What she said. I do think the internet is a new social space though. I discovered it 9 years ago when I had my first kid, stayed at home and was bored out of my mind. What did I do? I logged on, found some parent chats, started my own home page (which required learning html) and spent hours online. Yeah I met some moms irl, but I didn't like them. They were obsessed with their kids and I wasn't. I wanted grownup talk. I still find the people I interact with online a lot more interesting than the moms I meet "out there." Maybe people online are more willing to reveal their foibles or speak their mind. I don't know, but reading and writing blogs makes me feel a lot more human somehow.
thanks, austro! and thanks, geekymom! I have the problem that the other moms I meet through my older daughter's school are all incredibly rich, and tend to say things like "we're going to southern australia next week to buy either a hotel or a winery" (yeah, I like to keep my options open too, lady), or "my pilates instructor wants me to be a spokesmodel". Right. I happen to know this place charges $100 per session, but OK. she looks good, though. meanwhile, I just walked down from my house and have mashed banana all down my shirt, but whatevs.
Alameida, why not start a blog for the richmoms and charge them an exclusive membership fee! You could have some fun AND earn. Or is that like too mercenary?
Mind you, they would be blog challenged I guess. Hard to be spontaneous if you have your maid work the keyboard.
So... Holding, still, already.
Yep, all the moms around me are extremely wealthy. I'm like, yeah, well, I hope I can pay the PECO bill. Have fun on that trip to Europe, though. That's what I get for being an academic in a wealthy neighborhood.
Some more women have to comment on this thread. If no women have commented yet, and you're male commenter #, say 30, then just hold back a minute. Ain't going to kill you.
Alameida, I love you. Will you marry me? I'll take care of the kids. Or, if you want to do it, I'll win the bread.
Ok, yes, the internet and momness. The internet was key--and I lived in a relatively congenial city and neighborhood when p.k. was born. Still, none of my own personal friends had kids and, as you know, once kids are born it becomes more difficult to make new friends. Catch-22. Plus, you can websurf while nursing.
For some reason, and I'm sure Clay Shirky or someone has a nice theory about this, the internet functions, in a way, to make people more honest. Face to face, one is highly unlikely to express the anxiety, anger, frustration, and plain boredom that comes with parenting (or anything else), because, you know, it's not polite. And maybe the other moms/professors/whoever will hate you and you'll be a social pariah. But on the internet, it's okay if the boring, unimaginative people hate you, because they are outnumbered by the people who get it.
Of course, this stripping of social restraints works both ways, which is why we get trolls. But still, on the whole, it's an excellent thing.
Of course, this stripping of social restraints works both ways
Bphd: Good job I m on Hold.
Touche.
But I ve read your Blog, you're lyin' somehwere.
On the internet, no one can tell the difference.
I too hit the Internet heavy about 10 years ago when I was 2000 miles from any friends or relatives and had just had kid #3 and found out that kid #2 was autistic. When you're at home with three (and all of them high-needs one way or the other) you really need someone to talk to, and not necessarily about mommyness. My oldest and dearest group of i-friends came about from playing OS Card's Hatrack!
Frankly, I was blogging via email and didn't know it, and boy is this easier. And I figure since I have friends and relatives that otherwise wouldn't know f-a about blogging other than what they read in print and now read blogs themselves (mine and those I point to) that I've done my bit to drag them into the 21st century.
Oy yeah, it *is* nice to know that somebody besides me doesn't have kids doing fall and spring soccer and are on the dance competition line and the swim team. Our house is geek city. I hate listening to the rest of the moms talk about all the family trips they're taking and I really hate the weird looks I get when I say what *my* kids get awards for.
Um, my blog is probably only about .33 - .25 mommy, now that my kids are older. But that *is* where the funny stuff is. And I use it to point out the sneaky little bad things in the world to my folks and friends who probably think everything is pretty hunky-dory b/c they're getting what info they get from the TV news. I also use it to bitch about the holes in my favorite TV shows. Wasn't the point of ogged's post that he was surprised that mommy-blogs weren't all mommy, and that mommies were paying attention to what was happening? Ooh, you should see what some mommies did to the governor of our state!
Austro's been a good lad, let him yak a bit, please...
Bphd: Im on "Hold" so Im only allowed OT comments. (My interpretation) But I agreed with your original comment.
But this goes back to yesterday's flamewar and the men who find it good to hear voices direct and unfiltered. BTW that subculture comment kept me awake last night.
Camera O--what did some moms do to the guv'nor? Was this Blount or the guy before?
Austro, be careful--if you keep calling attention to your martyrdom, it tends to look p-a....
Yeah, that "unfiltered" thing is interesting, isn't it? Especially in the context of pseudonymity and the amount of control the internet gives one over presenting one's persona. And yet, filtering identity seems to create the freedom to unfilter thoughts. It's an interesting issue. I suspect that a great deal of the resistance to it has to do with people feeling acutely uncomfortable about the gap between absractions and concrete experience.
