Are men forbidden from having opinions on feminism?

Are persons of one ethnic group to ignore racism toward another ethnic group because they "can't possibly share the experience"?

For example, we may not be elected officials, but we are the people elected officials are supposed to be working for, representing, speaking for, making decisions over: everything they do, they do with our power and money; everything they decide is about our environment and living conditions. That gives each of us absolute right to judge the performance of elected officials.
It helps one's cedibility to have learned something about the process of election and legislation; it helps even more to keep abreast of the issues under discussion. Some people have done more of this than others, and it generally shows in their statements.

In the case of life experience, one may know quite a lot - or nothing at all - about a subject from observation of others. It's not necessary to have been a drug addict to say something about addiction, but if you have worked at a rehab center, your opinion will carry more weight than if you're just bitching about a group of people of whome you've never met even one.

Then, there is place and time. We each experience life in certain geographical location(s) and over a certain period. I would defer to Dr. Conway on contemporary British Columbia; anything you might say about the North could be corrected by Anuri. But if we were talking about the 50's, i'd be inclined to believe clersal over all three of you.

Lastly, there is point of view. We've all experienced childhood, but in different ways, at different times. So, everyone's opinion on being a child is equally valid, but SamL's observations are more recent, and therefore less prone to false memory, than mine. Everyone has seen and intaracted with children - some more, some less. Given their respective credentials, i'd certainly take Dera's opinion more seriously than lagatta's.

quote:

---

Originally posted by April Follies:
Bah. And likewise, humbug.

---

"Humbug" is such an under-used word I'm nominating this for the Hall of Fame.

Ah, right, "cred." Highly overrated as an idea, and usually used rhetorically, i.e. bullyingly, by people who feel they have turf to protect. Having said that...

quote:

---

At what point does a lack of specific experience negate a person's opinion?

---

(Aside: One way to combat this is to get your own expert. )

The danger of the expert-pulling-the-snow-job problem is that because people can't say "Ah-HA! This person is wrong because of (whatever)", they relieve the cognitive dissonance by going along with what the expert said.

If I may be permitted to digress for a moment, this relief-of-cognitive-dissonance issue is how the right-wing think-tanks and corporate-biased media have been able to drag Canadians away from the "Keynesian Compact" way of thought (Yes, I know in another thread I noted that Canadians appear to be retaining their collectivist values, but there is nothing unseemly about accepting the fact that there can be a contradictory set of impulses in the Canadian body politic - a desire to retain Canadian collectivist institutions but also holding anti-tax, anti-government views inculcated by 20 years of cognitive dissonance) by endlessly repeating a package of half-truths which can only be disproved by the willingness to get behind the surface statements and tackling the statistics - a couple hours' worth of reading of Shooting the Hippo was what it took to help me understand why my BS detector kept going off about this deficit slasher business.

Now to un-digress and move back to the thread topic.

"Cred" is indeed established partly by knowledge and partly by experience.

Even without having to recite an exhaustive list of qualifications I think most people are pretty good at instinctively recognizing when someone's telling the truth and when someone's just talking out of his ass.

For example anybody would tell I was talking out of my ass in about two seconds if I said, for example, that I was a recovering drug addict and used that claim to bolster my statements on the Drug War.

(I do regularly make sarcastic references to the "Drug Warriors", but I choose to make statements from a background of reading about the political and economic impact on people in Anglo-America)

Referring back to what 'lance said,

quote:

---

Ah, right, "cred." Highly overrated as an idea, and usually used rhetorically, i.e. bullyingly, by people who feel they have turf to protect.

---

quote:

---

... but the expert can bullshit so much more convincingly that s/he's difficult to discredit. Nevertheless, it's been done, and not always by another expert.

---

Aude was 10. She was brillant and creative, and LOVED animals. Wanted to be a vet of course - or a writer or actress, or...

lagatta: My deepest sympathies for your loss. For that, words really do fail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:
What the initial post was really saying is that those of us who are parents who have actually experienced the 24 hour 7 day a week 365 day a year seeing your heart walking around outside of your body life altering event that parenting is, have no more right, no more knowledge than someone who babysits or has nieces and nephews.

---

Wow, I certainly didn't get that from the initial post, but then again I'm not a parent, so maybe I don't have the same insecurities. Wouldn't it be scary if someone who wasn't a parent actually had a better grasp of some issue than a parent did? I think there's something to be said for listening to positive commentary and constructive criticism. Sometimes I give my legal submissions to non-legals to read over and critique -- and I do this precisely because I have too much invested in them to notice things I'm taking for granted. I can imagine a situation where a parent might have something to learn from someone who isn't "seeing your heart walking around outside of your body."

