-up agreements decorated with crying or vomiting smilies. I'm really glad that those kinds of posts are increasingly met with critical feedback amongst the agreeing comments.

Because as much as I don't support a steady diet of coke and muffins for a toddler, for example, I also recognize that sitting around with a bunch of like-minded mamas complaining about how awful it is that people feed their kids crap doesn't do one single thing to improve childhood nutrition. If it was something that upset me enough that I was losing sleep over it, I wouldn't go looking online for validation that I'm a better mother than the ones who feed their kids coke and muffins - I'd see what I could do about volunteering with a parenting education program.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I just took a pan of muffins out of the oven, and am planning to feed them to my toddler. They are whole-wheat banana-raisin-bran muffins, and decidedly not pink, so hopefully my posting privileges won't be revoked over this.)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
Hmm--Getting back to the idea that having to give your parenting a name is bourgeois. Actually, though, all segments of our society get names or identify themselves culturally by common behaviors and common lifestyles, common things they buy (and I do mean 'segments'--our culture is all about demographic fragmentation, mostly for marketing purposes). Like, you have the Nascar people, the Bergdorf Goodman people, the Stop-n-shop people, the ****** drinkers, the microbrew drinkers.

This is quite true. But, the fact that marketing people want to slot me neatly into a demographic pigeonhole doesn't mean that I have to hand them the label and crawl inside. Years ago, I worked with an advertising guy, who brought out his "bible" - a breakdown of demographic groups, according to socio-economic status, education, religious beliefs and a bunch of other categories. I fit into at least one category for each grouping. He told me I was making it up. The idea that I didn't fit mostly, or totally, into any of his slots threatened him. Tough. I refuse to be slotted into any label. I wore the label "metalhead" when I was a teenager, and I wore it with pride. But, that was 20 years ago, and the only labels I wear now are "wife" and "mother" - and I define what they mean - nobody else.

Quote:

But maybe this is bourgeois, since all these people would probably call themselves middle class. Do the very wealthy call themselves anything? Do the very poor?
I don't call myself anything, and I don't think I'm very poor these days...and I'm certainly not very wealthy.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"Hmm--Getting back to the idea that having to give your parenting a name is bourgeois. Actually, though, all segments of our society get names or identify themselves culturally by common behaviors and common lifestyles, common things they buy (and I do mean 'segments'--our culture is all about demographic fragmentation, mostly for marketing purposes). Like, you have the Nascar people, the Bergdorf Goodman people, the Stop-n-shop people, the ****** drinkers, the microbrew drinkers."

Isn't this the function of signature lines here? To identify segments?

Since we're communicating online, we can't look at one another and say "that's the alterna/punk mother" "that's the Whole Foods, Bergdorf Goodman mother" "that's the hippie mother" and signature lines fulfill that function (which is the reason why I don't have one).

I think some people use them as a short-hand for the particular ways they are crunchy or to provide insta-granola cred. I guess I wonder why people feel they need that.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
Isn't this the function of signature lines here? To identify segments?

No. I don't see how identifying myself as a breastfeeder is putting me into a social segment.

Quote:

I think some people use them as a short-hand for the particular ways they are crunchy or to provide insta-granola cred. I guess I wonder why people feel they need that.
Because I can't walk around in real life spouting off about how my almost 1 year old likes to nurse standing up while I sit on the sofa, or about the new cute wool cover I just got in the mail, or how I woke up pinned next to the head board with her butt in my face. These things are not "normal" in society, sadly, and to flaunt them proudly and talk about them as if they are normal either makes me a pushy Nazi breastfeeder (which I've heard WAY too many people refer to LLLI as), a weirdo, a hippie.. all other sorts of names. Or labels for that matter.

THIS is the place I feel safe being a proud breastfeeding, co-sleeping, non vaxing, slinging, organic eating, cloth diapering mama, and THIS is the place where I want to show case those things without being judged for it.

Now it seems even a signature line is one more thing to judge a person's intentions by. Sad.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)




----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

FWIW I think there is a distinction between "natural mommas" and "AP mommas".....

For example, I have a friend who had her first baby at the same time I had my second. She CD's, buys the expensive wooden/waldorf toys, eats only organic from the local co-op, makes her own baby food, etc But she said to me "I read about AP and it seems like too much work." Her DD sleeps in a crib down the hall, she only uses a stroller (despite buying an expensive, beautiful mei tai), gives her daughter formula to supplement because she doesn't want to be a "pacifier", and takes every opportunity to leave her 6 month old daughter with a sitter so she can go "be an adult". (I'm not saying this because I think it's bad - it's just not AP by her own definition!)

Whereas I'm definitely more AP - co-sleep, EBF, babywearing etc. But the natural stuff is something I only sort of strive for. I use Disposable diapers, mostly eat organic but don't want to drag my butt to the co-op so end up shopping at Safeway, sometimes make my own baby food, and don't really care if my kid is chewing a plastic toy....so I'm not so natural.

I'm wondering if that is some of the distinction you all are seeing?

peace
robyn


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
*I feel as though when people* in this thread *say* "Extreme posters are being stifled! They shouldn't have to censor themselves!" *what they really mean is* that extreme posters should be able to criticize others, without in turn being criticized for being judgmental. No one has given an example of an MDC mama being told that she is too crunchy in her own practices (although people have given examples from their outside-the-net lives). Instead it all seems to be about the right to criticize mainstreamier mothers without having other posters disagree with your approach.

And I think I stated that isn't what I'm defending (I can't speak for others) a few times. IF a not-so-extreme poster asks for advice on a given topic, THEN is told a solution they deem too extreme, OFTEN they will turn it around and accuse the advice-giver of trying to make them feel guilty.

Please take what I write at face value. I don't mean anything more or less than what I write, and frankly it's a bit insulting to be assumed to have intentions that I don't have. Take a look at what I bolded in the quote above.

There are two problems on MDC in this respect:
1) Posters who write hurtful things with no thought to the people on the other end, and
2) People who are intent on inferring hurtful things (between the lines) where there truly are none

(please excuse the grammar in the post above, I'm distracted by listening to my dds play with a pieceocrap electronic plastic cash register dd1 got for her birthday, and no, I'm not happy that others persist in showering my children with ecologically irresponsible gifts, but yes, I'm gracious enough in receiving said gifts that the giver would never know it - but you can still bet come next Yule I'll be looking *here* for suggestions to guide the givers to more ecologically responsible gift alternatives)


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama*


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
I'm in a fix here; I'd like to give examples of posters being trashed for not willing to go to the extremes of AP/NFL, but I'm pretty sure that's considered a UA. Suffice to say that I've seen plenty of examples. (I don't remember anyone being "viciously bashed" for being sad about a baby left to CIO during a party, though - want to PM me a link?)

I will point this out, though: none of your examples involve crunchier/"extreme" posters being criticized for being crunchy or for posting about their extreme crunchiness. They're examples of crunchier/extreme posters being criticized for making harsh judgments of other people's parenting. There's a big difference.

I feel as though when people in this thread say "Extreme posters are being stifled! They shouldn't have to censor themselves!" what they really mean is that extreme posters should be able to criticize others, without in turn being criticized for being judgmental. No one has given an example of an MDC mama being told that she is too crunchy in her own practices (although people have given examples from their outside-the-net lives). Instead it all seems to be about the right to criticize mainstreamier mothers without having other posters disagree with your approach.

I guess I just don't get what's supposed to be positive and affirming about the dozens and dozens of threads that boil down to, "I saw someone parenting in a way that I wouldn't parent. Don't they suck?", followed by twenty follow-up agreements decorated with crying or vomiting smilies. I'm really glad that those kinds of posts are increasingly met with critical feedback amongst the agreeing comments.

Because as much as I don't support a steady diet of coke and muffins for a toddler, for example, I also recognize that sitting around with a bunch of like-minded mamas complaining about how awful it is that people feed their kids crap doesn't do one single thing to improve childhood nutrition. If it was something that upset me enough that I was losing sleep over it, I wouldn't go looking online for validation that I'm a better mother than the ones who feed their kids coke and muffins - I'd see what I could do about volunteering with a parenting education program.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I just took a pan of muffins out of the oven, and am planning to feed them to my toddler. They are whole-wheat banana-raisin-bran muffins, and decidedly not pink, so hopefully my posting privileges won't be revoked over this.)

Well, I am one that thinks extreme opinions/experiences/suggestions should not be squashed. But I also find the "I saw such and such at the park" threads to be pointless and mean-spirited. I think it borders on name-calling and is definatley judgemental for no purposeful reason. But it is not the very "extreme" posters I ever see doing this. Maybe our definition of extreme is different. I am talking about the posters that might take one (or more) specific area and fully embrace it. They are the people I look to to be able to answer any question in that topic. These are not the people I see judging anyone, just freely sharing info and answering questions. Sometime speople take the answers to their questions as personal attacks if they do not agree, but I think that is the risk in any discussion. I mean, I can tick off (or offend, or be "critical" of) my mom simply by saying I do not agree that George Bush is God. Maybe that is why I am confused about several points on this thread?

And I will say it again. Where I see what might be a called "judgement" and critism" that bugs me is the really-needs-validation-but-is-masking-it-with-asking-for-help threads. I see them often in the GD forum and it almost always ends in a trainwreck. I rarely bother to participate when people ask for suggestions for that very reason. For example "I would like to cloth diaper and know it is better for the environment but am having challenges.....I need suggestions". Everyone chimes in with suggestions only to get from the OP "well, my washer is in the basement and I do not like stairs", "My dh will not let me", "the mailman refuses to deliver soft and fluffy packages". Then the OP starts to get mad that people are still suggetsing things and starts calling them judgemental and critcal. Turns our OP wants everyone to say "You are right, CDing is impossible for you, please feel really warm and fuzzy with using disposables". I do not frequent to CD fourm so this is completely fictional....before anyone jumps on it. But I see it everywhere. I honestly thought that is what this thread was addressing. If we are in fact talking about needless bashing of completely innocent and defenseless people, then I agree, there is no need.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
IF a not-so-extreme poster asks for advice on a given topic, THEN is told a solution they deem too extreme, OFTEN they will turn it around and accuse the advice-giver of trying to make them feel guilty.

