The Maternal Bond

[Glen Appleby]

Ann wrote, so eloquently, on her web page (but seemed embarased
to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):
>
> THE MATERNAL BOND
> 1992 (c) Anne P. Mitchell, Stanford Law School
>
> Published in: American Journal of Family Law, Volume 9, Number
> 3, Fall, 1995
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Maternal Bond
>
> Bond \'b<a:>nd\ noun: 1: something that binds or restrains;
> 2: a binding agreement;
> 3: a band or cord used to tie something;
>
> 4: a material or device for binding;
> 5: an obligation made binding by a money
> forfeit;
> 6: (adj.) bound in slavery [1]
>
> One often hears about the bond between mother and child.
> The phrases "maternal bond" and "the mother-child bond" are
> fairly commonplace in today's jargon. Moreover, one hears these
> phrases most often in a positive context ... the mother-child
> bond being considered a special and somehow magical connection
> which transcends mere relationship. It is, somehow, an
> inseverable umbilicus, something not to be tampered or interfered
> with, something sacred. It is The Mother-Child Bond.
>
> This bond is one proclaimed not just by women, but by
> men, who have come to believe that there exists a bond between
> mother and child which fathers can never hope to approximate with
> their children. It is also relied upon by the family law system,
> and by society in general, in order to perpetuate women's role
> as, first and foremost, caretakers of children.
>
> I. The Dilemma
> As suggested by the definition with which this paper
> opens, a bond is not just a special sort of magical relationship.
> Even where that exists, a parent-child bond is at minimum an
> enormous responsibility. Therefore to place upon a mother's
> shoulder the mantle of a unique and inevitable mother-child bond
> is to also place upon a mother's wrists the shackles of
> responsibility for that bond, and that child.
>
> Where a mother has become so intimately and inextricably
> bound, she may have little ability to break free to pursue other
> objectives. This is true even where there is a father present
> and willing to assume the childcare responsibilities. In
> attempting to take on the responsibilities of childcare, the
> father may find it nearly impossible to disentangle mother and
> child of the binds that tie them together, and his attempts will
> be unavailing. In part this may be due to the father's own
> perception of how revered the mother-child bond is, and a belief
> that as a father he is bereft of parent-child bonding ability.
> This in turn is linked to society's perception of the same, which
> the father may well have internalized. In other words, fathers
> too have come to believe that a child belongs with its mother, as
> that is where the parent-child bond is.
>
> The father, having bought into these perceptions, may be
> less willing to assert a claim to time with his children,
> believing it to be meddling with the mother-child relationship;
> this may be particularly true in the case of custody/visitation
> issues. Society then indicts the father for not wanting to be
> involved with his children, imputes an inversely proportional
> desire on the part of the mother who is caring for the children,
> and thus the cycle is complete, with the mother in perpetual
> maternal bondage.
>
> It is also true, however, that there is quite simply an
> unwillingness on the part of mothers to allow fathers to take
> over the primary caretaking function, for mothers too have
> internalized the general societal view of the sacredness of the
> mother-child bond. This is particularly true in custody
> contests, but is also true within an intact two-parent family
> structure, where a mother may allow a father to help with the
> children, but will rarely be seen relinquishing the larger share
> of childcare to the father. As Erica Jong has observed, "We long
> for men to share [parenting] tasks with us equally...but we
> probably do not want to relinquish them. We are as attached to
> our children as ever. Liberation has not severed the umbilical
> cord - nor would we want it to."[2]
>
> II. The Women
> Traditionally, the force which coerces a woman into
> choosing between child and career has been identified as the
> patriarchal and male-dominated society. As Kathleen Gerson
> explains, the theory is that there are ways in which "social
> institutions created and controlled by men shape women's options
> and thus coerce their behavior. It begins with the assumption
> that men as a group dominate women as a group; there may be
> isolated individual exceptions to the rule of male dominations,
> but these anomalies do not invalidate the general principle.
> Given this generally indisputable assumption, the [theory] posits
> that women's behavior results from male domination."[3]
>
> There is a growing body of evidence, however, which
> suggests that the above assumption is, in fact, disputable with
> respect to current times, and that it is women themselves, both
> as mothers making choices, and as feminists advocating policy,
> who are holding women within the confines of the maternal bond.
>
> In a day and age where the feminist movement is strong
> and where sexual equality is demanded, the area of primary
> childcare and custody appears to have been exempted from the
> feminist insistence on equality and parity with men. As Jong
> points out, women don't want the umbilical cord to be severed.