Now if I don't go shower and get my ass moving, I'll be late to work. I'll catch this thread later. I've done my part in contributing to the distaff perspective for now.
Whence comes the term "mommy blogging"? It's so ... cutesy. And diminutive. (I know geekymom and bphd mentioned the term on the other thread.) Ditto for "daddy".
I think one of the ways it's easier to be honest on the internet isn't so much the ease of reaching people who get it as it is the ease of ignoring everyone, those who get it and those who don't, because, one, it's much more on the lines of a broadcast-listener model (at the level of a single site, anyway, and I suppose pre-blog (though nothing stops a blogger from ignoring those who would correct him/her)) and two, you aren't confronted by the actual images of your co-conversationalists. Don't forget that to many the others on the internet are just Imaginary Internet People.
But before I go, that first remark is meant to be read in a gently jokingly sing-songy warning kind of voice, as among friends.
Can't ... tear .... self ... away ...
"Mommy blogging" has to be either dismissive (by non-mommy bloggers) or else, like "bitch," a smartassy way of preempting dismissal.
You're welcome, dear. Don't you need to go home soon?
Matt, I'm talking about several hundred special needs babies and toddlers showing up on the capitol steps to announce to Mr. Blunt (Blount is a car dealer) that canceling the program to aide special needs pre-three-year-olds was a baaaaad idea. He got the hint. The man needs a handler; I tend to refer to him as Gov. Jr. or the Baby Gov.
Love to stay and yak, but it's Hubby's (aka Mr. Obscura on the blog) 45th and I've only purchased one prezzie. Also he's twins, and as usual he did not send her a card (that's the only one of his family I make him keep track of, could you tell me what is *with* him?) So I'm off to pick up Lewis Black's new tome and some DVDs.
Then I get to work the fifth grade party, for which I had to brave Sam's Club yesterday for a 6 lb. can of nacho cheese. Be ye forewarned, B.! Things only get stranger. Go take a shower and contemplate 130 11 & 12 year olds w/ nachos.
Bphd: Its a reverse tactic to bust the blocade: But I take your point. Upfront and Manly from now on, at least until it suits me to use it again.
As I said in that other thread, I think when more Mothers (Mommy does sound cutesy and kinda dismissive) stayed home they got more interaction with other Mothers then they can get now.
My kids face a similar problem. When all the neighbor kids are away at soccer and lessons and whatever then you might as well be, too, because there is no ready playgroup waiting outside your door.
My only question, to parents of both genders, is this: Do you get absolutely sick (Sick, SICK) of hearing cartoon voices? Sometimes if I hear just one more I am going to scream, and this is with spending the workday away from my kids!
Do you get absolutely sick (Sick, SICK) of hearing cartoon voices? Sometimes if I hear just one more I am going to scream, and this is with spending the workday away from my kids!
Man, I can't even imagine.
Also -- why have all cartoons gotten so cheap and tacky-looking? There's this whole weird off-putting aesthetic that SpongeBob seemed to spawn (or maybe it was Ren and Stimpy) that makes me want to change the channel, even before they open their animated mouths.
Do you get absolutely sick (Sick, SICK) of hearing cartoon voices?
What gets me is the pace and volume coupled with the flood of manic activity. I know kids have a different hold on reality to us, but I am often left wondering what the constant exposure does to the Psyche.
We deal with this by using time blocking and by simply ensuring that they are otherwise occupied. Mind you the 10th game of ludo/ snakes and ladders etc. can also be really wearing.
Still: I grew up with scooby doo and hong kong huey. So the above is probably just age related reactionary fogeyism...
Austro, obviously it's a reverse tactic. That's why I drew your attention to it. The "blockade" was there for a reason, which presumably we all understand and support. Surely, given that we understand and support it, there's no need to use reverse tactics to undermine it. Especially as it had already served its purpose anyway, and was therefore no longer really in place.
Ok, I really am off to work now. Ta ta!
I never got in on the thread yesterday, though I did read most of it. I'm not completely sure about this, but I think people just slightly misinterpreted gluehorse's comments a teensy weensy bit. First of all, the whole "pig" conflict totally missed the point. Gluehorse wasn't saying that mommies are in any way like pigs; it's just an expression, like "six of one and half a dozen of the other." So I think his/her point was merely that mommies have always had opinions, and always shared them in various fora, so the "mommyblogging" thing isn't really some revolutionary concept. Now, I really don't agree with that view (I think Dooce is basically the greatest thing since sliced bread), but it seems like people interpreted his/her comment as intentionally insulting, which I really don't think it was. It was more like "no big deal" than "screw the mommies, get them back in the kitchen where they belong."