I sometimes have discussions about the subjective blindness of parents with friends, who are parents, and draw their attention to their own parents. In many ways, It's impossible to be an objective parent, because so much of your instintual self is directly engaged. Guilt, fear, joy and desperation drive a lot of the parent-child dynamic. Parents who assume that their reactions to everything their kids do are rational, and sometimes even justifiable, are deluding themselves.

I had an interesting discussion with my Dad today -- I took him out for lunch, since it was his 67th birthday. He doesn't have a lot of experience as a parent, not having been very involved in a lot of his children's upbringing. He was expressing a lot of anxiety and frustration about my present personal circumstances (which I will not bore you with). I explained to him that parents will always worry about their children's happiness and well-being -- even when those children appear happy and successful. I am not a parent, I am a child -- but I don't think I'm talking out-of-turn to him about this phenomenon. I would have laughed if he'd told me "talk to me when you have children, Tim."

quote:

---

Lagatta, I assume, is someone's daughter. Why then can she not discuss parenting and the experience of childrearing with an equal voice as Debra?

---

[ 18 May 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I was only answering verbatim about how i'd rate credibility on a given subject, all other things being equal. All other things are hardly ever equal, so this is purely hypothetical.

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

We've had discussions in the past in which hands-on gave insights that mere study or observation didn't and those who've experienced or are living with or in situations were more emotional about. There's nothing wrong with that.

I don't think that anyone's opinions should be dissed unless they are totally out of left field and I think you all are fully aware of many times this has happened on Babble. I don't have any problem giving more credence to someone's views when they state something like "when this happened to me". Considering these things can offer a different viewpoint that could become important later on.

And in THAT thread, people WERE blaming women without children for making pregnancy seem like a bad experience, which I found silly, because that thread was not about WANTED pregnancies, it was about UNWANTED pregnancies. Sure, maybe women who haven't had children and have never wanted children can't relate so well to the experience of being pregnant with a child who is wanted and loved. But they can certainly offer their opinion about how horrible it must be to be pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant. As well, I think since most of us are relatively savvy and have done lots of reading on some of the lasting physical effects that can happen from pregnancy, you don't have to have given birth to know whether you want to subject your body to those physical side effects of having been pregnant at one point.

For the most part pregnancy is discussed in terms of how awful it is and how it must be prevented or ended.

Breastfeeding is treated as something that those who have not embraced the 21st century do,but real thinking people use formula.

Stay at home parents are thought to be brainless.

And children seem to still be expected to be seen and not heard except for when they are teenagers when they apparently should be treated as equals.

There are examples to all these claims and if I felt like spending two hours on the babble search engine I could find them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra estrones:
[b]I've been thinking a lot about "cred" lately. I got pretty tired of feeling like some of the moms were exchanged amused smiles over lagatta's head when she talked about her opinions on child rearing, and her own involvement with children.[b] At what point does a lack of specific experience negate a person's opinion? I, for example, have never been an elected official. I have no doubt that it is far more complex and exhausting than I might realize. Should I hold myself in check when talking smack about Stephen Harper?

---

It is normal that in this day and age, people, primarily women but hopefully also men, should be concerned about preventing unwanted pregnancies and having the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. That is a key demand of the women's movement. No shame about that.

The women's movement has made MANY demands concerning better conditions for parents, and for expectant women. These include making out the family allowance cheque in the mum's name, day-care centres (virtually free in Québec now) the corrolary to abortion rights of no forced sterilisation - not a common practise now but it was used for "eugenics" and notably against our Aboriginal population in the past. And access to better nutrition for expectant mothers in poor neighbourhoods in Montreal (a very old programme of the settlement movement), mother and baby health in poor countries, literacy programmes targeting mums, etc.

Pregnancy is discussed in terms of how awful it is and how it should be prevented or ended when we're talking about UNWANTED pregnancies. But there have been posts from others about positive aspects of their pregnancies. Even I have written the occasional post about the positive experience of my pregnancy and delivery, and I don't think I had a particularly good pregnancy. I should write that my pregnancy was all sweetness and light when my experience of pregnancy was that I barfed all day every day of those nine months, and I've had lasting physical effects from it ever since? My experience is just as valid as those of women who had marvelous pregnancies with no complications whatsoever.

quote:

---

. Personally I believe in full employment and do find it strange that a woman in this day and age would choose not to have an income of her own.