> Women don't want to allow men the opportunity to achieve parity
> with women in terms of child-rearing and custody.[4]
>
> One reason for this may be that women currently have a
> great advantage in the area of custody, as there exists in the
> family law system a very strong bias in favor of awarding custody
> to mothers over fathers. This gives a power to women the likes
> of which they have in very few, if any, other areas of their
> lives. In a world where women have been dominated and suppressed
> by the male institution at every turn, the ability to wield
> absolute power over the man one is divorcing, and to use his own
> institution against him by depriving him of free access to his
> children, is a great temptation indeed. Even though equality is
> arguably the ideal of the feminist movement, it is understandable
> that women may not want to lose this very powerful, and rare,
> upper hand.
>
> This refusal to allow men sexual equality in terms of
> childrearing and custody decisions[5] is reinforced by
> proclaiming the sanctity of the mother-child bond. The modern
> dogma which supports and perpetuates the myth of an exclusively
> maternal parent-child bond is contributed to by the works of such
> noted feminist authors as Nancy Chodorow[6], Susan Contratto,
> Carol Gilligan, and Lillian Rubin. As Chodorow admits, the
> assumption "apparent in recent feminist literature is that mother
> and child are an isolated dyad. Mother and child are seen as
> both physically and psychologically apart from the world,
> existing within a magic (or cursed) circle."[7]
>
> One might do well to question the motives of the authors
> of such writings. It seems just a tad too convenient that the
> feminist movement, now making serious inroads in the fight to
> convince society that men and women are equals, has suddenly
> discovered that this equality does not extend to men in the area
> of parenting and custody.
>
> Faye Crosby does question the writings which further this
> philosophy in her book, Juggling. Crosby notes that some
> feminist authors, such as Chodorow and Rubin, advance a theory of
> sex-based differences which holds that women are selfless and
> other-oriented, the guardians of relations, while men are viewed
> as very self-oriented, and not terribly good at relationships.
> Crosby refers to this as the "new sexism". As she describes it,
> "[t]he new sexism seems as potentially crippling as the old
> sexism. If we accept the view that men and women differ in their
> need to attach themselves to others and in their skill at
> relationships, we have only a tiny distance to go before we
> decide that mothers make the best parents. ...And, after all,
> who do we want raising our children - someone who is detached and
> uncaring or someone who is tuned-in, emotionally available, and
> sensitive?"[8]
>
> Interestingly enough, this "new sexism" isn't new at all.
> It is the very breed of thinking which put women into maternal
> bondage in the first place. And ironically, these are the very
> bonds which the fledgling woman's movement first sought to cast
> off. What is new about it is the number of women who have jumped
> on the bandwagon.
>
> Back in the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution
> caused a shift in the complexion of American family life. Where
> before fathers and older children had been home working their
> fields or their trade, with mothers tending to myriad domestic
> chores, the industrial revolution pushed them out the door and
> into production houses. This left mothers at home with their
> infants and younger children. At the same time, various
> technological advances worked to considerably lighten a mother's
> domestic task load. As June Carbone and Margaret Brinig[9]
> explain it, women who remained in the home during this age of
> industrial enlightenment found their domestic contributions
> recast and redefined. Thus motherhood was redefined as the
> nurturing which was necessary to the well-being of infants and
> young children.
>
> This redefinition was played out in the courts as well.
> Carbone and Brinig explain:
> "With the growing maternal involvement in
> childrearing, custody presumptions also changed. At
>
> the beginning of the nineteenth century, courts
> favored fathers over mothers in custody disputes in
> the belief that fathers were in a better position to
>
> provide for their children. As the new ideology
> celebrated the traits that only mothers could bring
> to the young, the paternal presumption changed in
> favor of a maternal one. The courts protected, and
> thereby encouraged, the increasing maternal
> investment in childrearing."
>
> Thus women in the nineteenth and early twentieth century
> were relegated to child care, and little more. It is these very
> limiting definitions of womanhood which the first twentieth
> century feminists fought to change, and which the newer
> feminists, with their "new sexism", seek to reinstate.
>
> Carbone and Brinig's work demonstrates that the new
> feminism, along with contemporary divorce law trends such as the
> institution of "no-fault divorce", have conspired to set women
> back to an age where they are only free to be whatever they want
> so long as they can do it within the confines of maternal
> bondage. According to Carbone and Brinig the new feminist ideals
> operate to "encourage women to choose both to stay within the
