On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, luz guerra wrote:
> Neil Rest wrote:
> >
> > Stacey Holbrook <ausar@NETDOOR.COM> wrote:
> > >Marina---
> > >
> > >It is extremely obvious to me you don't know what you are talking about.
> > >You have insulted me with your many (incorrect) assumptions.
> >
> > How?
> >
> > Neil Rest
> > NeilRest@tezcat.com
>
> lg: Isn't this getting way into personal realm/away from topic? If
> Marina and Stacy have a personal issue to resolve, isn't that best done
> addressed to each other off the list?
>
> luz
>
I don't have any personal issues to resolve, with anyone on the list. I
said what I said, and I stand by every word. If anyone has taken it for a
personal attack instead of the abstract argument it was, it's really sad.
I am sorry they feel that way.
All I was trying to prove, was that with all the public complaining on
the lack of day cares, some one could at least try to resolve the problem
in addition to talking about what's wrong with the current situation.
Finally, nothing I said was in any way more insulting than the talk about
"selfishness of childless people" or those "shunting away their little
ones". No one made a big deal about _that_. Even though with all the
pressure society puts on working mothers, the last thing they probably
need are guilt trips from fellow feminists. And I don't remember any of
them apologizing.
As I already said once, it's always easier to act angry or upset (or
spiteful -- remember "stupid" discussion of Demi Moore movies) than to
come up with something better. Or prove, logically, that the opponent is
wrong, instead of saying that she "does not know what she is
talking about" (that _is_ an assumption, by the way).
It's true that I don't have kids. However, I do have parents, and I am
young enough to remember what it feels like to be a subject of parental
experimentation. What people often forget, is that children are not some
raw material for implementing some "progressive", "liberal", "feminist",
or whatever child-raising theories. That they are actually human beings
and deserve to be asked sometimes whether they are willing to participate
in their parents' "search for pedagogical truth" or would rather hang out
with their friends in their trivial, imperfect, drugs-and-firearms-ridden
(or that's what adults believe) public school. Otherwise, someday,
they might tell their parents that they have stolen their childhood. And
believe me, that would hurt them more than anything I can say.
And for God's sake, Stacey, I am not talking about you. I don't even know you.
I've seen plenty of other families children who spent their "best years"
running from a music tutor to a ballet class to some sport place they
genuinely hated in order to satisfy their parents' vanity. Your case
might be different, and it is not the point. What I am trying to say
is that a lot of parents I've met who bent over backwards trying to be
non-traditional, and considered "making something" of their children the
central goal of their lives, would do the greatest favor to their children
by just letting them be and getting on with their own lives. I am sure
there are exceptions. But I am afraid, they just prove the rule.
And one more time I repeat -- those who don't like a thread, don't have
to read it, that's what Subject lines are for. They all are
wellcome to start one of their own, we'll all be happy to participate.
Thanks for your time,
Marina
"Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
happens to be selling at the time."
Naomi Wolf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:51 PDT