---

Of course, I don't need to speak for lagatta, she can speak for herself, but that's what I got from her post, not that staying at home with kids is not employment.

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Edited for some clarification: Yes, I support an income for full-time parents, but not throughout a child's life from babyhood to adolescence. Think parental leaves should be extended. An important demand from my standpoint is extending them to so-called "independent workers", the many people who pretty much have to work freelance now.

Yes, of course caring for children is work. But it is NOT participation in the paid labour force. I agree that women's, and men's household duties should be factored into the GDP. But I don't think it is a good thing for society for women to remain at home, when they have been educated for many years, or for children to look upon their mums only as housewives, not independent women with jobs and interests of their own. Sorry, that is my opinion. It isn't Debra's. These are debates that have been going on in the women's movement for decades. I daresay radical feminists and utopian socialists have at times put forth far more radical opinions about child-rearing, that it should be entirely socialised, etc. It is an interesting history to study.

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Shit 24 hours each day, each year? I would consider that full employment.

---

More than most know, that is a literal description of my present situation , and I also consider it the most important work I've ever done. I gave up all paid employment to do it, and was so relieved the day I finally did that, impoverishing myself though I was or not.

Income, schmincome: fight for the GAI! (Gee, that's becoming one of my slogans on this board, it would appear, second only to Send in the UN!)

But seriously, folks: In my experience , experience has a really terrible effect on some people and a great effect on others, and I don't know how we can ask for "cred" standards in the abstract.

(I have such troubles with the abstract anyway. I have worse ones when I say so here, because then Mandos comes along and asks me to define abstract. )

I was trained to believe that the greatest skill any of us can cultivate is empathy-plus: the ability to stand in another's shoes, to wear her skin -- to breathe with the wee critters and plants, actually (that's Keats, "negative capability"; it's also Zen). If I've been any good at any of the things I have done, it has been because I keep trying to do that, clumsy though I often am. Think from the inside; or at least try to.

Very time-consuming; definitely labour-intensive; not very profitable. So what?

I admit to a personal resistance to certain kinds of mothering or fathering, perhaps because I have lived childless -- but then, that has perhaps kept my memories of being a child ultra-clear. My parents were as great as they come, but I've never got over the irritation I started to feel at their worries for me when I was no more than six or seven.

I share some of lagatta's feelings on the issue. I know that for me personally, I would not enjoy being a stay-at-home mother, and I could not bear to miss the financial autonomy that an outside job would bring to me. After the kind of marriage I had, the thought of depending on a husband for my income scares the hell out of me. I don't think it's an invalid viewpoint to hold, and I don't think it takes anything away from people who hold different viewpoints.

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

... that a woman in this day and age would choose not to have an income of her own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:

And Audra this post has nothing to do with it? Give me break. At least be honest about what you're doing.

---

Has nothing to do with what? This thread? It has everything to do with this thread, it's the post I started this thread with. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: audra estrones ]

I vaguely remember my mother saying something about people promoting formula-feeding when she was young, but she always blamed it on Nestle and other producers of baby formula. Anyhow, more to the point, I checked out some past threads and didn't see anything like this. Maybe I missed it?

I hereby adopt the 'cerd' as a unit of exchange in babble debate. Everyone gets a basic number of creds - say 100 - when i first encounter them. Depending on what they say and how convincingly, they earn more creds or spend from the original 100; if the creds run out, i stop believing anything that person says.

I mean, I guess I belong to one of those groups, the non-mothers, if we're dividing the world up into two groups.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
I hereby adopt the 'cerd' as a unit of exchange in babble debate. Everyone gets a basic number of creds - say 100 - when i first encounter them. Depending on what they say and how convincingly, they earn more creds or spend from the original 100; if the creds run out, i stop believing anything that person says.

---

Teehee.

What book?

quote:

---

...actually experienced the 24 hour 7 day a week 365 day a year seeing your heart walking around outside of your body...

---

That pretty much sums it up. If I had to render assistance to someone I didn't know that was having an epileptic siezure, what luck they would be in! My expertise, experience, with a cool head, to boot.

When my daughter has one, although I handle it, it leaves me frightened and nuerotic for days.

And yes, sometimes someone without the attachments can offer insight because emotions won't let you see the forest for the trees.

Conversely, that same detatchment leaves gaps in understanding.

That's why you have to consider the source, (which doesn't mean negate the source) when you asess advice.

Do parents sometimes sell short the advice offered by non-parents? I'm sure, just as I'm sure some advice by the inexperienced is, at times, if not outright humorous, at least worth a smile.

I'm sure it's the same when men offer commentary on feminist issues.