> labor force and to value childrearing above career pursuits."[10]
> [Emphasis added].
>
> The maternal custody preference, and the exalted status
> accorded the maternal bond in general, are factors which can
> coerce today's "liberated" women into becoming or remaining fully
> responsible for raising the children of our society.
>
> By championing these mothercare ideals, women themselves,
> including certain members of the feminist elite, are in fact
> helping to force into maternal bondage those mothers who might
> genuinely prefer to be the noncustodial parent, or to release a
> child for adoption, but for the strong stigma attached to such
> decisions. A stigma which is perpetuated not only by the
> maternal preference, but by that feminist literature which casts
> mothers as the repository of all that is nurturing, and the
> fathers to whom these mothers might wish to relinquish custody as
> the antithesis of that ideal.
>
> Another area of feminist thrust which has contributed to
> the incidence of women being coerced into primary caretaker
> status is the push for a greater maternal subsidy.[11] Rather
> than encouraging and helping women to become self-sufficient and
> autonomous, the current feminist catechism teaches that women
> must be financially kept by men, and absent a man, by the state
> as a patriarchal substitute. This keeping comes in the form of
> spousal support, child support, and welfare. This is not to say
> that there are not women who are needy, there are. But consider
> these words from a collection of feminist writings which is,
> ironically enough, titled America's Working Women: "One way of
> looking at [the incidence of women on welfare] might be this:
> welfare could be the salary women receive for raising
> children."[12]
>
> For women who haven't been coopted into the welfare
> system, there is the "salary" of child and spousal support.
> Brinig and Carbone, for example, support a fault-based theory of
> spousal support which has the man subsidizing the woman
> regardless of who is "at fault", excepting perhaps those
> situations where the woman earns more than the man. Where the
> man is at fault "the award to the woman should maintain the
> standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage even if it is
> a hardship on him." Where she is at fault, she must be
> compensated for lost career opportunities. Where neither party
> is at fault, Brinig and Carbone come to the inexplicable
> conclusion that the woman should be subsidized so as to
> "encourage her self sufficiency".
>
> Child support awards are designed, in theory, to
> underwrite the cost of raising a child, and to allow the child to
> share in their father's income and lifestyle.[13] Nearly all
> states[14] now have statutory formulas which give the custodial
> mother[15] a specific percentage of the father's income, often at
> least 17% of his gross income for one child, and 25% of his
> income for two or more. While it is true that collection of
> support is a problem, nobody has suggested that the formula
> amounts are artificially inflated to compensate for non-payment,
> nor indeed that there is any nexus at all between the percentage
> of child support awards which are not kept current, and the
> formula driven award amounts.
>
> Aggressive feminist lobbying has no doubt played a part
> in the new awareness in our Federal and state legislatures as to
> the plight of the single mother. Hence the new and "improved"
> child support formulas, and modern theories of spousal support.
> However, by trying to throw money at the problem they are
> encouraging the single mother to stay subordinated to the
> maternal bond, rather than helping her to truly make a place for
> herself in the world, and to be autonomous and self-supporting.
>
> One feminist author, Herma Hill Kay, admits of the
> problems inherent in a system of maternal subsidy. Kay argues
> that women will be unable to achieve true societal and economic
> equality so long as they have to continue making choices which
> are "economically disabling for women, thereby perpetuating their
> traditional financial dependence upon men and contributing to
> their inequality with men at divorce."[16] Kay further argues
> that one of the fundamental reasons that there is ongoing
> inequality between the sexes is that women are still relegated to
> the status of primary caretaker, and that this can be remedied by
> encouraging a sharing of childcare responsibilities between men
> and women, and by perpetuating that balance of responsibility
> beyond divorce through the use of joint custody.
>
> Brinig and Carbone criticize Kay for suggesting that "the
> appropriate response to women's dependence on their husbands'
> incomes is less, not more, financial support upon divorce. In
> order to dismantle the gendered division of labor within the
> family, Kay argues that the marital bargain, at least the
> traditional one that exchanges male support for female services,
> should not be enforceable. Her analysis further implies that
> compensation for lost career opportunities, at least for modern
> women who make choices that are "economically disabling," should
> also be limited. In states that preclude consideration of fault,
> lost career opportunities are emerging as the primary basis for
> spousal support. Compensation for those lost opportunities,
> however, sanctions the very choices of which Kay so strongly
> disapproves: namely, decisions by modern women to forego