Now as to this whole question of whether the term "mommyblogging" is dismissive / diminutive / cutesy, etc... well, yeah, it's diminutive in the cutesy sense, like most -y modified nouns and adjectives. But dismissive? I think that's reading a little too much into it. Should it be called EmpoweredWomynEarthMotherblogging? That's a little cumbersome. Just "motherblogging"? Doesn't have quite the same ring to it. "Mommyblogging" sounds to me like just the typical "familiar informality" of the blogosphere. Does that mean it can't be used in a pejorative sense? Well, no, but I don't think the term itself has any inherent demeaning value. And the same goes for "daddyblogging" (what's the alternative there? SensitiveModernStayathomeFatherblogging?).
Other than that, I basically agree with both Ogged and Alameida's overall points. I think it's a great phenomenon for both the mothers (as an outlet) and for the general blog readership who gain a better understanding of the maternal perspective on world affairs, one that, as was mentioned in the other thread, has been until now mostly available only to women's magazine subscribers and other moms.
Here we go again.
Walter, your comment sure proves the point that you can't polish a turd.
I'm not saying your comment was a turd. It's just an expression, like you can't wash garbage.
In my world words have meaning, including connotations and implications. There is no such thing as "just an expression." Otherwise I'd feel free to say you talk like a manure salesman with a mouth full of samples instead of saying you have trouble making your point.
In my world you can't imply a group of women are "pigs" and expect that to be taken neutrally. Only a fool would expect that.
Now I hope you don't think I've called your writing crap or garbage or that you are a manure mouth and a fool. Look closely. I never said that, did I?
Tripp, I agree that gluehorse was insulting and deserved a smackdown, but I hope that this doesn't mean that someone who disagrees with that point deserves a smackdown. I understand that the "turd" bits of your comment were meant as a sort of meta-commentary on the insultingness of the metaphor, but please let's not start flaming each other again unless someone actually starts with the insults?
(Who am I to lay down the law? The puppetmaster!)
Matt,
I agree. I do tend to use meta maybe too much.
I'll stay away from insults.
Is "hoser" an insult?
Who make the rules? Someone else!
I think "hoser" is a perfectly nice insult. Insults are great, actually, anger bad.
Like, for instance, if I were to call w-lfs-n a loser, that would be all in good fun. No, I wouldn't do that. The page he links has "who makes the rules," but that's surely a transcription error.
Hm, I'm kind of blatantly violating the "boys, don't dominate the thread with your nitpickery and frathausing" bit. I'll keep stumm till after my next class.
Actually, if you had bothered to read alameida's post, you big loser you, you would see that she doesn't say "boys, don't dominate the thread with &c". I assume you're referring to bit #1, which does not say what you seem to think it says.
Walter, your comment sure proves the point that you can't polish a turd.
Ha. That's a good one.
In my world you can't imply a group of women are "pigs" and expect that to be taken neutrally.
But that's exactly my point. I really don't think Gluehorse was saying that mommies are pigs, like, at all. I mean, does that even make sense in the context of the discussion? Or really, in any context? A better choice of words for Gluehorse maybe have been "a rose by any other name..." but that hardly means he/she was being insulting.
Otherwise I'd feel free to say you talk like a manure salesman with a mouth full of samples instead of saying you have trouble making your point.
Well... I suppose if I had had trouble making my point, then you'd be well within your rights to say that, especially at Unfogged. However, your response indicates that you understand exactly what I was trying to say, so I'm really not sure what your point in saying that is. I think I get your broader point about more careful or polite choice of phrasing on the part of gluehorse, but the fact that she was maybe not as polite as she could have been does not indicate an intent to be insulting, particularly not on the order of calling mommies pigs, which, to me at least, is so nonsensical that the possibility didn't even occur to me until I read the next comment asking to which pigs gluehorse was referring. If I say "when life hands you lemons, you make lemonade," it doesn't mean that I'm expecting you to break out the juicemaker and start squeezing.
Oh, also:
a) "hoser" is not a real insult.
2) Matt, thanks for the backup, but I really didn't take Tripp's comments about manure seriously. I actually thought that line about "a manure salesman with a mouth full of samples" was awesome.
So now its official and we can yack:
Two things struck me yesterday. One was the simple fun of my first flamewar. Makes me feel 20 years younger. The whole interaction thing is WAY better than IMming.
Now. I had reservations at first about the handle. The heads up post from ogged got me prepared to be indignant. Which was wrong of me. But it shows how perjorative a title can be, or maybe just what negative stereotypes we (I) carry with us(m), which upsets. I guess I ll get over it though.
The whole drift of the mothers as a "Subculture" discussion is something which chills me dreadfully. Seems very unhealthy to me.
The resources discussion may have been a "tangent" on the thread, but I reckon there is a post there for the taking to investigate the linkage of micro/macro responsiblity and selfishness. Im thinking this post out now, only it won't write somehow.