I have heard it quoted "Guilt is a disconnect between your behavior and your values". But how do those values get set? They don't spring fully formed out of anyone's head - we read, we think, we talk to other people, we come to sites such as this one to learn from other people facing the same circumstance. And they are constantly evolving and changing.

Mothers come to MDC to learn how to be NFL/AP mothers. And the threads teach them about the expectations.

A dogpile thread ("SIL fed her baby cheetos! OMG!!" - with the long string of OMG responses) teaches newcomers what is considered unnacceptable behavior and the appropriate response to that behavior. So any mom who may have mistakenly fed her toddler cheetos thinks "Oh Sh!t, I had no idea how horrible that was!"

Sometimes this is good for something more obviously horrible, but most of the time I see threads freaking out over something that is usually pretty innocuous.

In the cases where someone makes a blanket statement that cannot be universally supported, we get a death spiral of "but what about people with this or that or the other circumstance" and a laundry list of ALL the horrible things that each mother went through in order to provide X for their kids, with the implication or the outright statement that anyone who did less is a selfish, lazy, dishonest mother. That teaches the lurker mother what she is expected to go through in order to consider herself a good mother.

Those threads scare the heck out of me. There was one that promoted seriously unsafe expectations for a mother - I was worried that any new mother would believe that she had to go to such extremes to be seen as "really trying" - when the extreme was VERY DANGEROUS to mother and child.

Don't get me wrong, I *want* to hear about how people were willing to move heaven and earth to do right by their kids and I love to see the passion people bring to living their values.

However, sometimes we set unrealistic expectations on ourselves and others - and this is a direct reflection of mainstream cultural values of mommy as martyr/perfection parenting. I find it ironic that when I questioned it, I have been accused of not supporting NFL/AP.

I really love the threads where out of unexpected quarters, a mama will say "yeah, I don't like to do Y, but I do sometimes because I am human and I cannot be supermom". I also like the threads where a mama will say "I value Z - and that takes all my attention and energy. So I have to give other things up, like X and Y."

And while they don't get a lot of attention, I love the fact that there are always mamas who will jump into a discussion that seems seriously amiss, and try to put some brakes on. There are some seriously smart and strong ladies on this group.

The thing for all of us to remember is that no where on MDC does it say that every member MUST adhere to all the core values - as PPs have said, someone might be pretty hard core about cloth diapering, but vax on schedule, or even (gasp) formula feed by choice.

The rules state that you must avoid promoting behaviors that are against those core values.

And I think this is valuable for MDC - otherwise, we'd have a darn small community. I wouldn't be there, definitely. Some members have at times peeled off to start their own communities, and more power to them. There is nothing stating that MDC has to be all things to all people.

I think that we do have to remember that we are speaking to more than ourselves, and that our actions will have an impact beyond ourselves.

Is a thread setting an unrealistic expectation for other mothers to follow? For ourselves to follow? Who am I really beating up when I jump on the bandwagon with an OMG? Do I even know this person? Why am I responding? What am I intending to share?

I go back and forth between hoping that the tone on MDC will be less negative and just accepting it for what it is. I come here with my skin nice and thick and I watch for the landmines. I am not alone in my experience. If that is how the community wants to run itself, that is great. If not, something will have to change.

Siobhan


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
I am talking about the posters that might take one (or more) specific area and fully embrace it.

I too find these folks the most interesting. Most of the time, they recognize they are extreme and don't seriously expect anyone else to follow what they are doing, unless they are seriously committed -because they KNOW what it takes to make that choice.

Quote:

Where I see what might be a called "judgement" and critism" that bugs me is the really-needs-validation-but-is-masking-it-with-asking-for-help threads.
I hear you. I usually stay away from those threads for the same reason.

In facilitation I have done, we have a "yeah but" ban. Basically, if you ask a question and participate in discussion, you are open to the suggestions and ideas of others. It doesn't mean 100% acceptance, of course, but "yeah, but" with a list of why the suggestion won't work is not conducive to conversation.

I don't know how to make that a rule - something like "don't post requests for suggestions if you are not open to change" or some such?



> "the mailman refuses to deliver soft and fluffy packages". /QUOTE]
> 
> This cracked me up!
> 
> ...


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I began to stay away from the gd forum a lot of the time, but I rarely see that. What I usually see (and have experienced, and have received pms of commiseration about it when I experience it) is asking for advice and people getting snotty responses like "you're making very dangerous assumptions" when no such assumptions were made, or someone clearly at their wits end asking for help and getting not-so-helpful responses that often seemd more designed to lecture than to help, so they're not exactly met with an open mind. Sometimes they don't seem to be listening to particular circumstances particular to the OP. But I don't recall seeing polite, understanding suggestions rebuffed. Maybe it happens. I don't see it unless the "suggestions" are patronizing and assuming the OP is coming from complete GD ignorance.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 









Actually had nothing to do with your post at all.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

WHO is saying that "extremists" aren't welcome here?


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
Actually had nothing to do with your post at all.

I still don't understand the point of posting that emoticon.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
WHO is saying that "extremists" aren't welcome here?









: I think there's some confusion here. I don't think anyone is saying that extreme mamas aren't welcome, or even that their opinions aren't welcome.

I think it really comes down to:
-Intent
and
-Tone

That is where the golden rule, and being gentle as you would with your kids comes into play, in my view. It's entirely possible to express yourself without being rude or condescending. And it's not about watering down your beliefs, it's about giving people (even people you disagree with) the respect that you would like them to give back to you.

I value the extreme mamas viewpoints, knowledge, and experience. I value considerate, compassionate extreme mamas even more.


----------



## RumiWithAView (Jan 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 







: I think there's some confusion here. I don't think anyone is saying that extreme mamas aren't welcome, or even that their opinions aren't welcome.

I think it really comes down to:
-Intent
and
-Tone

That is where the golden rule, and being gentle as you would with your kids comes into play, in my view. It's entirely possible to express yourself without being rude or condescending. And it's not about watering down your beliefs, it's about giving people (even people you disagree with) the respect that you would like them to give back to you.

I value the extreme mamas viewpoints, knowledge, and experience. I value considerate, compassionate extreme mamas even more.

Is it kosher to







: a







: ?


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
FWIW I think there is a distinction between "natural mommas" and "AP mommas".....

For example, I have a friend who had her first baby at the same time I had my second. She CD's, buys the expensive wooden/waldorf toys, eats only organic from the local co-op, makes her own baby food, etc But she said to me "I read about AP and it seems like too much work." Her DD sleeps in a crib down the hall, she only uses a stroller (despite buying an expensive, beautiful mei tai), gives her daughter formula to supplement because she doesn't want to be a "pacifier", and takes every opportunity to leave her 6 month old daughter with a sitter so she can go "be an adult". (I'm not saying this because I think it's bad - it's just not AP by her own definition!)

Whereas I'm definitely more AP - co-sleep, EBF, babywearing etc. But the natural stuff is something I only sort of strive for. I use Disposable diapers, mostly eat organic but don't want to drag my butt to the co-op so end up shopping at Safeway, sometimes make my own baby food, and don't really care if my kid is chewing a plastic toy....so I'm not so natural.

I'm wondering if that is some of the distinction you all are seeing?

peace
robyn


Hi Robyn,

I see that distinction too. There are a lot of moms in my area who are fairly "crunchy" but not very "ap". They do a lot of crunchy things but they also CIO, are not interested in GD, and think AP is "too much work" or a bad thing. The reason I'm here is to be in a place where AP is considered normal and also to learn about "crunchy" stuff.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp* 
V
Once at a playgroup where mothers in charge of the snack were specifically told to please bring fruit. I saw potato chips sitting on the table for all children to take. I nearly lost it. I actually asked out loud and in a voice that manifested my dismay, WHO BROUGHT POTATO CHIPS? At which point this very soft voice said, "Oh, I did. I'm sorry. I didn't realise that anyone would mind and could not think of what else to bring". At which point I apologised for sounding so harsh and explained that I was, um, rather particular about what DD ate.

But you see, in the end, it was not she who was in the wrong for bringing chips, it was I who was "too fussy".

I don't really see anyone as being wrong here. The person who brought chips instead of fruit didn't follow iinstructions but they weren't deliberately trying to harm anyone. It sounds like they were just a bit clueless. You were also not wrong for not wanting to have potato chips served. You made yourself clear and apologized for sounding harsh. I'm not criticizing you, but instead of speaking loudly you could have just taken the bag and then asked around whose it was and asked them to put it away.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I still don't understand the point of posting that emoticon.









Ahh geez, I just posted the emoticon as a way to say "wow, this thread is making me scratch my head" I guess I should have included the verbage as well. My apologies to anyone who didn't understand. I didn't mean anything condescending or rude when I posted it. My apologies.


----------



## my3peanuts (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
In my experience, simply suggesting what has worked for me, or stating my opinion IS taken for trying to convert people. When I respond to "trouble with breastfeeding threads" my suggestions on how to make it successful are seen as formula bashing, 'cause I mean heaven forbid you work hard to avoid it. By being determined not to do something you are automatically seen as "anti [insert parenting choice here]".

And THAT is why I no longer frequent "mainstream" boards. Or even voice my opinion in real life for that matter. I can't innocently say that my daughter is breastfed and that we don't use formula without coming across as anti formula. It gets old.

At a recent gymboree class we were all talking about different brands of clothes and how some fit differently in the waist and how it's different from girls clothes to boys clothes. I made the innocent comment about my daughters cloth diapers sometimes making it hard to find pants that fit without being too long to make up for room in the butt. I could see about 3 different women all start squirming at the mention of cloth diapers, and before I knew it the conversation morphed into the million reasons why these women choice not to (or rather "couldn't") cloth diaper. WTF?









I don't squirm or get uncomfortable when there is a conversation about what brand of sposies is best, or about what brand of formula is best, and I think that's because I'm comfortable in my parenting choices. When people come across as preachy, judgmental, and converting I think that half time it's because the other party is NOT comfortable in their decisions.









I completely know what you're saying! Someone can simply see ds' cloth diapers and start trying to validate their reasons for never being able/willing to do cloth. I'm always thinking, "Um, I never even said anything about CD and I really don't care that you're using Pampers so stop trying to defend yourself already!"