Hypothetically, of course. I have no first hand experience in that regard.

(insert 'side long glance' instant smiley here)

[ 19 May 2003: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

I'm no expert (on raising children). I can be kind to them for short periods only. I know how to tease them and make them laugh.

- Dalai Lama

---

So, while my housemates, who are parents, may be interested to hear my opinions on spanking, when kids should be allowed to pick out their own clothes and a reasonable amount for a 10 year-old's allowance, they would certainly be less impressed with my opinions on letting their children eat in the living room, half-drunk glasses of milk on the dining room table and the use of noisy toys before 8 a.m.

I wasn't breastfed, and that's wrong. I think my parents made a mistake, I didn't say they were "abusive". People make mistakes or have errors in judgement, I accept that. We're only human. I'll just take what I've learned on this issue and tell as many others who will listen and make sure that I breastfeed our own children. That's all. I never claimed my parents were abusive, ever.

I can see how people's feelings are being hurt though, parenting and the related issues are deeply personal in their very nature. Let's try to give and take a bit more, okay?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
The one i recommended above: 'Darcy's Utopia' by Fay Weldon. I only asked because there is some stuff in there about hyperinflation. It's also a lot of fun.

---

Oh. Duh.

Silly me!

quote:

---

The Rebecca-first daughter conflict looks from afar like a deep personality difference. Hope they get along better when first daughter is on her own. Nobody's fault.

---

Now here's an example of the difference between opinion based on casual observation and opinion based on experience: I've often heard it said that no one knows what goes on inside a relationship, any relationship, except the participants. Lagatta has expressed an opinion based on what I've posted about my relationship with my teenaged daughter. The extent to which Lagatta knows about our relationship pretty much equals the extent to which her opinion is correct. That doesn't invalidate her opinion, it just limits it.

(In actual fact, a tiny portion of my eldest's and my conflict is due to personality conflict. Some of it is due to personality similarity. Most of it has to do with us having a very close relationship, and her feeling conflicted about her independence from me...complicated stuff)

Anyway, it is entirely true that I cannot be a casual observer AND be a participant in this relationship, so my opinion is extremely subjective. But although Lagatta is removed from the relationship, she also brings subjectivity to her opinions. She has a history as a teenager with parents and, like most of us, her own past relationship with her parents probably figures prominently in how she forms opinions on child-rearing. Which is of value in the general sense, but not as much where a more intimate knowledge the unique qualities of individual parent-child relationships is required.

Different levels of experience, different knowledge bases, different opinions.

Just to weigh in on the issue of stay-at-home parenting, income and feminism. Many people - men and women - stay at home with their children when they are young, choosing to either work from home (where possible) or forgo income until the children are in school. Many people choose to put their children in daycare after a paid maternity/parental leave. Many parents only reluctantly leave their children with childcare providers because they need to earn enough to support them. Always, there is a need to juggle what the individual wants against what is best for the family, and the decision that is the result of all that juggling is as unique as the family dynamic is.

Feminism set out to ensure that women had the same opportunities for independent earning as men. What feminism didn't seem to account for was the lack of equity on the domestic front. Women still do most of the domestic chores and childrearing. Add paid employment to that and you've got the average working mother.

And let me tell you, it's fucking exhausting sometimes.

Unless the parents are truly inept, abusive or neglectful, anyone will tell you that children always benefit from more parental time and attention. Modern, emancipated, independent women (and some men) chose to stay at home with their children all the time, they willingly forgo their financial independence in the belief that it will benefit their children. Parents make sacrifices for their children all the time. It doesn't mean that parents who willingly put their children in daycare are bad or selfish parents - they've just made a different choice based on a different set of criteria.

The only reason your relationship with your eldest daughter got in the thread, Rebecca, is because other people, not you, questioned non-parents opining on such matters. I certainly don't have the parenting experience of a full-time or biological parent - though like many, my experience with littlies does go beyong "babysitting" - nor do I want it, on the contrary, I avoid it like the plague and have always refused to go out with men with minor children, even if it meant being alone.

I just gave that post - based ONLY on what you said, I have no intimate knowledge whatsoever of your relationship - to show that sometimes outsiders' opinions can provide a different perspective. Just like, as in marriage breakups, etc, it would be very interesting to hear from both parties.

(Oh, and sorry if this is getting away from the topic at hand) But who the hell am I to say shit about shit? I'm just some (semi)anonymous poster on an open message board. So if I were you, I'd take everything I say with some salt & Google. Except that last sentence. You can trust me on that one.