My take? I find it fascinating to get an in on all kinds of experience that is closed to me in my "real" life. I am a father. I love having a family and I love being around my Kids. My experience of motherhood though is limited to sharing within the family: An experience I would NEVER want to forgoe. That said, it is enriching to get another take on the motherhood experience.
But then again, I enjoy reading libertarian blogs too.
B: You win. See you later.
Great. I didn't think it was a fight. I thought I was gently pointing something out. As long as I'm just pissing people off anyway, though, I'll respond to what Walter said, too.
First of all, gluehorse didn't actually *say* that mommies are boring and that childrearing is unimportant. But the implication was all over the place. And speaking of implications, whenever someone tries to throw "Womyn" into a conversation about feminism--especially in the context of trying to say something ("mommies") isn't sexist, my hackles go up. What could possibly be the point of EmpoweredWomynEarthMotherblogging andSensitiveModernStayathomeFatherblogging other than to be dismissive and jocularly insulting to mothers (muscle-flexing unshaven unsophisticated, is how that reads to me) and fathers (wimpy, neutered, is how that reads to me), while still maintaining the veneer of jokingness that allows you to get away with it?
I'm sure that my pointing that out will offend someone somehow.
Ohh, that's right, I forgot all about the whole "subculture" thing. "Subculture" does not mean "culture beneath another culture;" it means "subset of a larger culture." American culture is a subculture within the world. Does that mean it's less than other cultures? Mothers are clearly a subculture of American culture or any other country's culture, so I really don't understand anyone's objection to that term at all. Austro, would you care to elaborate?
What could possibly be the point of EmpoweredWomynEarthMotherblogging andSensitiveModernStayathomeFatherblogging...
Dude. Ma'am. No veneer at all; I just don't go in for the whole PC thing. It really was meant to be joking, and I thought it would be taken as such. I certainly didn't intend to imply "muscle-flexing unshaven unsophisticated" at all. It was just an arbitrary conglomeration of PC terminology. I'm sorry that caused your hackles to go up, but I don't really understand why. If I were some wingnut coming in here saying that women should shut up and have babies, then maybe I could understand the hackleful reaction, but I'm not. I even specified that I agree with both Ogged and Alameida, because I honestly like to hear the maternal perspective on world events (I discuss politics with my own mother all the time). I just think it's important to criticize people who are wrong for the right reasons, rather than just reacting to some perceived slight in the way they phrase their arguments.
Now, all that aside, would you mind explaining to me why you think the term "mommies" is sexist?
Well Its semantics I guess. If it has the meaning "Subset of" in the sense I understand from set theory, then you are right. That cannot be disturbing. My understanding of Subculture is slightly different. In the semantics of the world I grew up in it meant, at best, alternative. The context of the usage yesterday lead me to interpret that as sub as in beneath mainstream.
Uhh, just to be clear, that last sentence in the main paragraph of my comment should be interpreted as "criticize, for the right reasons, people who are wrong" and not as "people who are wrong for the right reasons should be criticized."
B: it wasnt a fight, i hope. One can win more than just a fight: You won your point.
The structure of Mommying, from blogs to "play dates" to the mom listserv that I'm on all are a far cry from the mommying I observed from my own mom back in the day. Now, I know I'm not a mom, but I am a dad and one who has spent time in the stay at home role, which gives me a weird insider/outsider perspective on this.
I have often been thankful in my professional life for the ability to find random bits of data etc on the Internet, but always wondered to what extent the net would be useful as you get towards the more - I don't want to say mundane - typical and basic components of life. I wondered if it would work the same way the web does with politics, wherein heat over conspiracy theories and general trollishness etc crowd out the sort of discourse I learn from etc. And there is some of that.
But I came into the Internet age with my political views largely already created as a result of real experience. Parenting is a different story. Although marriage was probably the first major life change that I've had that was Internet assisted (and here I mean weddings.com and on line registry for gifts), that wasn't something where we relied on the Internet to give us thoughts about how to structure marriage or look at how other people's marriages worked.
Parenting is different. Mommy blogs (although I don't know any Daddy blogs...), listservs and the like have made me a better parent. And yes there are topics where the heat to light ratio can be as bad as it is in other parts of the blogosphere. Sleep, breast feeding, discipline, vaccination and choice of pediatrician are the places that I think you are likely to see that sort of stuff. But even so, its easier than I thought to sort out the ideologies and different views of science etc and start to understand the quirks and personalities of the online community you are participating in.
And the information and experience you get is really helpful. For a first time parent like me there is nothing like finding out that other parents have had a similar problem or issue and have been able to work through it. The generosity of other parents - mostly moms - in this regard should shake the fundamental concepts of our society and particular and discussion of homo economicus to its knees. Why doesn't it?
Austro, I know what you're saying. The term "subculture" is sometimes used in the same breath as "dirty hippies," but is itself completely neutral, and, it seemed to me, was used in that sense in the other thread.