:


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
Ahh geez, I just posted the emoticon as a way to say "wow, this thread is making me scratch my head" I guess I should have included the verbage as well. My apologies to anyone who didn't understand. I didn't mean anything condescending or rude when I posted it. My apologies.









No worries! I just didn't understand what you are trying say. It's all good.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my3peanuts* 







I completely know what you're saying! Someone can simply see ds' cloth diapers and start trying to validate their reasons for never being able/willing to do cloth. I'm always thinking, "Um, I never even said anything about CD and I really don't care that you're using Pampers so stop trying to defend yourself already!"







:

People give examples like this a lot - the experience of having others strike up conversations about why they don't do whatever granola thing you're doing.

I wonder if it never occurs to folks that in many if not most of these cases, people are just making conversation, and they feel free to do so because they _don't_ load whatever choice is being discussed with the same value judgments we do. I think the perception that those people are trying to "validate"..."justify"..."defend"...etc, is often a projection of our own judgments of them. I think mainstream people often start these discussions because they see the issue in question as innocuous, even trivial - a safe topic for casual conversation.

I just wonder if it's possible to be more objective and open-minded in trying to understand why people say the things they do, rather than instantly jumping to "oh she must be feeling guilty because she's not exactly like me" in every case.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
People give examples like this a lot - the experience of having others strike up conversations about why they don't do whatever granola thing you're doing.

I wonder if it never occurs to folks that in many if not most of these cases, people are just making conversation, and they feel free to do so because they _don't_ load whatever choice is being discussed with the same value judgments we do. I think the perception that those people are trying to "validate"..."justify"..."defend"...etc, is often a projection of our own judgments of them. I think mainstream people often start these discussions because they see the issue in question as innocuous, even trivial - a safe topic for casual conversation.

I just wonder if it's possible to be more objective and open-minded in trying to understand why people say the things they do, rather than instantly jumping to "oh she must be feeling guilty because she's not exactly like me" in every case.

Sure . . . irl, though, you can often tell the difference between random conversation and defensiveness . . . of course, if you're often silently observing interactions between those around you, and you hear the "she thinks she's better than me because . . ." after you've already heard "she" say nothing of the sort . . . well, that doesn't leave a lot up to the imagination.
fwiw, if someone saw I was using cloth and started commenting on it immediately (even how they "couldn't"), I would interpret it as curiosity.

Either I have a lot of faith in people to not seek out underlying meanings to what they say, or I simply have so little respect for the "just-tell-me-what-to-think" crowd that I simply don't care to try and interpret them . . . I haven't figured out which.

Anyhoo, off I go again to analyze why I'm posting to this thread, which probably has little bearing on my life as a whole . . . (or does it? Is a discussion like this conducive to personal growth? Hmmm . . . )


----------



## BelovedK (Jun 7, 2005)

Hi, several posts have been removed from this thread that were discussing other members, specifically Granola Ambassadors. If you have issues with the actions or views of a GA, or any other member of this community, you are asked to take it to PM, either a mod, or the admimistration (Abimommy or Jacque Savageau)

Quote:

Do not start a thread to discuss member behavior or statements of members made in other threads or to criticize another discussion on the boards. Do not post to a thread to take direct issue with a member. If you feel a member has posted or behaved inappropriately in a discussion, communicate directly with the member, moderator or administrator privately and refrain from potentially defaming discussion in a thread
Thank you for your understanding









Kelly


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Sure . . . irl, though, you can often tell the difference between random conversation and defensiveness . . . of course, if you're often silently observing interactions between those around you, and you hear the "she thinks she's better than me because . . ." after you've already heard "she" say nothing of the sort . . . well, that doesn't leave a lot up to the imagination.

But it's not always false that "she" thinks she's better than the person. And "she" doesn't have to explicitly say so for the person to know it. That "ability to tell the difference" cuts both ways.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
No worries! I just didn't understand what you are trying say. It's all good.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
But it's not always false that "she" thinks she's better than the person. And "she" doesn't have to explicitly say so for the person to know it. That "ability to tell the difference" cuts both ways.

Yep, you're right. Both ways. And we see both scenarios here on MDC. And they both suck.
I would also put forward that a tendency to infer things that aren't there can occur in both instances.


----------



## my3peanuts (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Sure . . . irl, though, you can often tell the difference between random conversation and defensiveness . . . of course, if you're often silently observing interactions between those around you, and you hear the "she thinks she's better than me because . . ." after you've already heard "she" say nothing of the sort . . . well, that doesn't leave a lot up to the imagination.
fwiw, if someone saw I was using cloth and started commenting on it immediately (even how they "couldn't"), I would interpret it as curiosity.

Either I have a lot of faith in people to not seek out underlying meanings to what they say, or I simply have so little respect for the "just-tell-me-what-to-think" crowd that I simply don't care to try and interpret them . . . I haven't figured out which.

Anyhoo, off I go again to analyze why I'm posting to this thread, which probably has little bearing on my life as a whole . . . (or does it? Is a discussion like this conducive to personal growth? Hmmm . . . )

Yes, you can tell the difference.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
I think the perception that those people are trying to "validate"..."justify"..."defend"...etc, is often a projection of our own judgments of them. I think mainstream people often start these discussions because they see the issue in question as innocuous, even trivial - a safe topic for casual conversation.

I think that is distinctly different then the example I gave above. In a group of women talking about *girls and boys trousers and how they don't fit well*, my mention of DD's cloth diapers making the situation even more frustrating opened the door to; "OMG, I couldn't imagine cloth diapering my children, I have better things to do", and "yeah, besides, it's disgusting anyway", and my all time favorite; "I don't have time to spend all day scrubbing shitty underpants, I have better things to do, like play with my son".

And it all started with one innocent comment in a discussion as generic as the weather. Why? Because I feel that they were threatened by a parenting choice that I suspect they knew was better then their choice to use disposables.

I got the feeling that they were justifying their actions. Can't do cloth diapers because you have 4 children and 10 loads of laundry every 2 days, right? Can't do cloth diapers when you nearly wretch everytime you clean a poopy diaper, right? Why bother with cloth diapers when you recycle everyday anyway, that's good enough, right? Those are justifiable reasons *not* to use cloth diapers.. in THEIR eyes.

Have you ever met a smoker who lights up in front of you, then proceeds to give you 10 reasons why they haven't quite, or if they did, why started smoking again, and then follows up with all the other healthy things they do to make up for it? It's the same sort of thing.


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

I definitely know what you mean. It's like when you go to a restaurant and order a veggie burger and everyone else gets meat. You don't have to say ONE WORD about vegetarianism! or anything connected with food! and someone will make a comment. This never happens with my friends, but it absolutely happens if I am eating with 'mainstream' people.

I used to work in the office of an insurance company and I liked to go for a walk on every lunch break. I also never ate any of the candy and junk that was always around the office. I never said anything about any of this! but MAN, it was like the obsession of half the people there. "How can you not eat this? Gee, I wish I would go for a walk!" etc. etc. THEY were the ones who wouldn't stop talking about it--not me.

I have a neighbor who is very nice but whom I now sort of avoid--because two seconds after she says Hello she starts comparing her daughter (unfavorably) to my son. The daughter is usually standing there holding her mom's leg listening while her mom goes on and on about how much more social my son is (or worse), etc. It makes me so uncomfortable I actually avoid her a little, to spare her poor kid this humilation. The poor little girl always looks so sad.







:

People do indeed compare themselves to you, and will tell you about it. They will also become defensive and perceive that your actions are a criticism of them when you are doing nothing but live the way you usually do.


----------



## 2Sweeties1Angel (Jan 30, 2006)

I had somebody flip out on me before because I use a Diva Cup instead of tampons or pads. Apparently I was "judging" her for not using one. I only use one for comfort.

I've also been through the babywearing/vegetarian/breastfeeding thing. The veggie was the worst because it was back in high school and nobody understood why I wouldn't want to eat meat. People with strollers give me the evil eye when they see me wearing my baby. People with bottles stare me down when I say I don't use bottles. It's bizarre--I don't really care what they're doing so why are they sooo offended by what I'm doing? Or by what I'm not doing??

FTR, I don't cloth diaper because I'm too lazy and despise laundry. I have no problem admitting that. I used to CD and now I don't. Kudos to those of you who do--maybe someday I'll rejoin you. I doubt it because I like my Huggies, but it could happen.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Can't believe this thread is still going! Hasn't this horse been flogged?


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp* 
Can't believe this thread is still going! Hasn't this horse been flogged?

How is that a helpful post in any way? Obviously the horse has not been 'flogged' for other people. Nobody is obligated to contribute. I actually think this is a very important discussion for this community to have.


----------



## RumiWithAView (Jan 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuller2* 
It's like when you go to a restaurant and order a veggie burger and everyone else gets meat. You don't have to say ONE WORD about vegetarianism! or anything connected with food! and someone will make a comment.

This definitely happens... but I usually use it as a chance to inform others of factory farming. I don't get on a soapbox or anything, just politely tell them why I choose not to eat meat. Whatever they do with the info is their choice, but it's amazing how many people have the idea in their head that their meat comes from animals that spent their lives frolicking in a farm.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Sweeties1Angel* 
People with strollers give me the evil eye when they see me wearing my baby.

This really could just be people being curious. Until a few months ago, I had never even seen a person use a sling. I'm sure she saw me "eyeing" her, but I assure you it wasn't evil. I was just amazed and interested.

Has anyone ever read the book Momma Zen. The author writes of this comparison phenomenon. It's pretty interesting.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Sweeties1Angel* 
FTR, I don't cloth diaper because I'm too lazy and despise laundry. I have no problem admitting that. I used to CD and now I don't. Kudos to those of you who do--maybe someday I'll rejoin you. I doubt it because I like my Huggies, but it could happen.

If everyone was so confident in their decisions like that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Sweeties1Angel* 
FTR, I don't cloth diaper because I'm too lazy and despise laundry. I have no problem admitting that. I used to CD and now I don't. Kudos to those of you who do--maybe someday I'll rejoin you. I doubt it because I like my Huggies, but it could happen.

I don't do bottles because I hate washing up and I'm too disorganised


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maxsmum* 
I want to have CHOICES and OPTIONS to do whatever I want and I want my work to be valued. This is what feminism means to me.