> substantial career opportunities in order to contribute to the
> care of their children or their husband's careers. Kay issues no
> call for a reduction in divorce awards, but such a call is
> unnecessary. Her endorsement, albeit qualified, of the present
> divorce system, which Lenore Weitzman depicts as a system of
> transitional awards that falls far short of compensating the
> career sacrifices modern women are continuing to make, has much
> the same effect. Kay's central premise is that in order to
> achieve equality, men and women need to make the same choices.
> Women need to join men in the pursuit of careers; men need to
> join women in caring for their children."
>
> While it may well be true that the present divorce system
> does not "adequately" compensate a woman for choosing to be
> unemployed or underemployed, one needs to ask oneself if our
> system of divorce should in fact be subsidizing such choices. As
> should be obvious by now, the author believes that the answer to
> that question must be "no" if ever women are to achieve true
> parity. Brinig and Carbone seem to ignore that it was the right
> to make these choices, to get out of the nursery, and to be
> treated equally in the work force, which was fundamental to the
> original women's movement. Given that countless contemporary
> women have proven that women are in fact capable of sustaining a
> career as well as having children, to define women back into
> dependency on the very actors who have for generations oppressed
> them, namely men and the State, is nothing short of heresy.
>
> Furthermore, to raise a hue and cry, as Brinig and
> Carbone do, that such a reform would lead to a decrease in the
> instances of divorce is alarmist and ignores the alternative
> reality which Kay suggests. If women knew going into marriage
> that they would need to be self-sufficient in the event of
> divorce, they would be more likely to resist the subordinated
> position of being an unemployed or underemployed primary
> caretaker.
>
> It is likely true, as Kay concludes, that if women were
> able to make unfettered choices, such as pursuing a fulltime
> career, then women would find themselves able to be
> self-sufficient, and relying on nobody for financial support.
> But before any of this can happen we must stop enslaving women
> with their "virtues", and damning them for their choices.
>
> III. The Men
> The Stanford Child Custody Study, a recent study of
> nearly 1000 divorcing couples in California, revealed that while
> more than two-thirds of the fathers wanted some form of physical
> custody, nearly one third of them requested less custody then
> they actually wanted. Thus even fathers who want custody, and
> who might otherwise alleviate mothers of the restrictions and
> burdens of fulltime parenting, are finding their desire to take
> on childcare responsibilities overcome by other factors. What
> are these other factors?
>
> The researchers involved in the Stanford Child Custody
> Study hypothesize that it may simply be that fathers in some way
> feel less strongly about custody then do mothers.[17] However
> this theory is based on responses to a "1 to 10" response option
> question asking the respondents to rate how they felt about
> custody, with 1 being someone who didn't really care what custody
> arrangements were made, and 10 being someone who was determined
> to get the exact custody they wanted. On average, mothers and
> fathers alike rated their feelings about custody to be between an
> 8 and a 9, with the women averaging an 8.8, and the men averaging
> an 8.4. Even the researchers concede that this is a small
> difference indeed.
>
> A much more likely account for the discrepancy between
> what fathers truly want in terms of custody, and what they ask
> for, is that men too have come to believe in the tradition of the
> sacred mother-child bond, and therefore they believe that they
> are incapable of providing that somehow unique form of nurturing
> required by their children. Hence they conclude that the
> children belong with the mother. In otherwords, much as these
> fathers might genuinely want their children to live with them,
> they believe they would be hurting their children by removing
> them from their mother.
>
> It is little wonder that fathers doubt their capacity to
> nurture their children, given that this is the message provided
> to them every turn. It is the subtext of the maternal bond
> doctrine, as well an implicit assumption upon which is based the
> message that "good" fathers are those who provide a maternal
> subsidy so that their children may remain with their mothers.
>
> Some authors go so far in spreading the word as to
> misquote authorities who have in reality not bought into the
> maternal bond doctrine. An example of this is Joanne Curry
> O'Connell's response to Burton White's article "Should You Stay
> Home with Your Baby?" Ms. Curry tells us that in his article
> White advocates "that women, with few exceptions, should not work
> outside the home while their children are young."[18] [Emphasis
> added]
>
> O'Connell then goes on to a lengthy discourse to assure
> mothers that putting a child in daycare will not disrupt the
> maternal/child bond (as opposed to a non-gender based primary
> caretaker/child bond). The message is clear that the bond exists
> only between mother and child, and that if as a mother you can't
> stay home with your child, daycare is the acceptable alternative.