Ed. to make it look like I actually read what I post.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Flowers By Irene ]

quote:

---

First, the general political stuff. Early socialists and radical feminists were very aware of the amount of time done doing domestic duties - it was a lot worse back before electric appliances etc were generalised. Working women's lives were a living hell. But they called for socialising such tasks as laundry, cooking, and much of child-rearing. I tend to agree with that, though I admit that a model must be found that isn't over-regimented.

---

quote:

---

I wasn't breastfed, and that's wrong. I think my parents made a mistake,

---

Hmmm, what about all the women who can't breastfeed? Are they immediately in the wrong? Are their kids destined to be flawed in some manner?

quote:

---

Hmmm, what about all the women who can't breastfeed? Are they immediately in the wrong? Are their kids destined to be flawed in some manner?

---

There are really only a very small number of women for whom this is true. Most women who bottle-feed choose to. I have to admit that this is a pet peeve of mine -- I know a lot of women who insist that they "had to" bottle-feed instead of going with the breast, when it was really a choice, and one which I don't condemn, in fact. I don't think anybody who doesn't want to breastfeed, for whatever reason, should. But as a committed breastfeeder, I kind of get tarred with the judgement brush just for stating the scientific facts: Even if formula is adequate nutrition, breastmilk is better, and causes fewer tummy problems, constipation, gas, fewer allergies, etc. (The bonding issue I'm not so sold on...)

quote:

---

Blunt as he was, it is a valid point. Some women can't breastfeed. Does that make them less-than-adequate mothers?

---

Well, to begin with, some people just aren't all that given to revelling in anything, y'know. Some depressives have given the world a lot, I feel.

Now me, I do revel in a few things, but in neither of the things that seem always to precipitate out as the poles of this discussion: motherhood vs self-actualization in the "real" world.

I have never been a mother, and I've been a severe critic both of the industry I worked in (almost from the time I started working) and of people who believe in climbing professional ladders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by vickyinottawa:
Blunt as he was, it is a valid point. Some women can't breastfeed. Does that make them less-than-adequate mothers?

---

Be that as it may, many women who are physically capable of breastfeeding don't. Some can't get past the initial pain if they have trouble getting the baby to latch properly, some are repulsed by the idea (I have a friend who suffered sexual abuse as a child and had a hard time breastfeeding her son), some are misinformed as to the benefits and ease of breastfeeding, and a few, to be sure, would just rather not be bothered.

quote:

---

I mean, like -- why, you guys?

---

Rebecca had an excellent point, but it is a delicate one on-line without degenerating into flames. There is a tension in feminism between those of us for whom being feminists meant "no, I'll never get stuck having kids" and those who wanted to "have it all". I don't even know how to go about discussing this without others (women and also men) feel they are being targeted somehow.

quote:

---

Now me, I do revel in a few things, but in neither of the things that seem always to precipitate out as the poles of this discussion: motherhood vs self-actualization in the "real" world.

---

I've never seen the two as mutually exclusive. It annoys the hell out of me when they're presented that way, or that one should feel wrong about wanting one, the other, or both at the same time.

See, for me, I have to have components of both to feel self-actualized. I need work outside the domestic end of things, and at the same time, I really do revel in the motherhood thing. Not everybody has to, and that's okay, too. I just think we need to stop criticizing each other for having individual needs and desires.

quote:

---

You know, reluctant as i am to contemplate this possibility, maybe lagatta is a step ahead of most of us - as are you. Free of progenitive and parental issues; free to be more cerebral.

---

I know this was directed to skdadl, but I had to comment. I don't think skdadl, lagatta, or anybody else I know who has chosen not to have children is any more cerebral than they would have been had they opted for children. We all have our passions, to a greater or lesser degree.

Although I will concede I have laughed more in the last 5 years than I ever have before.

quote:

---

There is a tension in feminism between those of us for whom being feminists meant "no, I'll never get stuck having kids" and those who wanted to "have it all".

---

The thing is, most of us didn't "get stuck" having kids. And it's okay to not want it all. The point of feminism, in my opinion, is to have the choice. To be able to choose anything from career woman to stay at home parent, without having to apologize for it, feel guilty about it, be criticized. Maternity and feminism are not mutually exclusive.

And the issue of having one's own income in a relationship/marriage... That bugs me. If it's a real partnership, it shouldn't be "my" money or "his" money -- it's "our" money. You're a unit, and you're supposed to share.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

quote:

---

Y'now, like those horrid family reunions... 'oh, you haven't had any kids yet' - sure parents must get the opposite number

---

Well, we get "Aren't you going to try for a boy before it's too late?"