: This is exactly what I thought when I read the OP. Feminism to me is the freedom to choose without having to defer to a man or become 'manly' to do anything, which I suppose is just autonomy really.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

It could be that this is one of those things where when you are the person who does the thing that other people aspired or wanted to do but didn't they HAVE to tell you why.

I run into this with people I know who have not had children. I can't tell you how many stories I've gotten from people who seem to think they need to explain to me why they didn't have any. The ex-bf who loudly talked to everyone in the area about his vascetomy and how he'd be glad to talk to anyone's partners about it was amusing. Or how they have cats/dogs instead of children (I've taken to telling them that my DH is allergic, so I guess we had to have babies).

On here though - well this is a discussion board ABOUT these issues. People are comparing notes because that is what a topical messageboard is about.

The reaction from the "less-extreme" people could also be because it may come off from some that anyone who is not extreme doesn't "belong" here. You DON'T hug trees, have bunnies of light, think tofurkey is evil because it mimics meat, think even cloth diapers are too unnatural, etc? Time to LEAVE!!


----------



## jazzharmony (Nov 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 







: This is exactly what I thought when I read the OP. Feminism to me is the freedom to choose without having to defer to a man or become 'manly' to do anything, which I suppose is just autonomy really.

But feminism is NOT -depriving babies of their birth rights because hey "if mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy".


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

No, I don't think feminism is about whatever choice you want- the word choice can really get corrupted. But I think with AP there is a real danger of mother's rights and needs getting completely sidelined to an unhealthy extreme.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
If everyone was so confident in their decisions like that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.









This is very true.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Uh-oh I should have been clearer.

The OP questioned the compatability of AP and feminism. I am talking about choice as in if I choose to bf and bake cookies for example I am able to make that choice - it has not been forced upon me even though to some it may seem to be a 'traditional' unemancipated role.

In the UK at least there was a feeling during the 80s that if one put family before oneself that was stabbing feminism in the back because feminism at that time only seemed to see the role of wife and mother as a subjugated one.


----------



## ^guest^ (Jul 2, 2005)

Maybe I've been reading too much Tao of Pooh, but does labeling others, coming down on others for not being crunchy enough, for "dabbling in the mainstream", intellectualizing the phenomenon of having a vagina and being a respectful, loving, attached parent, guilt-tripping and feeling guilty for one's minor transgressions, not because you feel your actions were out of line, but because you fear the horrified expressions of shock and subsequent cold shoulder from your crunchier-than-thou "friends"....

Does any of this make one a better parent? Educating others is just the act of giving them information and letting them decide what to do with it. Support is just offering love, respectful advice, and a consoling shoulder when needed. I thought educating and supporting on the AP/NFL lifestyle was what MDC was for? Maybe my assumption was wrong. AP/NFL'ers are already a minority amongst parents. Why go to the trouble of creating dissension amongst the ranks, creating ultra-crunchy-cliques where people who don't cloth diaper or indulge in the occasional pizza or a monthly macaroni in cheese...FROM A BOX! (EGADS) don't belong?

Even people who come here from a diametrically opposed viewpoint should be met with natural human respect - one does not educate and support through guilt, hate, and doomsaying.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

With respect to the OP's original question of whether practicing the ' granola extreme' is compatible with feminism, I'd have to answer that it depends on which strain of feminist theory you adhere to.

For example, cultural feminist theory embraces gender differences, and celebrates these differences as a source of women's power. Cultural feminists believe that women are essentially more 'nurturing, relationship-oriented and intuitive' than are men.

OTOH, mainstream/popular liberal feminist theory, or even postmodern feminist theory argues that it is the essentializing of women, which is precisely the source of women's subordination.


----------



## RumiWithAView (Jan 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Neoma* 
Maybe I've been reading too much Tao of Pooh, but does labeling others, coming down on others for not being crunchy enough, for "dabbling in the mainstream", intellectualizing the phenomenon of having a vagina and being a respectful, loving, attached parent, guilt-tripping and feeling guilty for one's minor transgressions, not because you feel your actions were out of line, but because you fear the horrified expressions of shock and subsequent cold shoulder from your crunchier-than-thou "friends"....

Does any of this make one a better parent? Educating others is just the act of giving them information and letting them decide what to do with it. Support is just offering love, respectful advice, and a consoling shoulder when needed. I thought educating and supporting on the AP/NFL lifestyle was what MDC was for? Maybe my assumption was wrong. AP/NFL'ers are already a minority amongst parents. Why go to the trouble of creating dissension amongst the ranks, creating ultra-crunchy-cliques where people who don't cloth diaper or indulge in the occasional pizza or a monthly macaroni in cheese...FROM A BOX! (EGADS) don't belong?

Even people who come here from a diametrically opposed viewpoint should be met with natural human respect - one does not educate and support through guilt, hate, and doomsaying.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Yeah, I don't think it was the intention of the OP to create dissention among the ranks, or to incite discussion that some mamas don't 'belong' here because they don't fulfil the requirements of 'ultra-crunchy' AP'ers/NFL'ers.

As with any phenomenon, or perceived 'social movement', it is only natural to evaluate it from whatever lens we choose to view the world--feminism, in this case.


----------



## BelovedK (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
How is that a helpful post in any way? Obviously the horse has not been 'flogged' for other people. Nobody is obligated to contribute. I actually think this is a very important discussion for this community to have.

This conversation can go on unless the posting violates the UA. Let's try to reign in the sarcasm please. Alot of people are enjoying this conversation


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Well, I guess I like hearing from the "granola extreme" on this site because in real life, I just don't know that many people that are granola extreme. I like reading info from people who don't wash their hair, who don't use diapers, who are still breastfeeding their 6-year olds. I might not do any or all of these things but for me it is still refreshing to get these points of view.

What I do not like is reading what is just plain BAD or WRONG advice to others in the name of attachment parenting or natural family living. Telling a mother that she should not be leaving her 2-month old baby with its father and should instead put the baby in a car seat for an hour or 2 while she does errands, all in the name of attachment, is just bad advice. Telling a mother who has not slept in a year that she has to keep her child in the room with her and that "co-sleeping can still work for you" is bad advice. Telling a mother whose baby cries all the time and has been consistently losing weight over weeks to keep up the work with the breastfeeding and not to give in to supplementing with formula is bad advice.

I can handle granola extreme. I can't handle doling out bad or wrong advice.


----------



## Sylith (Apr 15, 2002)

I am sure somebody here knows much more about this than me, so please be gentle if I









In any social movement, isn't it the very small, "extreme" fringe group which helps shift the mainstream? It's kind of similar to third-party politics. The Libertarians, say, don't really expect their Presidential candidate to be elected, but because they run one, people will be exposed to ideas they otherwise might not encounter.

I mean... Walmart sells organics now... despite the paiful irony of that, IMO it indicates a cultural shift.

On a personal level, it is never healthy to make ourselves into living martyrs for any unrealistic set of standards. But, maybe there is an important place for an extreme minority.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmlp* 
What I do not like is reading what is just plain BAD or WRONG advice to others in the name of attachment parenting or natural family living.

Okay, but - who made you the police of what constitutes bad advice? Further, who made you the protector of "the impressionables"? It might serve you well to give people a bit more credit. People give me stupid advice all the time, and I would be horribly insulted if someone came along and said "Don't tell her THAT! She just might do it! And we all know she's too weak willed to filter whether it will work for HER. Why, it could be a disaster!"


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jazzharmony* 
But feminism is NOT -depriving babies of their birth rights because hey "if mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy".

I really like that- might have to borrow that quote









-Angela


----------



## AllieFaye (Mar 7, 2007)

I've been really hesitant about posting my thoughts to this thread, but here goes. I agree that the granola extreme is incompatible with feminism - and I like it that way. You see, I'm a dittohead wingnut. I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh as I type. Phyllis Schlafly's Feminist Fantasies is one of my favorite books, and I never miss her column. I came to NFL/AP as an enhancement of my conservatism.







:

I'm also on the granola extreme. I uc'd alone in my bathroom. I use cloth diapers (which I hang out on the line) as a backup for ec'ing. We co-sleep in a family bed. I made sure to buy a sling that works with a child from newborn up to 18 months/ 30lbs. We'll be doing CLW and delayed solids. We didn't circ. In fact, we're on the extreme end for just about everything on MDC except vaccinations. I don't see any of that as inconsistent with my opposition to feminism. While I may be extreme, I'm certainly not doing it to keep up with the Raynbow Arwen Starrs. I'm not doing it to keep up with the Goldwaters, either. We do what feels right for us as a family, which for us means old-fashioned family living and instinctive parenting.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sylith* 
In any social movement, isn't it the very small, "extreme" fringe group which helps shift the mainstream? It's kind of similar to third-party politics. The Libertarians, say, don't really expect their Presidential candidate to be elected, but because they run one, people will be exposed to ideas they otherwise might not encounter.

This is likely true. And, so, with any social movement, it is important (for those who align themselves with feminism) to consider what the 'extreme' means for all women, or to ask ourselves how does this affect women? YKWIM? Who are the folks that promote and practice this ideology?


----------



## Sylith (Apr 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
This is likely true. And, so, with any social movement, it is important (for those who align themselves with feminism) to consider what the 'extreme' means for all women, or to ask ourselves how does this affect women? YKWIM? Who are the folks that promote and practice this ideology?

I don't think AP/NFL values are inherently antithecal to feminism.

Setting impossible standards for mothers is hardly new in our culture. It's a big part of our culture's ambivalence toward women. In the middle ages, the european image of ideal motherhood was Mary. I think virgin motherhood is about as extreme as impossible standards have ever been, but I can see how earth motherhood could result in self-martyrdom too.

But, you know, the so-called mommy wars didn't start here, and continue to rage in "mainstream" culture as well. If we are sacrificing ourselves on the altar of some unattainable standard of motherhood... well, it's about our internalization of the patriarchy, and the "granola" part is just a matter of picking your poison (so to speak.)

It seems to me that many of the things the AP/NFL movement holds dear are about mothers' empowerment. I see so much passion here about mothers' rights: to control our reproduction throughout pregnancy and birth, to breastfeed without shame, to be able to maintain their connection with their children if they WOH, to avoid disenfranchisement if they SAH. And human rights too, most obviously the rights of children.