> In fact, however, Burton makes a very clear statement on behalf
> of non-mother primary caretakers. In a section entitled "Fathers
> and Grandparents Make Good 'Mothers' Too" he asserts that "[n]o
> study anywhere has indicated that mothers are the only people
> capable of raising young babies. We have observed many fathers
> and grandparents who seem perfectly suited to the task, and are
> willing or eager to share the job.... These people comprise an
> enormous underused resource."[19]
>
> But Burton's voice for non-mother primary caretaking is
> but one voice crying in a wilderness which has become overrun
> with the weedlike rhetoric of those who defend the bonds of
> motherhood. And so long as women insist that only women are
> capable of nurturing children, they will remain bound to the
> attendant responsibilities of primary caretaking.
>
> IV. The Family Law System
> A survey of almost 700 of the divorcing couples in the
> Stanford Child Custody Study found that in 12.8% of the cases
> where both the mother and father indicated that they wanted the
> father to have custody of the children, the court still awarded
> custody of the children to the mother.[20]
>
> This one statistic speaks volumes about the role that
> women have been relegated to play in our society. For all the
> advances women have made, in a time when women have won the Nobel
> Peace Prize, gone up in space, and are being admitted to
> professional schools in large numbers, our family law system
> still operates on the premise that a woman's place, first and
> foremost, is taking care of the children. In the Stanford Child
> Custody Study alone there were nearly 100 women who chose to be
> the non-custodial parent. It is probably safe to assume that at
> least some of these women made this choice based on a desire to
> pursue their career, or to avoid the constant tension between the
> rigors of a particularly demanding career and the responsibility
> of being the primary caretaker (or indeed to avoid subjecting
> their children to the same). These are choices which are, or
> should be, a woman's right to exercise as a free and equal member
> of society. For the family court to determine that the woman
> must be the primary caretaker, against her wishes, and at odds
> with her career, is indefensible.
>
> This is one example of how the family law system coopts
> women into maternal bondage. It is a rather blatant example,
> given that the mother had expressed her desire not be burdened
> with primary caretaker responsibility, and the father had
> expressed his willingness to take on the responsibility of
> custody.
>
> More insidious, and more prevalent, is a subtle coercion
> which foreshadows almost all contested custody cases, in almost
> all jurisdictions.
>
> Women who are going through a divorce or other legal
> custody disputefind themselves confronted with a stark economic
> reality: if they get custody, they get more money. Almost all
> states[21] have in place a child support formula which guarantees
> the mother a percentage of the father's gross income, per capita,
> for child support. In many states this figure works out to at
> minimum 20%-25% of the father's gross income for 1 to 2 children.
>
> There is no need to rehash the theory of maternal subsidy
> at this juncture, however it is important to consider the
> economic consequence of it. Women, having already been
> subordinated to a role in which they are unable to achieve
> self-sufficiency, often face the divorce process from a position
> of under- or unemployment. Depending on a woman's educational
> background, and the prevailing job market, her prospects of
> recouping or achieving self-sufficiency may be quite bleak.
> Faced with the choice of treading into an unclear employment
> situation, or continuing to provide primary caretaking services
> while receiving a maternal subsidy, it is understandable that
> many women opt for the latter.
>
> But so long as the maternal subsidy exists, women will
> continue to allow themselves to be pushed into the subordinated
> role of caregiver, giving up their own careers, and believing
> that they have somehow protected their autonomy and independence
> with the insurance of future child and spousal support should
> divorce occur. Unfortunately this "protection" is one more link
> in the chains of the maternal bond. Rather than being protected
> they are being overprotected, and to no good end, not unlike when
> a weak child is "protected" by an overprotective parent. Both do
> the recipient more harm than good, as neither woman nor child
> will be allowed to develop into an independent and responsible
> member of society, capable of taking care of themself. Instead,
> they will always be dependent upon their provider.
>
> V. Society
> The radio commercial starts off with the lilting strains
> of a fife, and then the announcer's smooth masculine voice
> begins: "It's morning, and another day. There are kids to get
> dressed, breakfast to be made. The bus is coming. As usual,
> just a few minutes sooner than it should. But for a few moments
> between the sound of your alarm clock and the first shout of a
> waking child, you have a little time to sit with a cup of MJB,
> and think of what this is all about. What it's about is what
> it's always been about. Big people helping little people to be
> big themselves one day. It's not easy. It never has been. But