Re. subculture: the point is that parenting is something that *most* people do at some point in their lives. That makes it not a subset of the larger culture; it makes it the culture. Or, it would, if people didn't automaticallly think that anything involving kids or women is somehow not mainstream, because, of course, the mainstream is what men do.
"Mommies" is a bit sexist in the sense that it is often used dismissively, as in "Mommy blogging." I made the case upthread (or in the other thread) that this is, in fact, humorous and self-deprecating; mommies themselves do it. I do it. But it's humorous and self-deprecating *because* we all know that "Mommy"--as opposed to, say, "Mother" or even "Mom"--is a diminutive form of a word and as such, usually used only by small children. Only the person whose mommy you are really gets to use that word. And maybe the folks at the gyno's office, who are deliberately being cute and babyish as a way of indirectly congratulating you on becoming a mother.
I have no problem with "not going in for that whole PC thing." None whatsoever. But I think that it's worth thinking about what being anti-PC implies, or can imply, in the context of a discussion about women and motherhood.
Austro, oh, ok. Thanks. Sorry I misunderstood. It's a fine line to walk, the making of the feminist points without having someone tell you you're being too aggressive. Thank you for understanding the distinction. Seriously.
Walter,
If you don't understand why calling someone a pig (or implying it or comparing them to one) is an insult you are just going to have to trust me on this. This goes double for using the term about females.
Are you from the US?
Also, when an outsider pops in to a group the group is less likely to cut him or her some slack.
This is all standard human interaction stuff which becomes even more important in blogs when all we have are the words we use and not the rest of the spectrum of communication available.
I do want to address one point that was made to me. The point was that I am using my kids to provide meaning to my life because I am not free to say what a burden they are.
This might be true.
I am free to say what a burden they are, though. I'm paying 32K a year right now for two of their college educations. That is a friggin' burden! Other parents understand this without me saying it. That is one of the things parents 'get' that others normally don't.
I think more of it is an age thing. I'm 48, and starting to wonder what the whole point was. Most young people don't think about the purpose of their life. They are busy trying to get a life, which sounds like an insult but it is not.
So I'm interested in hearing what other people think the point of their life is. I try not to judge them. So far I've heard essentially three answers.
Not everyone conceives of his life as having a point.
ben,
Not everyone conceives of his life as having a point.
Yes, that is one answer. It seems as one ages one tends to move away from that assessment, but not everyone does.
Walter. Then we differ. Because on the quiet, at the time, that really upset me. And THAT is the whole problem with semantics.
If you don't understand why calling someone a pig (or implying it or comparing them to one) is an insult you are just going to have to trust me on this. This goes double for using the term about females.
Are you from the US?
Hostia, macho, coņo, que claro cojones que soy de Estados Unidos, joder, me cago en Dios. Yes, dude, yes, I'm from the US, and yes, I do understand why calling someone, especially a woman, a pig, is an insult, for the love of Christ (in whom I don't believe, but have no problem with). Apparently you didn't understand my point as well as I thought you did, so I'll say it again, and I'll say it slowly:
I don't think that gluehorse, who made the original comment, was calling anyone a pig, or implying that anyone was a pig, or was even interested in discussing pigs in any way, shape, or form, any more than you would be interested in discussing eggs if you told someone that they had egg on their face. It's a metaphor, an allusion, a non-literal referential phrase intended to add a bit of linguistic flavoring to dry political commentary. Are you being intentionally thick about this? Do you think that means I believe you are wider than the average person? Come on, man. All I'm saying, for Pete's sake, is that even though I disagree with gluehorse, that doesn't mean she was intentionally insulting anyone or anything, and I think that's an important distinction. Apparently I'm in the minority on that view, but that hardly makes me either a drooling macho slob or a for'ner. Un puto coņazo es esto, machote, que te tranquilizes con un porro o algo, joder.
Because on the quiet, at the time, that really upset me. And THAT is the whole problem with semantics.
I knew it was only a matter of time before Austro showed his true anti-semantic colors.
Damn. I know there was a funnier joke in there than the one I made.
Tripp.
I am 40, so you can place me on the spectrum you've constructed. When I was 18, say, or even 25-28, I NEVER stopped to think about life as needing meaning. I tried to live a good life in the sense that a Cicero or a Montaigne might have understood but not in anyway connected with meaning.
Just recently I have had cause to realise that the key to (my) happiness is the trade off between time and love, nor do I mean love received, but love given.
For some reason, and yes, thank god, it was after having children, I realised that the fact of their existence and the chance of bringing them up the best way I know how is some way what all that went before was leading to. The reward is simply the experience of doing it. And if you were to ask me, that is the whole secret of the love/meaning thing. For me, that is.
What comes after? Well, the knowledge that I did it, am now a different person than before... and a LONG holiday on a beach.
Joe.. I had to look semantics up in the dictionary..so you weren't so far wrong.