I am not quite able to gather my thoughts and say what I want to say, and I need to get away from the computer. Basically I think it's a red herring to talk about the "granola extreme" because IMO that is not the root of the problem, just one version of it.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:



Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sylith* 
I don't think AP/NFL values are inherently antithecal to feminism.

No, I don't think they are either. Quite a bit of it reflects a resistance to our materialist, capitalist culture, which, is a good thing. Where the values can become oppressive (in practice) is when mothers take on the sole-responsibility for fullfilling all the needs of their children.

Quote:

Setting impossible standards for mothers is hardly new in our culture. It's a big part of our culture's ambivalence toward women. In the middle ages, the european image of ideal motherhood was Mary. I think virgin motherhood is about as extreme as impossible standards have ever been, but I can see how earth motherhood could result in self-martyrdom too.








yeah, I think the virgin mary icon must be the epitome of 'idealized motherhood'. But, it's interesting how mothers are often split--either idealized (for their self-sacrifices..etc), or denigrated for expressing their own needs. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium where women can be both 'good mothers', and 'individuals' without tension and/or contradictions.

Quote:

But, you know, the so-called mommy wars didn't start here, and continue to rage in "mainstream" culture as well. If we are sacrificing ourselves on the altar of some unattainable standard of motherhood... well, it's about our internalization of the patriarchy, and the "granola" part is just a matter of picking your poison (so to speak.)
I think it's more than that though. Can't articulate it right now, but I'll think about it some more.

Quote:

It seems to me that many of the things the AP/NFL movement holds dear are about mothers' empowerment. I see so much passion here about mothers' rights: to control our reproduction throughout pregnancy and birth, to breastfeed without shame, to be able to maintain their connection with their children if they WOH, to avoid disenfranchisement if they SAH. And human rights too, most obviously the rights of children.
I agree 100%









Quote:

Basically I think it's a red herring to talk about the "granola extreme" because IMO that is not the root of the problem, just one version of it.

What do you think the root of the problem is? (no snark--I'm asking as a passionate mama and feminist)


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Not Sylith but my take on it is this

Someone mentioned Calvinism a few hundred post back and I think that the protestant work ethic (PWE) has something to do with the whole parenting/ feminism/extreme thing in some way.

I can't put my finger on it exactly but it's do do with everything we do having a 'work' focus and transactional element.

The PWE leaves little room for leisure - the devil and idle hands......... and in modern time I believe that we have come to see leisure as our reward for hard work, but that leisure cannot come *without* work.

Thus the pursuance of a 'leisurely parenting style' or SAH seems to be without value and therefore somehow unseemly. On order to maintain the work/reward balance, parenthood and motherhood in particular has become more workplace-like and the day is measured by the achievements of parent and child and day to day life is presented as work.

I think that this attribution of work currrency to normal family life is what gives rise to the refrain 'I've had the kids all day - now its your turn' often heard IRL here along with 'If I bf I will have to do all the work at night as well ugh'

Back in the early 90s when I first became a parent I met very few women my own age who were mothers. The other mothers I met at toddler groups and in the park were in their 30s, educated and recently dropped out of the work environment into a foreign land.

I saw these mothers timetabling naps, feeds and activities and was aghast; it seemed like such hard work. Over the years I have watched them become professional parents transferring the skills of the workplace to family management researching, evaluating, assessing, calculating, planning their family trajectory from toddlerhood to university.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong to do this I'm just wondering if the granola extreme is similarly driven, if this is indeed a driver at all.


----------



## Authentic_Mother (Feb 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
I have seen it drive my DH's ex literally to her wits' end. With her next pregnancy I expect to run across her lying under some bushes in the park, in midwinter, holding a stick between her teeth and giving birth alone. Because a homebirth isn't enough, an unattended birth isn't enough, it's gotta be something even *more* natural. Rather than keeping up with the Jones, she's keeping up with the Raynbow Arwen Starrs.

OMG! **spews coke** That had me laughing so hard I had tears! My hubby's ex is just like that! LOL! She is working on her third unassisted (which Im not against, persay) and it seems to be a bragging right for some people, not a choice they make because they really feel its right for them, but something they do to say they are tougher than another mother.

That being said, I do live as naturally as I can afford. I use natural cleaners and pest remedies, and some more holistic-type healthcare. But I am not the type that will refuse to go to the doctor or take my child when I feel its something that is out of my scope of holisticity (think I created a new word!)I know some people who REFUSE any kind of outside help (ie doctors etc) but I know that there are just somethings that I dont have the training and full understanding of that could be detrimental to my child or family's health and Im not going to compromise it just to say Im extreme.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
I saw these mothers timetabling naps, feeds and activities and was aghast; it seemed like such hard work. Over the years I have watched them become professional parents transferring the skills of the workplace to family management researching, evaluating, assessing, calculating, planning their family trajectory from toddlerhood to university.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong to do this I'm just wondering if the granola extreme is similarly driven, if this is indeed a driver at all.

I would argue that the granola 'extreme' is driven by an active rejection of culture, in favour of 'nature'--a concept that predates history/culture and is understood as 'pure' and unmitigated by human manipulation. That there is one 'true' way of being that is separate from how we (society) construct our social environment.

It seems that at the 'exteme' end of AP/NFL values, is a way of life for mothers (women), that is based entirely on the body. I consistently hear mama's talk of 'instinctual' parenting, and choice-making based on an inherent trust of nature. But, this doesn't seem to be the case for fathers, and so, there is a very gendered element involved, which, may be an unsettling factor for some feminists.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I would argue that the granola 'extreme' is driven by an active rejection of culture, in favour of 'nature'--a concept that predates history/culture and is understood as 'pure' and unmitigated by human manipulation. That there is one 'true' way of being that is separate from how we (society) construct our social environment.

It seems that at the 'exteme' end of AP/NFL values, is a way of life for mothers (women), that is based entirely on the body. I consistently hear mama's talk of 'instinctual' parenting, and choice-making based on an inherent trust of nature. But, this doesn't seem to be the case for fathers, and so, there is a very gendered element involved, which, may be an unsettling factor for some feminists.

. . . I'm struggling for words here (as I'm sure you were as well) . . . for me, the extreme is something that is along the lines of "be the change you want to see in the world" (Gandhi) - and it has less to do with me as a mother or even as a woman than as a member of the human race . . . it's less about being separate from society (although a poem I wrote in highschool did incorporate the line "the call of 'civilization' sends chills up my spine") and more to do with re-integrating with the rest of nature (since I believe humans' separation from the natural world is ultimately the root cause of her destruction). It's not just about the body, but since I'm not really sure what you meant by that, I'll leave that bit alone. I'm concerned about the future of my line, most specifically - my great great great great grandchildren and what kind of world they will have . . . my username means "Mother Earth Warrior" . . . I don't think any of this is inconsistent with feminism . . . quite the opposite, I find knowledge of 'extreme' alternatives very empowering . . . I also don't think that biologically inherent gender differences are something to be ashamed of . . . especially given that there is no straight line, there's a whole spectrum to choose from, and frankly even being born one gender does not automatically mean one is that gender . . . I'm starting to babble, so I'll end here, I'll respond again when I feel like I'm able to make a point


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

Well, here I am posting again without reading the whole thread, but...

A few thoughts about the history of feminism in the U.S. (hoping my grad US history seminars will come back to me accurately







)

Since about the late 19th century, there have been 2 varieties of feminism. You might call them 'maternalist' feminism and 'equality' feminism. It's actually historically inaccurate to call maternalism 'feminism'--feminism is associated with equality, while maternalism or the 'woman movement' is associated with emphasizing women's *difference,* mostly associated with childrearing and nurturing -- and trying to create a society in which these are actively supported. Feminism is about creating equal access to education and careers, and NOT essentializing women as mothers and caregivers.

As you might expect, feminism has long been a middle- and upper-middle-class white woman's movement (since, like the men in their social class, these are the women who most realistically could get higher education and a career--they don't have to work in factories and until not that long ago would have had maids and housekeepers). Maternalism was much more inclusive--though still typically led by middle-class white women reformers.

(It's interesting to note that some of the European countries with the longest-running maternalist policies (like paid support to families or to mothers) were actually the most traditional. Germany, for instance, started actively supporting families with worker's insurance and other social programs in the late 19th century because they wanted women to stay home.

But in the U.S., social programs that support mothering became associated so strongly with single mothers and 'undeserving' welfare cases in the 1960s that we now think of such social programs as ANTI-family. Here, the policy has been for government to NOT support motherhood and children, because it is seen as DISCOURAGING father-led families. The social programs we do have, like Social Security, were originally and deliberately designed to keep women from becoming economically independent. We have totally detached public financial support for mothers and families here from the 'family values' rhetoric, which assumes that the best way to 'support' families is by NOT involving government but instead keeping everything private. Conservatives usually show no awareness that things like national health insurance, a much higher minimum wage, and year-long paid maternity leaves might actually work to KEEP mothers at home.)

Anyway---on feminism. The question "Is AP compatable with feminism?" is actually a really historic question that has been debated in one form or another for more than 100 years, if you think of AP as being 'maternalist.' And the way American feminism often goes, AP is actually NOT very compatible.

Another way to think about it. Since the 1970s or so, there has been 'difference' feminism and (again) 'equality' feminism. 'Difference' feminism celebrates what are usually considered 'female' attributes--intuition, caregiving, being close to nature. 'Equality' feminism, on the other hand, sees all these as being socially constructed cultural myths that actually support patriarchy. (How convenient that women are naturally closer to nature. That means, among other things, we don't actually have to give their science and math education much thought, or worry about the fact that there are almost no women engineers or computer scientists or, er, any occupation that actually structures the way the human world currently works.)

It all makes me a bit boggled, because I have been so strongly on BOTH sides. I have now started to reach the conclusion that we can be both, and also that this is not really the true issue. The REAL issue is getting men to expand THEIR social roles--and expand them a LOT. We need to insist that men care for their own babies and small children at least half the time, and we need to get women into decision-making roles that will alter the structure of work, law, education, manufacturing and retailing to allow the necessarily flexibility for EVERYONE to be able to care for small children.