> then your mother managed to live through it, didn't she?
> Besides, when you really think about it, what else could you
> possibly do that could ever be so important?"[22]
>
> This commercial exemplifies the message that our society
> sends both tacitly, and not so tacitly, to women. Mothering is
> the most important thing you can do. Even if it isn't easy, even
> if you don't want to do it...your mother did it, and so should
> you. Nothing else you might aspire to could possibly be as
> important as raising children.[23]
>
> This message can be so pervasive as to completely
> undermine a woman's desire to pursue a career and financial
> independence. It is a subtle form of subterfuge which can coerce
> a woman into "voluntarily" abandoning her career path, instead
> "choosing" to devote her personal resources to full time
> parenting. And women receive this message from all corners of
> society: the media, school, the press, and even from their own
> friends and families. Kathleen Gerson explains that among other
> factors, lack of parental and social support may force a woman to
> abandon her hopes of joining a male-dominated profession.
>
> It is these same societal, social and familial pressures
> which keep a woman trapped in the maternal bonds once there.
> Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious then in the area of custody.
> The stigma associated with not having custody, as a woman, can be
> unbearable. There is a nearly universal assumption that if one
> is a single mother without custody, one must have been the worst
> kind of mother imaginable, either to have lost custody against
> such stacked odds, or to have voluntarily given up one's child.
> After all, everyone knows that the maternal bond is natural and
> ever-present. To act inconsistently is to be aberrant indeed.
>
> Mothers Without Custody, a support group for
> non-custodial mothers, speaks eloquently to the problems facing
> their members in our society:
>
> "REACH - outward, upward, but never backward, for
> looking back is filled with "woulda, coulda,
> shoulda's", none of which were possible back then.
> Looking forward allows us the opportunity to grow,
> to move ahead in our lives, to take control of our
> futures. Reach out to other non-custodial mothers
> so they can learn from both the pain of our
> experiences, as well as from the lessons we have
> learned.
>
> TEACH - others about the issues facing the
> non-custodial mothers. Educate the public at every
> opportunity to help break through the stigma faced
> by MWOC's. Teach not with anger but with integrity
> and information.
>
> LEARN - more about yourself, what you want for
> yourself, where you want to be in the future. Learn
> more about non-custodial parenting so that you can
> be the best possible mother to your child(ren) given
> your own set of circumstances. Learn so that you
> can share your information with others.
>
> LOVE - unconditionally. Let go of your self-guilt
> and work towards building your own self-esteem.
> Give yourself permission to love yourself so that
> you can be free to love (and even forgive) others.
> Give your child(ren) the gift of your unconditional
> love so they can give it to themselves and
> others."[24]
>
> Why is it that there is such a strong stigma attached to
> mothers who don't have custody of their children, while there is
> no such stigma directed towards non-custodial fathers? This is a
> direct result of maternal bondage, of the myth that mothers, and
> only mothers, are supposed to be nurturing and 'maternal'. A
> myth which has been perpetuated in our society, to the detriment
> of women, for far too long.
>
> VI. Conclusion
> The birth of a wanted child is a wondrous and joyful
> event. Being a parent can be a very fulfilling and rewarding
> experience. So can closing a big business deal, arguing a case
> successfully, and being on the receiving end of delivering a
> baby. With the exception of the act of birth, both men and women
> can take part in any, or all, of these activities to an equal
> degree.
>
> Unfortunately, many factors have conspired to place the
> burden of childcare squarely on the shoulders of women, while at
> the same time subverting their ability to pursue an education, a
> career, or some other life goal. These factors share a common
> origin: the continued elevation of the mother-child bond to an
> almost deified status.
>
> For generations women have fought for the right to make
> choices about the paths which they will take, and to throw off
> the mantle of oppression which relegated women to the kitchen and
> the nursery. Slowly, but surely, men have started to come
> around. But now a new breed of materialists, many of them
> feminists of note, have come forward to take their place, and
> women are once again finding themselves choosing between a career
> and full-time motherhood. This choice is a non-choice, both
> because it is coerced and not a choice made by free will, and
> because it binds women back into the very dependency on men which
> they fought for so long to be free of.
>
> Only by freeing women of their maternal bonds, and
> allowing them to provide for their children in their own way,
> according to their own balance of career and caretaking, will
> they be able to become truly independent and self-sufficient.
> And only then will women be able to avoid post-divorce poverty,
> and achieve economic freedom.
>
<snip references to save space>