BTW how far are we from invoking Godwin, again, here?
Sounds like a shift in that direction.
I believe anti-semantic comments are under the jurisdiction of "w-lfs-n's First Postulate," which is a subset of Godwin's.
So you just killed the thread? We need an authority to pronounce.
This thread is so 15 minutes ago.
Walter,
that doesn't mean she was intentionally insulting anyone or anything
I am willing to back down from 'intentionally insulting' to 'clueless.'
Since she later misremembered what I said and misunderstood and mischaracterized what other people said then I suppose I can live with 'clueless.'
Clueless it is. Other than that, I'm with w-lfs-n.
BPHD, I think you are right about the term "mommy blog" which makes me a little sheepish about my use of it above. Although no one is talking about buying a winery, our mom "peer group" - with whom I also interact as stay at home dad - is graduate educated etc and use the word in a way that I thought was somewhat ironic. Sure it has occurred to me that the use of the word in this way reflects the set of conflicts and choices that society has created that isn't so great to wade through even if we (or they) are clever and ironic about it. But reading your comment I realized that it doesn't necessarily reflect settled issues as much as it does continuing costs, if that makes sense. Damn. Thanks for the lightbulb.
Just one social-misfit-freak mommy saying hi.
HI.
Let's flog a dead horse. 'Scuse the pun.
Intentional fallacy: rhetoric is about not only intent, but reception. The problem isn't the blunder, which may or may not have been intentional (we can't read minds, and because of what I'm going to say in the second half of the sentence, I'm not sure we can trust gluehorse's word on this); the problem is that, once the *reception* of the phrase was pointed out, she didn't acknowledge the problem.
bphd,
Yeah, it is hard to believe one cannot think this was insulting:
it's pretty much a bunch of women defining themselves primarily around the basis of their offspring and their ability to produce offspring. Wooo, they can use curse words in it, too! Big deal. A pig in a dress is still a pig.
But then to fail to apologize after the (perhaps clueless) insult was pointed out says a lot. And I have to ask why the pig was in a dress instead of, say, a tux.
The cliche is really "lipstick on a pig" FWIW. It strikes me that it would be rather difficult to get a pig into a dress, more so into a tuxedo.
Matt,
That's what I recalled, too.
I wonder why the pig is always female? (tongue in cheek)
But then to fail to apologize after the (perhaps clueless) insult was pointed out says a lot. And I have to ask why the pig was in a dress instead of, say, a tux.
The 'clueless ghit' persona is the classic troll position. What counts in trolling is how many responses you get, not the type. Of course, the first entry wasn't a classic troll in and of itself (since it contain an obvious _mistake_ not an obvious flame), but saying 'ancestry' instead of 'progeny' is classic troll material.
Gluehorse got 330 or so, and well done to s/h/it.
ash
['Wheee.']
Btw, hi Eve. Thanks for dropping in. Feel free to stick around.
As long as this thread appears to be continuing, I'd like to respond to your earlier comment (#47), bphd (by the way, I, like my new best pal Tripp, have a hard time referring to you as "bitch"):
the point is that parenting is something that *most* people do at some point in their lives. That makes it not a subset of the larger culture; it makes it the culture
Are you sure that's what you mean to say? You're saying that since, at some undetermined point in time, most people from set A (the human race, the American population, whatever) also belong to set B (parents), then Set A and Set B are equal even though a large fraction of Set A does not belong to set B right now? Not sure I follow the logic of that. I mean, I think I know what you're trying to get at, but the statement itself doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Set B, by definition, has to be a subset of Set A, because not all humans or Americans are parents. This is even more true (!) of mothers, since a mother must be female, and females are a subset of humans. Again, this has no negative connotation whatsoever; it's merely a statement of mathematical reality. Now as for
Or, it would, if people didn't automaticallly think that anything involving kids or women is somehow not mainstream, because, of course, the mainstream is what men do.
I'm not sure who you talk to, but I don't know of anyone who thinks that "anything involving kids or women is somehow not mainstream." Maybe college students as a group minimize the importance of parental input in cultural matters, but that's not anti-female sentiment or socialization or anything like that; it's just college students thinking that anyone over 25 is old, and therefore their opinion is probably not worth thinking about too much. The point is, your description of society might have been accurate 30 or 40 years ago, but I'm not sure on what you're basing it with regard to modern society. It also contradicts your first sentence: if you believe that "people" generally consider parenting "not mainstream" then how can parenting be "the culture?"
we all know that "Mommy"--as opposed to, say, "Mother" or even "Mom"--is a diminutive form of a word and as such, usually used only by small children.
This one makes the least sense of all to me. In my world at least, the use of diminutive terms is far from necessarily (or even usually) pejorative or dismissive. I would call it more "affectionate" or "familiar." I guess it does depend on the source, and so yes, if you read some demented wignut fundamentalist talking about mommyblogging, then it would be reasonable to interpret that in a negative light. But generally, from anyone who uses the term, ever? That strikes me as a bit hyperanalytical.