I imagine if I have another, it'll be "So when do you plan to stop? Wasn't two enough?"

I thought my post was clear, but, to make it crystal, I intended to communicate what both Rebecca and Zoot have expressed.

I never said people who don't breastfeed are bad parents.

I said MY parents made a mistake by not breastfeeding ME. Mom said she "didn't want to bother" -she fits into the last category Rebecca listed and routinely makes snide remarks about women who DO breastfeed. I find this hard to take, being her child, and her being a nurse, at that. My father, (somehow this came up in conversation), was appalled that I plan on breastfeeding any children my husband and I have, "formula ensures they get all of the vitamins and stuff though, do you want your kids to be sick?" The level of ignorance is really shocking.

Other peoples' situations are different.

And yes, there are SOME women for whom breastfeeding is not physically possible, but, they are in the extreme minority. For those with psychological issues surrounding breastfeeding, that's their business.

Most parents who bottlefeed do so out of choice, not neccessity. Formula is mistakenly seen as equal to breastmilk, and bottlefeeding seems to be the norm, not the exception it was first intended to be. Many US hospitals still stick a bottle of formula in the mouths of newborns and send the new parents home with "freebies" from the formula industries. I don't know what the situation is in Canadian hospitals.

I'm sure many women don't get the encouragement and support needed to breastfeed from their spouses and family members, that sucks and it really needs to change. That's why there are advocacy and support groups for nursing mothers, but, it's not enough.

quote:

---

And my passions are not spent

---

quote:

---

The day they are, I'll blow my brains out. Better dead than inert.

---

Motherhood (and fatherhood!) are wonderful things. Raising a child is both a marvellous act in itself and a notable contribution to the society of the future. Plus, kids are cute and deserve the best of care. I'd like to have a go at that myself, when I get the opportunity.

Those who don't want to be mothers (or fathers) shouldn't. Duh. I can't imagine it's a job that could be done well by those disliking the very idea. They should not, however, begrudge those who make other choices.

quote:

---

I just say that stay-at-home mothers (or fathers) should get pay and benefits for all their work, too.

---

I'm not sure I understand this. If someone is going to pay me to raise my own child, shouldn't they also pay me to cut my own lawn? After all, if someone else does it for me they expect to be paid. If I take the task on myself, rather than sitting in front of my television, should I get "paid" the same way they would? What about cutting my own hair? Preparing my own meals? How about all that free laundry I've been doing for myself?

I suspect that hermithood has always been the option I most fancied; it sure is now, boy. I mean, everyone always thinks of males when you mention hermits. Why can't we have women hermits? Soon I shall find a way to explore this new frontier for feminists.

Which is to say: I wasn't just questioning the polarization that sometimes happens on these threads -- I was questioning the poles.

nonesuch grouped lagatta and me together, which no doubt often makes sense -- and yet, in the terms of this and related discussions, lagatta and I are obviously different in some profound ways. She will argue strenuously about financial independence as a feminist issue; I just kind of hem and haw about the edges of that discussion, confused as I am about money issues and a job as self-actualization (about self-actualization itself, actually ).

I doubt that my childlessness had much to do with my being "cerebral" (if anyone who knows me is reading this, he/she is now ROTFL, holding tummy), more to do with the demographics of my cohort (shortage of men, you know, and thus too many Peter Pans among them) plus my purely personal conviction about families, which is that they are surreal, a conviction that is becoming deeper all the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
There is a tension in feminism between those of us for whom being feminists meant "no, I'll never get stuck having kids" and those who wanted to "have it all". I don't even know how to go about discussing this without others (women and also men) feel they are being targeted somehow.
Y'now, like those horrid family reunions... 'oh, you haven't had any kids yet' - sure parents must get the opposite number

---

There are many divisions within feminism - being what it is, how could it possibly be a homogenous thing - and some are more rancour-filled than others. A woman I know, who identifies as a brown, queer, militant feminist, detailed to me the kind of unsolicited political opinion, some of it quite emotional, she recieved from formerly like-minded women when she decided to have a child. She told me that many women colleagues felt she had chosen motherhood over feminism. She, being a very strong, vocal, articulate woman, took pains to educate them on how she felt motherhood enhanced her activistism.