Now, let the games begin.

"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love."
-- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>

[E. K. Roth]

"Glen Appleby" <dirt...@rcip.com> wrote in message
news:3c9b76c3...@news.rcip.com...

>Ann wrote, so eloquently, on her web page (but seemed embarased
>to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):
>>THE MATERNAL BOND
>>1992 (c) Anne P. Mitchell, Stanford Law School
>>Published in: American Journal of Family Law, Volume 9, Number
>>3, Fall, 1995

A quick glance makes me think readers interested in the legal side
of this subject might also want to look at Martha Albertson Fineman
(Cornell law prof and much published feminist legal scholar,) 'The
Illusion of Equality: The Rhetoric and Reality of Divorce Reform', 1991.
(Though I haven't read the book, I just read a paper summarizing the
same work which was part of the Summer 2001 edition of the McGeorge Law
Review.)

Rico

[Tim May]

In article <3c9b76c3...@news.rcip.com>, Glen Appleby
<dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:

> Ann wrote, so eloquently, on her web page (but seemed embarased
> to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):
> >
> > THE MATERNAL BOND
> > 1992 (c) Anne P. Mitchell, Stanford Law School
> >
> > Published in: American Journal of Family Law, Volume 9, Number

(deleted a large number of pages)

Web pages and long articles don't belong on Usenet.

URLs already exist.

If you think folks will selectively quote from it, they can do so from
the Web site and post their comments here.

--Tim May

[Glen Appleby]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:14:50 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim "The
Net.Cop" May <tc...@got.net> wrote:

>Web pages and long articles don't belong on Usenet.
>
>URLs already exist.
>
>If you think folks will selectively quote from it, they can do so from
>the Web site and post their comments here.

Thanks for the information. I deeply and strongly care about
what you think.

No, really.

I quoted the Whole Damned Thing because, tomorrow morning (unless
I develop the energy to respond before then) I intend to reply to
most of the post. To try to quote leetle parts of it (just to
please you) and respond to those might lose something.

[Glen Appleby]

As promised:

>Ann wrote, so eloquently, on her web page (but seemed embarased
>to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):

To begin with (and to cover my ass -- both cheeks), I did want to
say that I liked a great deal of this ... even though there were
some parts with which, in the larger picture, I disagree.

The disagreement is not in the context of this paper, but when
other things are considered.

>> THE MATERNAL BOND
>> 1992 (c) Anne P. Mitchell, Stanford Law School
>>
>> Published in: American Journal of Family Law, Volume 9, Number
>> 3, Fall, 1995

<snippo>

>> I. The Dilemma
>> As suggested by the definition with which this paper
>> opens, a bond is not just a special sort of magical relationship.
>> Even where that exists, a parent-child bond is at minimum an
>> enormous responsibility. Therefore to place upon a mother's
>> shoulder the mantle of a unique and inevitable mother-child bond
>> is to also place upon a mother's wrists the shackles of
>> responsibility for that bond, and that child.

Later, you mention that the bond could just as well be
father-child.

While this may be true (the quality of the difference is
difficult to measure, so let's ignore that for the moment),
mothers typically have some advantages:

1) Carrying the baby for 9 months and "getting to know him"
(however real that is) during that time is something that the SO
(of either gender) can, at best, only approximate and by proxy.