The problem is that AP is almost entirely a women's movement. It needs to be a men's movement too.

But because AP is so intimately connected to the ONE thing that women get praise for in our society, I think we are loathe to share it sometimes.
It's why I think some SAHMs don't really WANT their husbands to care for the kids. What would the woman who feels her whole identity is centered on her AP motherhood say if her husband said, "Hey, *I* want to stay home with the kids half the time, OK? and you can get a job for when I am home"? It's like, "Dude, you get to run the world, and now you want this too???" But what would it be like if both moms and dads identified themselves as both 'mothers' and as active participants in the outside world? I think things would look pretty different.


----------



## Sylith (Apr 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
What do you think the root of the problem is? (no snark--I'm asking as a passionate mama and feminist)

Well... the basic problems I see people talking about on this thread are ultracompetitive and bullying behaviors. As your mama may have told you, the reason people do those things is because they're insecure.

And *why* are we so often insecure? I think it has to do with the way we are taught to measure our own worth. Orangefoot mentioned the "work ethic" and I think that's part of it: we have value according to how hard we work. But, for women, I think there is also a layer of... how to say this... we have value according to how much of ourselves we are giving to other people.

No, that isn't quite what I want to say, either, but I don't want to blow off this thread. I'm going to just put this out there, and if I figure out what I really mean I will edit it later.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

_Anyway---on feminism. The question "Is AP compatable with feminism?" is actually a really historic question that has been debated in one form or another for more than 100 years, if you think of AP as being 'maternalist.' And the way American feminism often goes, AP is actually NOT very compatible._

I tend to disagree, b/c I think this notion is rooted in the idea that things historically done by women (childcare, cooking, homemaking) are less worthwhile and less valuable than the things men traditionally have done. And that notion itself is sexist. It seems like we should be able to define a feminism where traditional women's work is valued but not _expected_ of all women, for starters, nor the sole domain of women.

I think AP (or maybe NFL even moreso) ideals can wind up being just another tool to overburden women, but I don't think it's inherently incompatible with feminism at all. A lot of it to me just seems like following instincts, using common sense, and not buying into the materialistic excess surrounding the raising of babies.


----------



## triscuitsmom (Jan 11, 2007)

I can't form a full post right now but I wanted to sub...


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
I think this notion is rooted in the idea that things historically done by women (childcare, cooking, homemaking) are less worthwhile and less valuable than the things men traditionally have done. And that notion itself is sexist. It seems like we should be able to define a feminism where traditional women's work is valued but not _expected_ of all women, for starters, nor the sole domain of women.

Love it.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I would argue that the granola 'extreme' is driven by an active rejection of culture, in favour of 'nature'--a concept that predates history/culture and is understood as 'pure' and unmitigated by human manipulation. That there is one 'true' way of being that is separate from how we (society) construct our social environment.

very interesting observation. Unfortunately the "natural" argument is based on a fallacy that there are humans outside of human manipulation - that culture is a cloak we can shake off if we put our mind to it. Unfortunately, humans are inherently social creatures so our involvement in and creation of society is part of what makes us human.

The particular form of that society can and does change, of course. But I cringe whenever I see the "what would a caveman do" threads or, "what do hunter/gatherer tribes in the amazon do" types of analysis.

I found Guns, Germs, Steel by Jared Diamond, to be a great introduction to a true evolutionary approach to cultural formation. Culture is not a linear progression from simple/less complex/early to complex/later - but rather all culture is very very complex, and adapted to the environment in which it exists. And it is constantly changing.

"Our babies, ourselves" actually addresses this fact dead on. There are good reasons why US culture prioritizes independence over attachment - because those values and skills prized in our current environment. This doesn't mean it is right or ideal or wrong or anything - it is what it is - a direct reflection of the current cultural priorities.

However, I think it is fascinating that the AP/NFL movement is moving out of smaller pockets and into the mainstream - after all, I can now buy organic food at my local safeway, Dr Sears writes a column in parenting magazine, breastfeeding is at an all time high, etc etc. The culture is changing. Something about AP and NFL is striking a cord with more and more people in this society - the values in AP and NFL are resonnating with more and more people.

Sure, the practices may be watered down or picked and chosen based on individual preferences, but the philosophy is increasing in popularity. And this to me shows a sea change in our culture - in 10 years, we will have a different american culture than we do now, I predict.

Other aspects I have seen - more focus on work/family balance in Gen Xers - we demand and expect it and will vote with our feet to get it. Baby Boomers retiring en masse, meaning a huge change in our economic structure is coming- hopefully a stop to the slow decline in economic spending power. The impact of global warming is becoming defacto accepted, and more and more people realize that they *should* do something, like buy smaller cars, use more efficient electricity, etc. There is increasing concern over exposure to media by our kids. And we are demanding more options for schooling, childcare, work, and healthcare.

So there is a lot of change out there. The extremes are important to push the boundaries. But most people don't live in the extreme. Most people aren't even at the cutting edge. I think MDC is made up of some bleeding edge, some cutting edge, but mainly early adopters of this new cultural approach.

My 2 cents.

Siobhan


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

*shrug*

I always took my position in life as doing what I could to be anything I wanted to be.

I'm not bragging, just trying to give perspective...I have a double degree, with a double minor...and i'm a stay at home mom.

I do what's right for my family in one particular moment of time.

It might be anti-feminist, or anti-AP, but it's pro-my-family.

Am I missing the big deal?


----------



## fuller2 (Nov 7, 2004)

Feminism again. Well, American feminism *has* ended up being more about getting women to be able to achieve things equally with men--getting access to education and careers, and being able to live life as an autonomous individual. That's what we value in this society, as was mentioned above.

I don't at all disagree with the idea that degrading work associated with women--caretaking, mothering--is deeply sexist. And I know that there are many people who consider themselves feminist who are SAHMs.

But--if you look at what feminism has actually been able to achieve in the U.S., it is NOT social support for motherhood in the form of things like long paid maternity leaves, 'mothers' pensions' etc. There was one last big stab at that in 1972---a low-cost child care bill, I think--but Nixon vetoed it. What American feminists have been able to accomplish (which is possibly different from what they would LIKE to accomplish) is legal equality.

However, since 'equality' in this case mostly means equality with men--NOT men taking on roles equal to women--we end up with a society that's pretty similar to the one we had before, only with a few more women in decision-making roles.

What many feminist women want is the chance to be able to become something OTHER than a wife and mother--to not be defined by her biology. That's why 'maternalism' has never been very appealing to many feminists. I know a couple of women who are disgusted if anyone assumes they are somehow naturally more nurturing or cooperative (read: submissive) than men--they actively resist these labels. (and are sometimes thought to be bitches as result.) Nancy Pelosi was criticized by some feminists for bringing her grandchildren to Congress on that first day because it reinforced the idea that women are mothers first and anything else second. But 'maternalists' would be just the opposite--they would love to see a world where mothering always came first.

I agree with siobhang (yay, Gen X mommies!) that AP is becoming mainstream, and that this has the potential to be a pretty big deal. The new mothers' movements are also really interesting to me, because I finally see the possibility of uniting the maternalists and the feminists. I see the possibility for a real restructuring of society in ways that benefit everyone--men, women, and children-- and I am all for this.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Siobhan - I'm curious about why it is that you cringe about hunter/gatherer questions? IMO, as a general rule, hunter/gatherers tend to live much more in concert with/to the benefit of Mother Earth, and have a much more interdependent/healthier social structure than the corporate/industrial Western culture.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Well...I'm not as optimitic as you are Fuller, about the possibility of uniting the 'maternalists' and the 'feminists' in a re-visioning/re-conceptualizing of 'women as mothers'.

It seems to me that at the core of maternalist ideology is the notion that there is an essential 'female nature'; and because women are perceived (now, and historically) to possess the inherent qualities of: nurturance, sensitivity, empathy..etc, mothers are seen (and see themselves) as in the unique position to protect the family, and the larger society against the 'evils' of materialism, capitalism, consumerism...etc.

There's nothing new here. The early American female moral reformers advocated for legislation, which would help protect the mother-child bond (pensions, public funding for mothers without a spouse, working conditions, etc). However, the result was that these laws limited women's participation in the labour force, promoted women's economic dependence on men, and defeated the day-care movement.

So, the fundamental values of the maternalists really work to undermine the feminist agenda to challenge the structure of gender relations. Even as the goals of both maternalists and feminists are to transform 'society' and achieve more gains for women and children, the strategies to that end are incompatible.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Siobhan - I'm curious about why it is that you cringe about hunter/gatherer questions? IMO, as a general rule, hunter/gatherers tend to live much more in concert with/to the benefit of Mother Earth, and have a much more interdependent/healthier social structure than the corporate/industrial Western culture.

Because we don't live in a hunter gatherer society. We don't forage for food or hunt and kill our dinner. We don't live in nomadic tribes of under 100 people where rules of behavior are passed down from generation to generation, where literacy is unheard of, and individuality not supported. We don't live in a society where a disabled child or wounded adult is routinely killed because the society cannot support it. And we don't live in a society where intermittant warfare against the neighboring hunter gatherer tribe is an ongoing affair.

We don't suffer from seasonal malnutrition nor do we suffer from many of the illnesses that hunter/gatherers do (especially modern day ones who are infected with larger population based illnesses - those diseases are devastating to those communities). But even in "ye olden times", hunter/gatherers had a life expectancy of around 45 years, and suffered from worms, parasites, malaria, etc etc etc. Life wasn't eden out on the savannah.

I actually strongly disagree that hunter/gatherers are inherently healthier social structure - by what measurement are you measuring healthier? Physical? well, our life expectancy is age 79, theirs 45 and our infant and maternal mortality rates incredibly low. Mentally? Not sure how to compare mental health, especially since our measurements of mental health were invented by our society to measure ourselves - they don't make sense in other societies.

I look at societal formation from an evolutionary perspective - humans are constantly adapt their society to fit their needs in a "good enough" fashion. IF a societal formation doesn't work, it will cease to exist - the individuals will change their societal formation to something that does work, or they will die or be absorbed into another societal formation that is more sustainable.