Regardless of where you stand on the whole procreation thing, in feminism in particular there are few who do not have strong feelings on issues relating to reproduction. For so long women had no choice as to whether they had children or not, got married or not, had access to education or not. The feminist movement is associated with freedom from the powerlessness women had when they were forced to remain in the home, producing and caring for children and a husband. So it's not surprising that childlessness and financial independence are seen, by some, as the lynchpins of women's emanicpation from domestic servitude.

quote:

---

I'm not sure I understand this. If someone is going to pay me to raise my own child, shouldn't they also pay me to cut my own lawn? After all, if someone else does it for me they expect to be paid. If I take the task on myself, rather than sitting in front of my television, should I get "paid" the same way they would? What about cutting my own hair? Preparing my own meals? How about all that free laundry I've been doing for myself?

---

Please tell me you're just a shit-disturber, and not actually this dense...

The point is, what you do for yourself, you do on your own. But if you were doing for somebody else, and that somebody was not family, your caregiving would have an economic value, and you would likely be paid for it. But if you care for family, that suddenly has no economic value. This strikes some as wrong.

I agree that there should be economic value, but I stop shy of thinking everybody should be paid. A stay at home parent in a household with an income under a certain level should certainly be subsidized.

quote:

---

The point is, what you do for yourself, you do on your own. But if you were doing for somebody else, and that somebody was not family, your caregiving would have an economic value, and you would likely be paid for it. But if you care for family, that suddenly has no economic value. This strikes some as wrong.

---

And I'm asking why caregiving is any different from any other service which we can either a) do ourselves, for ourselves, or b) pay someone to do. And perhaps even c) get paid to do for someone else.

If you don't cut your lawn, it really doesn't affect me, unless I'm one of those really (*cough*) people who can't stand to see an uncut lawn. If you don't clean your house or make your own dinner, bully for you. It's your problem.

If you don't give your kids proper care and education, they may grow up to become a threat to me. I will be paying for their crimes and abuses, certainly, through my taxes for prisons and institutions. My taxes will subsidize the hospitals where they put each other in fights, the police intended to control their depredations, the insurance rates that skyrocket because they can't be trusted to drive responsibly, drink responsibly, or in fact do much of anything responsibly.

Now, we as society generally luck out; only perhaps a few percent of kids raised in households that neglect them act out in the ways described above. A few percent of many millions, however, is significant enough to be a problem.

Active abuse is a matter for the courts, I'll definitely agree. But I'm not talking about active abuse; I'm talking about neglect, caused by the fact that (in my country, at least) in the vast majority of cases both parents - if present - have to work, and sometimes more than one job, in order to support the family at all. Without wages for child-rearing, child-rearing time isn't something they can afford. They therefore end up with the kids, but not the rearing. Maybe you Canadians don't have that problem. We Merkins do, in spades.

Think you are exaggerating somewhat the detrimental effects to children of having both parents in the labour force though, April. That has often been a club to keep women confined to Kirche Küche and Kinder.

I'd say the problem, other than a lack of daycare and social services for harried parents, and too-long working hours for all, is the fact that women's jobs tend to be low-paid or unsteady, with few benefits.

A parent who is being paid to raise their own child is likely lacking in this training. Certainly much of it is common sense & many parents raise their children by it anyway, paid or not, but some don't, and I don't see any merit in paying someone to feed their child Coke to shut it up, to leave the 11th storey window open, or to tell their child that "black people aren't like us". Y'know?

quote:

---

I'd say the problem, other than a lack of daycare and social services for harried parents, and too-long working hours for all, is the fact that women's jobs tend to be low-paid or unsteady, with few benefits.

---

I don't think it's that simple, lagatta. Much could be improved by allowing more flexible work hours, telecommuting, etc.

But there is also a school of thought that kids are better off with their parents, especially in the first few years, than they are in daycare, subsidized or not. And a lot of women want to stay home with their kids. I think that's an option that should be open to them. And it isn't just the religious right.

quote:

---

Mr Magoo, some high schools do teach both male and female pupils some childcare skills in the context of health and what used to be called 'domestic science' or 'home economics'

---

Yes, I remember. I missed Home Ec by a year (my class was gendered but the class the next year was not), and I remember seeing other students in high school carrying sacks of sugar for a week, but I'm referring to an ECE education. At my Uni it's a 4 year degree course; I think some colleges offer it in one or two. Either way, it's what you need if you want to get paid to be responsible for children.

quote:

---

I agree that there should be economic value, but I stop shy of thinking everybody should be paid. A stay at home parent in a household with an income under a certain level should certainly be subsidized.

---

Everybody should be paid, not just for looking after children, elders and invalids, in or outside their own home, but for whatever useful work they do.

What the aprtly-named Mr. Magoo failed to take into account regarding children is that they are not property or appendages. They are not his or mine but ours: they are members of the society. If a society is ever to function well, all of its children - and its sick, injured, unlucky, old and frail must be cared for. It's everybody's concern; everybody's responsibility.