And again here, I'll refer to Dooce: I don't know exactly how much traffic she gets, but every time she opens comments, there are about 300 posts within a few hours. Considering the normal ratio of lurker-to-poster, that would be a considerable amount of traffic. Obviously, she's the exception and not the rule, but the bottom line is that even if some people do indeed try to dismiss "mommyblogging" by using the diminutive in a dismissive context, then, well, they're dinosaurs, so screw them: the supply-demand curve is nowhere more closely correlated to reality than on the Internet, because relatively accurate counts are so much easier to obtain, and are so much more real-time. You can't make people like blogs-by-mothers by using nonoffensive terms, and the simple fact appears to be, at least in that one case, you don't need to. Maybe other motherblogs don't get as much traffic, but you can't expect the revolution to which Ogged and Alameida referred to be completed overnight. It's a gradual process, and in my view, badgering people with PC will probably just slow it down even further (not that you've really reached the point of "badgering" me yet; I'm referring more broadly to what I believe to be the counterproductivity of PC).
But I think that it's worth thinking about what being anti-PC implies, or can imply, in the context of a discussion about women and motherhood.
Quite so, and I wasn't being anti-PC; I was poking fun at the awkwardness of extreme PC language. Just because liberals are right and conservatives are wrong does not mean that we don't sometimes go a little overboard, and I think political correctness generally is one of those cases in which we often do. The standard of inoffensiveness, if universally applied, has become so restrictive and hyper-rationalist as to almost preclude the possibility of engaging in any discourse at all without offending someone, according to the keepers of the PC flame. This isn't some martyred whining about persecution of the white man such as the right engages in constantly; I just think that there's a grey area between egregiously sexist or racist language like generic-"his" or "colored" and changing the spelling of the word "woman" to "womyn" so as to remove the "man." Not only that, but as we saw recently with Jada Pinkett Smith, it's hardly just white men who are subjected to hyperanalytical PC scrutiny (I'm sorry, but anyone who uses the term "heteronormative" with a straight face needs to take a big fat chill pill).
(I'm sorry, but anyone who uses the term "heteronormative" with a straight face needs to take a big fat chill pill).
Walter--you see this?
Oh yeah, that was awesome, ben. I think my favorite part was "Ms. Fisher made works that included a hollow concrete ball that she rolled around in on campus." I mean, my god, it doesn't get any more gobsmackingly pretentious than that, and just the image of this woman rolling up to the bike rack in her ball, stepping out with an affected look of serene contemplation on her face, and then demonstratively making a point of not locking it up because that would be "bourgeois and materialistic"...
Too damn funny.
It seems Alameida's original point is still worth considering. With one or two notable exceptions, this entire thread made up of men. Where are the women?
If Kevin Drum had left comment 75 he'd have been in big trouble.
If Kevin Drum had left comment 75 he'd have been in big trouble.
Heh. Indeed.
With one or two notable exceptions, this entire thread made up of men. Where are the women?
The lady said shut up until 30, so I shut up until 70.
ash
['Don't look at me.']
Tripp -
I think I was far more interested in existential questions in my youth than I am now. Maybe it's the AARP card.
I'm not sure I believe one's life has to have a defined "point", per se. For me, dwelling on the "why am I here?" question in some general sense is less important than "what is the best thing to be doing in the here and now?" I wear different hats - tho' they are, admittedly, stacked one atop the other, in varying orders of precedence - and each of them has its own point. In the context of mothering The Offspring, the point is to get him to functional adulthood, with enough caring to give him a sense of security and enough scar tissue to survive in the real world, but not so much as to leave him damaged; I do not, however, see my "point in life" as being The-Offspring's-Mother or The-Mother-of-The-Offspring [a subtle difference, but a difference]. In the context of my profession, the point is to do well what I am hired to do, but I don't think of performing my job as my point in life, either.
[Lately, a nasty rhinovirus has decided my point in life is to nurture its existence; I do not concur, so I am presently engaged in acidifying its environment with overdoses of Vitamin C...]
Re: children-as-burden: You're right; parents 'get' that - and we may bitch about it on occasion, but that doesn't mean we weren't aware of it from the outset [hell, the cost of those !@#%$^ diapers could feed a third-world country for a year] and didn't accept the likelihood that the words "disposable income" or "peace and quiet" and "parent" are seldom juxtaposed. There are times that I've wanted to strangle The Offspring and bury him neatly under the roses, then run off to Paris with William Petersen from CSI. [In my inchoate fantasies, this somehow prevents the local constabulary from investigating the crime...]