There is a reason why hunter/gatherer communities are nearly extinct. Their societal formation is directly at odds with current world environment - and their relative powerlessness compared with other societal formations makes them extremely vulnerable to decisions outside their control. Their ability to adapt their environment is limited - most do change their societal formation or allow themselves to be absorbed into a broader culture.

Is this a good or bad thing? I don't know. I don't care. It just is. Cultures grow and die all the time. It is the nature of human society that we are constantly changing, constantly adapting to meet our every constantly changing environment.

The thing that bugs me the MOST is the assumption that hunter/gatherers we know today are somehow this untouched, trapped in amber, society which is closest to how people lived 35,000 before the advent of agriculture. It is incredible naive, and patronizing of these individuals, who are in fact showing tremendous agency in definining their lives the best way they know how, with no desire nor intention to be living museum exhibits for "Westerners" to learn from.

The fact is that these people live in the same world we do - the few that are left are able to live in a hunter/gatherer lifestyle BECAUSE they live in close proximity to other types of social groups who protect them or at least deflect attention away from them. Many members of those communities have strong ties with agricultural groups, and some move back and forth between the two. Ideas, illness, and material things are shared quite a lot between most hunter/gatherer communities and the rest of the world.

In addition, almost all hunter/gatherer communities live in the most marginal areas on the planet, because the more powerful societal formations (agriculturalists and now industrialists) took all the good land. They also also have strong impact on the animals available to hunter/gatherer communities to hunt or use. So even if the hunter/gatherers are "untouched" by the outside, the fact of where they are forced to live and what animals, water, plants, environment they are exposed to means that by definition, they are directly influenced by the rest of the world.

We can learn a lot from hunter/gatherer communities - in terms of how one set of people deal with very specific living environment. But we can learn a lot from all commmunities in this way. Hunter/gatherers don't inherently teach us MORE just because they have less.

Sorry to get all strident about this - you can tell I get a bit ranty about this topic.

My applied anthropologist/international development hat is firmly affixed to my head.

Siobhan


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
So, the fundamental values of the maternalists really work to undermine the feminist agenda to challenge the structure of gender relations. Even as the goals of both maternalists and feminists are to transform 'society' and achieve more gains for women and children, the strategies to that end are incompatible.

here is the way I see it, and I think what fuller was getting to.

In some ways, I am different from my husband. I have a uterus and boobs - I went through childbirth and breastfeeding. These are not cultural constructs and to suggest otherwise is silly. These differences have very important behavior and time expenditure impact.

In other ways, I am not different from my husband - we have similar values, goals, desires, etc for ourselves and our family. To limit or differentiate between our goals and values based on gender is also silly.

I think feminism needs a bit of both "viva la difference" and equality.

Where i think equality feminism failed was by moving away from the "women are different than men" argument, they implicitly embraced the male rolemodel for how women should behave. Feminism in the 70s and 80s was about how women should join the male world, and not about how to bring the female and male worlds together in some fashion.

The fact is, the biggest change in the workforce today is coming from women who are saying that they are NOT shorter/softer/less hairy versions of men. Instead, they are saying that they do have different needs than the traditional worker has (how valid that traditional worker's needs are is another topic deserving attention) and that if company's want to keep and promote women, they have to acknowledge those differences and be supportive of women. I.E. the traditionally male workforce has to incorporate female world.

And I think true feminism occurs when those changes to the workforce are applied to ALL workers - making it socially acceptable as well as legally valid for men to say that maybe they too have needs not met by the traditional worker model.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Thanks siobhan, I appreciate your answer.

Looking back at my post (I was really struggling for words to explain what I meant, and admittedly, I still am), I suppose what I meant by healthier was healthier from a spiritual perspective - I do realize that this is not a perspective shared by many, however, so Im good with agreeing to disagree on that one (sorry, comma not working). I dont mean to say thats true of every huntergatherer culture (slash not working either), but I think people that live closer to the earth in general are more aware of the energy around them (any continuation of this vein would branch off into the metaphysical, which again I realize most in our society are loathe to believe in, but therein lies the problem, imo). Of course Im aware that its not just huntergatherers that lived in tribal societies and were close to the earth, its just sometimes easier to compartmentalize that way . . . anyway, thats probably enough OT for now


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
In some ways, I am different from my husband. I have a uterus and boobs - I went through childbirth and breastfeeding. These are not cultural constructs and to suggest otherwise is silly. These differences have very important behavior and time expenditure impact.

Yeah, I get this. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that there are NO biological differences between male/female bodies, and most would agree that gender has an impact on how we think, feel, behave and understand ourselves. The experiences of pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding are unique to women. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool social-constructionist acknowledges this.

What is problematic for feminists, is the explicit assertion (by maternalists, etc) that these differences indicate a universal 'maternal instinct', regardless of race, class or social status. That there is a maternal instinct that flows from the 'body' and thus informs the mothering experience for all women. [But, we know that women who have never given birth, or who have had their wombs/breasts removed can still 'mother'] Again, that ALL women are essentially nurturing, relationship-oriented, community-minded....you get the picture, based on their experience in a female body is troubling. KWIM?

It's tricky, because while some women argue that focusing on women's so-called inherent nurturing qualities is empowering, others argue that biological essentialism serves only to perpetuate male-domination and constrain women's opportunities.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

Off-topic but...

Siobhan -- thanks so much for your post, which encapsulates so much that I find troubling about the romantic view of hunter/gathers and of ancient human societies that is prevalent on this forum. Living in a society where something as simple as for example, appendicitis or a broken leg, means death should not be thought of fondly without acknowledgment of the downsides.

I, too, have concerns about how Western aid, and the ties we put on it, may be either be forcing change or preservation of certain ways of life without allowing the societies in question to chose their own direction. Maybe in the end such societies will choose 200 cable channels and a subscription to "US Weekly", but should we deny them the ability to make that choice? That's someting I struggle with.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
*shrug*

It might be anti-feminist, or anti-AP, but it's pro-my-family.

Am I missing the big deal?









:


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I think the big deal is that some AP ideals can leave many mothers feeling compelled or pressured to do things a certain way and to a certain level when it's beyond their available capacity or resources, for one example. And I think it's a big deal if the ideas behind AP seep into the mainstream and are still primarily focused on mothers and their parenting role. Dr. Sears is pretty good at this I think.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

I just have to say, once again that I love MDC. This is a great discussion and I don't know anyone IRL I could have it with who wouldn't think I was a freak.

Hmm...maybe that means I need to get some new friends to add to my RL circle.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Yeah, I get this. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that there are NO biological differences between male/female bodies, and most would agree that gender has an impact on how we think, feel, behave and understand ourselves. The experiences of pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding are unique to women. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool social-constructionist acknowledges this.

heh - two examples to the contrary.
1. on alt.soc.bi back in the old usenet days, two close friends of mine met each other in a massive flame war, started when one of them stated "the biological function of female breasts is to feed babies/children" (it was a discussion about why men have nipples, etc). Well, this statement started a sh!tstorm of women screaming "don't you DARE tell me what to do with my body!" and "My breasts are NOT for feeding babies!" My breasts are for ME!"

Sadly, I have had similar experiences myself with rather radical (mainly childfree) feminists. I've also been told by self-identified feminists that discussions of motherhood and feminism are not important in defining feminism, because if we do discuss motherhood, we are falling into an essentialist trap. The fact that over 90% of all women experience motherhood seems to have escaped their logic.

2. during my Anthropology Master's I got into an extended arguement where I made the statement that *gasp* there are two sexes (note I said sexes, not genders - I do know the difference). I was shouted down with lots of examples of asexual humans and hermaphrodites, etc.

But from a strictly biological perspective, there are two sexes. Period. Yes, there are exceptions, but since those exceptions are unable to reproduce, they are not included by biologists as a separate sex, but rather as outliers.

What bugs me about both examples above is the inability to separate the political/social definition of gender from the scientific/biological definition of sex. Yes, biology is not destiny. But it is also not a blank slate either as some would like to believe because it is more consistant with their political perspective.

Quote:

What is problematic for feminists, is the explicit assertion (by maternalists, etc) that these differences indicate a universal 'maternal instinct', regardless of race, class or social status.
I do get your point. I personally am not all about the maternal essence. I think it is another great way to trap women into expectations.

On desperate housewives recently, the character of Edi had a great quote -

Edi - "you think I am a horrible person"
Carlos "I didn't say that"
Edi - "you think I am a horrible mother, and for a woman, that is the same thing."

She goes on to say that she knows she isn't a good mother and that is the reason she intentionally doesn't have custody of her kid. But since the character is already so unpleasent, it underlines and reinforces the many flaws in her character. I felt it was heavily implied that the character is missing that "maternal instinct" that would guide her to make the right choices for her son and that this is an indiciation of a deep failure in character. My interpretation, however was that she is just missing some basic responsibility and ownership of her problems. But I digress.

Quote:

It's tricky, because while some women argue that focusing on women's so-called inherent nurturing qualities is empowering, others argue that biological essentialism serves only to perpetuate male-domination and constrain women's opportunities.
we have some similar and some different needs than men. Whether those needs come from biology, culture, or out of our asses, this doesn't change the fact that our needs are not identical. Does defining where they come from change the fact that they are not being met? Honest question - what is the role in determining the source of our difference?

Because if the source is biology, then the difference has to be accepted and dealt with. If the source is culture than the culture (read women, mainly, though it would help if men changed too) should change. But I think we are saying that most of the time it is both.

Siobhan


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:

I've also been told by self-identified feminists that discussions of motherhood and feminism are not important in defining feminism, because if we do discuss motherhood, we are falling into an essentialist trap. The fact that over 90% of all women experience motherhood seems to have escaped their logic.
Oh, I'm well aware of this flawed logic!









I've run into several self-identified 'feminists' who would argue that discussions of motherhood in a feminist context is hardly worth a nod. Of course, it is simply because motherhood complicates the idea of the 'liberated' woman, that some 'radical-types' would just prefer if us feminist moms would stop throwing our motherhood in their faces.

I helped organize a student-led feminist conference back in October, and I'll tell ya, some of the looks I got from my so-called 'feminist sisters' when confronted with my explicit pregnant body, with my two kiddos in tow, were VERY telling about how uncomfortable they were with the very idea of motherhood. There was a very clear distain, like "who let this pregnant mother into our feminist conference?"