As for doing it well, i can't rsist any longer bringing in Eleanor Darcy's solution. In Darcy's Utopia, all pregnancies will be terminated, unless a jury of the prospective parent's neighbours deem them fit for parenthood.

quote:

---

What the aprtly-named Mr. Magoo failed to take into account regarding children is that they are not property or appendages.
They are not his or mine but ours: they are members of the society.

---

Let's test this then: tell parents, on behalf of society, that they have to raise their chi... ooops!... I mean everybody's child a certain way. I think you'll find that parents absolutely do consider their child to be theirs. Whether they'd use the term "property" or "appendage" is doubtful, but they'll certainly act like it.

This reminds me of the oft-used phrase "It takes a village to raise a child", but I think that in the times and places where a village really did raise a child, the child really also did belong to the village. The child knew who its parents were, but the parents didn't claim exclusive rights to decide matters for the child which might have repercussions for the whole village.

quote:

---

What the aprtly-named Mr. Magoo failed to take into account regarding children is that they are not property or appendages. They are not his or mine but ours: they are members of the society. If a society is ever to function well, all of its children - and its sick, injured, unlucky, old and frail must be cared for. It's everybody's concern; everybody's responsibility.

---

In a utopia perhaps, but at the end of the day parents are responsible for their own kids. If something happens to my guy, at the end of the day I'll be held accountable. Since thats the way it is, I'll listen to advice, decide if its relevant and then parent away. If someone tries to short circut that, well, thats a trifle annoying. Actually really annoying.

So considering that, I'm not surprised that most people react to intrusions or comments regarding their particular style of parenting with anger.

The old lady was perfectly correct. A child could get sick, even die, from drinking ditch-water. If the child had been drowning, and she walked on by, she would be guilty of a crime. What's the difference? What's the difference between snatching a kid from in front of a bus (hero) or telling him not to run out in the road (nosy-parker)?
I wish we could be consistent in our attitude.

As well, what if someone, in a misguided sense of what is good for kids, tells your kid in passing to do something that ultimatly harms them. Who is, in the end, held responsible for the child? The parents.

Edit: Not to say I disagree with the notion of someone telling your kid that they are doing something stupid and they should smarten up. My problem is when people try to impart things to your kids, or to the parents, that you are obviously against.

Example: We were at a dinner recently throughout which an older friend of the host kept telling us the boy would stop "fussing" (her term for him moving and making the typical noises) if we gave him a sip of brandy (he was five months old). She mentioned this maybe 7 or 8 times and we kept saying no, we don't think so. Later, when we had gotten up from the table and were mingling, we discovered she had gone in the kitchen, filled a table spoon with brandy and was about to give it to the boy as he slept in his chair. Needless to sday, I got angry and slapped it out of her hand.

If the boy had gotten sick and we had to take him to the hospital who would have been accountable? Me most likely for not guarding him better.

[ 23 May 2003: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]

quote:

---

Example: We were at a dinner recently throughout which an older friend of the host kept telling us the boy would stop "fussing" (her term for him moving and making the typical noises) if we gave him a sip of brandy (he was five months old). She mentioned this maybe 7 or 8 times and we kept saying no, we don't think so. Later, when we had gotten up from the table and were mingling, we discovered she had gone in the kitchen, filled a table spoon with brandy and was about to give it to the boy as he slept in his chair. Needless to sday, I got angry and slapped it out of her hand.

---

You might be surprised (or not) at the number of people who find slipping their tot booze or cough syrup to get them to stop "fussing" perfectly acceptible. The first time I heard a group of mothers discussing how they drugged their kids into submission (and that's what it is) my jaw dropped.

[ 23 May 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

Part of this, I think, goes back to the idea of parent(s) not having enough time or energy to raise their children properly. They turn to quick-fixes to get the kids to sit down, shut up, and make no disturbance; television (in large doses), of course, is more common and less harmful than drugs, but I think the intent may be similar. Quiet 'em down!

quote:

---

Well, actually there are pretty well accepted exceptions to each of the examples you noted. Home schooling, kids working in family businesses, and sadly there are many many examples where kids should have been removed from abusive situations where, for the sake of the family unit, they're left alone.

---

quote:

---

...but what are you going to do, strap him in his high chair all day?

---

There's a province in China where the adults, when working in the paddies all day, will simply bury their kids in the wet sand up to their chests. I'm not making this up.

I've often heard of and even encountered the brandy thing.