The above is a round-about way of getting to what I enjoy about Dooce and Flea and Bitchphd and Getupgrrl and others: They're witty and trenchant and unabashed and profane, fine writers all, and they don't pretend that parenthood or attempting to attain parenthood is somehow sacred, or that motherhood and serenity go hand in hand. [Once, just once, I would have liked to see June Cleaver lose it...] Twenty years ago, when The Offspring was an infant, there were some fora on CompuServe where parents posted, but nothing as vibrant as this world o' mommy/daddy-blogging. I probably could have used it then to reassure myself that I wasn't an anomaly because I didn't cherish my son's every effluent in quite the way that the Stepford Mothers in my neighbourhood seemed to do. Now I read these writers with a somewhat nostalgic eye - but it is the quality of the writing overall that attracts me to a given blogger in the first place, and I appreciate that those talents have a venue. The blogosphere may not provide the five hundred pounds, but it can provide a room of one's own.
Benton in 45 basically said what I've been trying to formulate all day. To me, as a reader of parenting blogs and as an expectant father, the best part has been the confidence I've developed through exposure to others doing what I'm about to have to do (and am now doing): parenting.
Perhaps this is as much a comment on the nature of society's development over the last 50 years or so as it is about the power of the Internet to connect people to new voices. That is to say, I'm 32, from a middle-class midwestern upbringing. I moved to my city to attend college, graduated college, stayed in my town, made/kept friends, embarked on an OK middle-class career, met my wife, got married...and I know almost noone who has kids. Dooce, Flea, Daddyzine, Laid-off Dad, Fuzzy, Finslippy--they're what made me feel like I wasn't alone (with my wife, obviously) in what I was doing and that I'd be able to meet the challenges with a relatively good attitude and a sense of confidence.
Basically, yay Internet.
Also, Apostropher isn't the only one who makes cute kids.
Jen, there aren't a lot of women commenting here.
Boys, may I point out that talking past the girls is one reason there aren't a lot of women commenting here? And that that was pretty much what Alameida said up top?
Well, I'm a woman, got here through Lisa Williams, er, mommy blog.
Have no kids, divorced, academic physician (pathologist). I spend my day diagnosing diseases and cancers and have autopsied a dead body or two in my day.
I love mommy blogs. I love my niece and I think children are amazing. I think innocence and love and newness and beauty are things to be searched for in this life, and then cherished when found. Look, I'm professionally surrounded by existential nastiness, and am making my way, sturdy career woman that I am, through it. Proud to do it.
I don't understand all the hatin' on the mommy blogs. I know lots of women with kids who practice medicine. Children don't necessarily have to hold you back (says the hypocritical woman with no kids.....)
My favoritest example was the fellow resident who went back to medical school after she raised her kids. Smartest, funniest woman I know. Said she had a blast doing it her way. I'm not minimizing the problems for working moms, it's really tough and some of the guys do have it easier.
But as someone who diagnoses badness for a living, I'm sorry to say there's plenty of badness around. A child's laugh sounds like hope to me, corny as that sounds....
Ok, my comment came across as all loopy and la-la nice. Ugh. Being all positive and sunshiney must be some self-protective device for this doc...
Fairly frequent reader here - forgive my inability to keep up with the sassy comment banter right away.
I've been participating in online communities since about 1988 - first on local university confers, then usenet, then the web. So it made sense that when I became a parent, living in a new town far from my family and old friends, I would look for an online community of other parents. And I found one.
And when I did, I found it wasn't all just in-depth discussions of introducing solids and analyses of the best brand of diaper. We talked politics and religion, and we talked about the changes wrought in our lives by the birth of our children. Its an interesting thing to participate on a debate board that is almost 100% female. I think a lot of the "No, women can't argue politics" or "Women are afraid of disagreement" people would have gotten a big surprise...
Through that community, I found infertility and parenting blogs. And through them, I found feminist and political blogs. Because the parents, they are linking to the politics!! Who would have thought?
I've said this before - it seems that when women are writing about things of importance to them in their lives - be it parenting, family life, balancing work and family life, reproductive rights in all their forms, or social justice -- it is somehow easy for some people to discount that writing as "pretty much a bunch of women defining themselves primarily around the basis of their offspring and their ability to produce offspring. "
Lets assume that is in fact true -that Mommy blogs are really all about the ability to produce offspring. Why does that matter ? Someone writes something about a man defining himself around his job and his ability to do his job. Lets call it "Death of a Salesman." Art. Classic Literature. A Masterpiece. A moving study of the social pressures that drive a man in this life. Someone writes something about a woman and her kids? Well, to call it anything but "Mommy Blogging" invites some kind of porcine analogy. Male introspection about male roles -- that's got Social Importance written all over it. Female introspection about their place in the world? Self indulgent Navel gazing.
If youre a newcomer to this process, there are a few items to keep in mind build craps table INT MALT SHOP.
If youre a newcomer to this process, there are a few items to keep in mind build craps table INT MALT SHOP.