Quote:

On desperate housewives recently, the character of Edi had a great quote -

Edi - "you think I am a horrible person"
Carlos "I didn't say that"
Edi - "you think I am a horrible mother, and for a woman, that is the same thing."

She goes on to say that she knows she isn't a good mother and that is the reason she intentionally doesn't have custody of her kid. But since the character is already so unpleasent, it underlines and reinforces the many flaws in her character. *I felt it was heavily implied that the character is missing that "maternal instinct" that would guide her to make the right choices for her son and that this is an indiciation of a deep failure in character.* My interpretation, however was that she is just missing some basic responsibility and ownership of her problems. But I digress.
Love that exchange. (I've never actually seen this show, but friends have been saying I should tune-in, because it is very relevant.)

The part bolded above is very interesting to me. I think the idea of a maternal instinct is very much a myth--but, it allows us to 'forgive' mothers who we perceive as not making the 'right' choices. Poor dear...she just doesn't have a maternal instinct.

Quote:

we have some similar and some different needs than men. Whether those needs come from biology, culture, or out of our asses, this doesn't change the fact that our needs are not identical. Does defining where they come from change the fact that they are not being met? Honest question - *what is the role in determining the source of our difference*?
Good question. I don't know. I argree that it is rather counter-productive though, to indulge in hand-wringing over it when there is so much work that needs to be done. I truly believe that the Women's movement is doomed in the credibility department if it doesn't take motherhood seriously. We have to ask ourselves: How can we further the advancement of women's equality, while simutaneously, creating the material conditions that ensure that ALL mothers (and fathers) can nurture their children?


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

_I truly believe that the Women's movement is doomed in the credibility department if it doesn't take motherhood seriously._

But it doesn't though. It's up to mothers and mothers are already stretched so thin. I think there is too much internalized patriarchal disrespect for mothers and "mothering" in most feminists. Until they have kids, that is, if they do. Perhaps not enough mothers think they deserve and need change, though I think that is finally changing. But then that's not surprising, b/c most women I know (mothers and nonmothers alike) don't consider themselves feminists and demand change.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
Perhaps not enough mothers think they deserve and need change, though I think that is finally changing. But then that's not surprising, b/c most women I know (mothers and nonmothers alike) don't consider themselves feminists and demand change.

Valid points. However, as Fuller mentioned earlier, there is an emerging Mother's movement in the U.S. Here are a few sites to look at:

www.mothersoughttohaveequalrights.org

www.mothersmovement.org

www.mothersandmore.org

www.motherhoodproject.org

www.motherscentre.org


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Yes I said it's changing. I have all those bookmarked. Somewhat comical for me, b/c I've had childfree radical feminists tell me that mothers arent' doing anything, when I knew about all of those. So you don't have to convince me of a movement, though I think it's true that most people don't know about them and the movement is slow going. I think momsrising is getting more publicity.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
Yes I said it's changing. I have all those bookmarked. Somewhat comical for me, b/c I've had childfree radical feminists tell me that mothers arent' doing anything, when I knew about all of those. So you don't have to convince me of a movement, though I think it's true that most people don't know about them and the movement is slow going. I think momsrising is getting more publicity.

Oops, sorry to preach to the choir.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

s'ok. I do think mothers are doing a lot more than feminist are, in general.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
s'ok. I do think mothers are doing a lot more than feminist are, in general.

I think there are many feminist mothers out there too though.

Have you checked out the Association for Research on Mothering? (I won't link it in case you already have the link







) Anyway, the most recent publication out of there is entitled: _Mothering and Feminism_ I just received my copy this afternoon.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I think there are many feminist mothers out there too though.

Have you checked out the Association for Research on Mothering? (I won't link it in case you already have the link







) Anyway, the most recent publication out of there is entitled: _Mothering and Feminism_ I just received my copy this afternoon.

heck, give US the link! there are a bunch of us enjoying this thread.

I belong to a livejournal group called motherism addressing this very topic. It has gone silent recently, though.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
heck, give US the link! there are a bunch of us enjoying this thread.

I belong to a livejournal group called motherism addressing this very topic. It has gone silent recently, though.

Absolutely!

www.yorku.ca/crm

I've only had a chance to skim the forementioned journal, but it looks promising.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

This is one of my only complaints about the feminist movement. That motherhood is not embraced. That marriage is not embraced.

I think it drives most women away. It absolutely drives away immigrant women, when they are the women who could usually be the most helped by the original suffrage movement.

I think it limits the ability of feminism to be accepted into all cultures. Makes it far more difficult for real women to get into the trenches with women all over the World, to help women with actual issues in their lives and their culture.

The fact is that most women are mothers. Most women will marry. Making these two basic life experiences of women out to be hideous, unappealing, oppressive, and unacceptable to the free woman is ridiculous and dangerous. Worse, it is a useless endevour rendering the people who propogate it useless to the lives of almost every woman on the planet.

The fact is and will remain that in EVERY culture where women are free, children are treated better. The cultures themselves are more fluid. That alone makes feminism for everyday women the best thing on the planet. To refuse to acknowledge and embrace one of the most universal female experiences on the planet is like pretending that the Sun doesn't exist.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I think there are many feminist mothers out there too though.

Have you checked out the Association for Research on Mothering? (I won't link it in case you already have the link







) Anyway, the most recent publication out of there is entitled: _Mothering and Feminism_ I just received my copy this afternoon.


No, I mean mothers, be they feminist or not, as opposed to the feminist movement in general. I know mothers who are feminist (including myself), but I know of no childless feminists who support mothers.


----------



## TranscendentalMom (Jun 28, 2002)

I just picked up a copy of Sears' latest book "The Healthiest Child in Your Neighborhood." The title alone is sort of appealing to that 'higher than thou' attitude. But I like Dr. Sears' insights and I can read through it without being offended so I got it. But throughout the book he does this. He calls mothers who feed their kids healthy non-sugar diets "pure moms" and those that don't "non-pure moms" Can anyone see how Sears gets a bad rap?

I also agree with all the sentiments around here about people starting threads for the purpose of judging mainstream mothers. Maybe its retaliation or just venting but it seems there are a lot of people who define themselves by bagging on mainstream people.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Oh gawd.







Well, I'm a NON-pure mom in more ways than one.


----------



## jazzharmony (Nov 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TranscendentalMom* 
He calls mothers who feed their kids healthy non-sugar diets "pure moms" and those that don't "non-pure moms" Can anyone see how Sears gets a bad rap?


Sears' troubles run a lot deeper than that. He's a homophobic sexist for two. I stopped buying his books long ago and I encourage others to do the same. There are other authors out there who promote gentle parenting w/o the fundemental religious views thrown in. Talk about judgmental...


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I know I should be kind of disturbed by the pure/nonpure thing, but it's so out blatant that I almost find it kind of hilarious.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
I know I should be kind of disturbed by the pure/nonpure thing, but it's so out blatant that I almost find it kind of hilarious.









it's hard to take it seriously.

-Aldulterated Mom aka:


----------



## TranscendentalMom (Jun 28, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jazzharmony* 
Sears' troubles run a lot deeper than that. He's a homophobic sexist for two. I stopped buying his books long ago and I encourage others to do the same. There are other authors out there who promote gentle parenting w/o the fundemental religious views thrown in. Talk about judgmental...

Really? Does he say things about homosexuals? The sexist views run throughout his books...in the healthiest child in your neighborhood, he goes on and on about what mothers feed their children, he could easily have edited the whole thing to say "parents" but over and over it sends the msg...mothers are solely responsible for their childrens diets.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
This is one of my only complaints about the feminist movement. That motherhood is not embraced. That marriage is not embraced.

I think it drives most women away. It absolutely drives away immigrant women, when they are the women who could usually be the most helped by the original suffrage movement.

I think it limits the ability of feminism to be accepted into all cultures. Makes it far more difficult for real women to get into the trenches with women all over the World, to help women with actual issues in their lives and their culture.

The fact is that most women are mothers. Most women will marry. Making these two basic life experiences of women out to be hideous, unappealing, oppressive, and *unacceptable to the free woman* is ridiculous and dangerous. Worse, it is a useless endevour rendering the people who propogate it useless to the lives of almost every woman on the planet.

The fact is and will remain that in EVERY culture where women are free, children are treated better. The cultures themselves are more fluid. That alone makes feminism for everyday women the best thing on the planet. To refuse to acknowledge and embrace one of the most universal female experiences on the planet is like pretending that the Sun doesn't exist.

Interesting post. Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by 'free women'?


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TranscendentalMom* 
Really? Does he say things about homosexuals? The sexist views run throughout his books...in the healthiest child in your neighborhood, he goes on and on about what mothers feed their children, he could easily have edited the whole thing to say "parents" but over and over it sends the msg...mothers are solely responsible for their childrens diets.

Yes he makes extremely offensive comments about homosexuality in his book for fathers.

Reading that crap was the end of my respect for Dr. Sears.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Interesting post. Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by 'free women'?

People who are free under the law, people who have access to the pursuit of the equality of opportunities available. Very simply that.

Given the legal freedom to avail oneself of the opportunities we see fit for ourselves is the most basic freedom upon which all other freedom of self is created. Even if the available opportunities for an individual or culture are limited to an extent, the legal freedom of equal opportunity increases exponentially over the years and generations. So that the woman who exercises freedoms today, actually increases those possibilities for successive generations. Simply through the pursuit of freedom and the establishment of such in one's own life.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
So that the woman who exercises freedoms today, actually increases those possibilities for successive generations. Simply through the pursuit of freedom and the establishment of such in one's own life.

I really like the way you put this, and it echoes the way I model MY feminism (particularly for my daughter). I'm sure you've heard of, maybe read, Adrienne Rich's book Of Woman Born ? (It's 30 years old now...yikes.)

Whenever I start to feel guilty about living an independent life--outside and in combination with my role as a mother, I read this part:

_[What daughters need] are mothers who want their own freedom and ours...The quality of the mother's life - however, embattled and unprotected - is her primary bequest to her daughter, because a woman who can believe in herself, who is a fighter, and who continues to struggle to create livable space around her, is demonstating to her daughter that these possibilities exist. (1979; 247)_


----------

