Stacey,
Your postings are just as full of assumptions as mine. My attitude is my
attitude, and it in no way can interfere with what people want to do
with their lives, unless they are insecure about their choice. There are
lots's of people who think like me, there are lot's of people who
think like you, that's the way world is. You cannot make them change
their mind by telling them they don't know what they are talking about.
Of course you can try if you want to.
And disagreement is not an insult unless one believes they are never
wrong.
Marina
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Stacey Holbrook wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, MARINA YERESHENKO wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > 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.
>
> Your "abstract argument" was full of assumptions about women who choose to
> stay at home. Since I am one of those women, I took your statements
> personally. I didn't want to get into a fight with you, I just wanted you
> to stop posting on this thread since so much of what you had written was
> insulting and stereotypical (watching soaps all day, being overly involved
> in their children's lives, being dependent and "hiding behind their
> husband's back", not having a life, "wasting the best years of their
> lives", children are not allowed to develop as independent human beings,
> etc...)
>
> (snip)
> > 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.
>
> I don't recall any statements regarding the "selfishness of childless
> people" and in fact several people commented on "shunting away their
> little ones". And, while there is a lot of pressure on working mothers by
> society in general, -your- statements that were so full of contempt were
> about stay at home mothers. While society pays lip service to stay at home
> parents, the truth is that many people have your attitude.
>
> > 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).
>
> I didn't want to continue this thread which is so off topic. But, I
> consider the above statement a challenge...
>
> The vast majority of the mothers that I know who choose to stay at home do
> not watch an inordinate amount of television, lack independence, or hide
> behind their husband's back. They have better things to do like go to
> seminars, work on newletters, write a book, campaign for local or national
> governmental reforms, garden or care for livestock, run their home
> business, develop web pages, become involved in a support network (La
> Leche League, for example), midwifery, take lessons, give lessons, travel
> and just pursue whatever interests they might have.
>
> All of these things are done while raising children. Marina is correct in
> one way, staying home to raise children isn't for everyone. It is hard and
> demanding work but very rewarding for those of us who choose to make child
> care our primary focus.
>
> (snip)
> > 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 I see far too many parents "letting them be" and "getting on with
> their own lives". IMO if more parents were involved in their children's
> lives there wouldn't be as many teen-age drug addicts, alcoholics,
> pregnancies etc. I think that in the long run most children will
> eventually grow up and be grateful that their parents cared enough to be
> involved in their lives. And the ultimate pursuit of most stay at home
> parents I know isn't to "make something" of their children. It is to raise
> their children to be caring and happy adults.
>
> > 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.
>
> This thread was very interesting when it started.
>
> > Thanks for your time,
> >
> > Marina
>
> Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com)
>
"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 - 19:06:52 PDT