2) Usually (in a normal birth and at the better birthing centers
-- or even historically) the mother holds the baby first and most
often has the most contact with the baby.

3) Breastfeeding (aside from expressed bottle feeding) is done
by the mother.

While there may be exceptions or ways to m9itigate the above, in
the normal healthy birth, these (and, perhaps others) are the
default advantages that the mothers have over the fathers.

>> Where a mother has become so intimately and inextricably
>> bound, she may have little ability to break free to pursue other
>> objectives.

Much is the same for the father. Once the baby is born, he
pretty much must continue his career and bring in money (this, of
course, under the same conditions that you had assumed, above).

>> It is also true, however, that there is quite simply an
>> unwillingness on the part of mothers to allow fathers to take
>> over the primary caretaking function, for mothers too have
>> internalized the general societal view of the sacredness of the
>> mother-child bond.

Sometimes, yes -- but this goes to the point of issues that one
goes into a relationship with as much as anything else.

>> II. The Women
>> Traditionally, the force which coerces a woman into
>> choosing between child and career has been identified as the
>> patriarchal and male-dominated society.

<snip>

>> There is a growing body of evidence, however, which
>> suggests that the above assumption is, in fact, disputable with
>> respect to current times, and that it is women themselves, both
>> as mothers making choices, and as feminists advocating policy,
>> who are holding women within the confines of the maternal bond.

Often with good reason, though -- especially in the younger
years.

A youngster needs some basic needs to be met, in order to grow up
healthy. One of those includes something involving both trust
and security.

Remember that the mother is the first person that the child
knows. The child must be able to feel secure for long enough to
develop their own sense of security so that they will want to
venture out and explore on their own.

This typically happens to varying degrees at various ages -- from
toddlerhood through maybe 8 or 10 years old.

If this bond is broken before the youngster is ready for it to be
broken, the initial trust and security must be rebuilt before the
person can feel *comfortable* going out and exploring on their
own.

>> One reason for this may be that women currently have a
>> great advantage in the area of custody, as there exists in the
>> family law system a very strong bias in favor of awarding custody
>> to mothers over fathers. This gives a power to women the likes
>> of which they have in very few, if any, other areas of their
>> lives. In a world where women have been dominated and suppressed
>> by the male institution at every turn, the ability to wield
>> absolute power over the man one is divorcing, and to use his own
>> institution against him by depriving him of free access to his
>> children, is a great temptation indeed.

I agree that this is commonly the case, but don't you agree that
it is the case, today, because of (again) issues that exist
because of one's upbringing or life experiences? I don't see it
as simply something that results from hormones or sexual
accessories.

>> This refusal to allow men sexual equality in terms of
>> childrearing and custody decisions[5] is reinforced by
>> proclaiming the sanctity of the mother-child bond.

I see it as more rationalization than anything else.
Rationalization to attempt to prevent the other one from winning
what *should* be a win-win situation.

>> It seems just a tad too convenient that the
>> feminist movement, now making serious inroads in the fight to
>> convince society that men and women are equals, has suddenly
>> discovered that this equality does not extend to men in the area
>> of parenting and custody.

Unless, though, the male has had lots of time with the kids prior
to the divorce, suddenly "winning" custody would put their world
into an ugly tailspin -- which would benefit neither the father
nor the children.

>> Faye Crosby does question the writings which further this
>> philosophy in her book, Juggling. Crosby notes that some
>> feminist authors, such as Chodorow and Rubin, advance a theory of
>> sex-based differences which holds that women are selfless and
>> other-oriented, the guardians of relations, while men are viewed
>> as very self-oriented, and not terribly good at relationships.

But isn't this *typically* true?

>> Crosby refers to this as the "new sexism". As she describes it,
>> "[t]he new sexism seems as potentially crippling as the old
>> sexism. If we accept the view that men and women differ in their
>> need to attach themselves to others

How males bond is quite different (in fact, much the opposite) of
how wimen bond.

Take the act of sex, for example:

We produce the bonding hormone, oxytocin.

Wimen produce it before they have sex (in *order to have sex and
bond) while men produce oxytocin after sex, as a result of sex.

There simply *are* differences that are biological in nature.

>> and in their skill at
>> relationships,

This is tends to be true, but it is a learned skill.

>> we have only a tiny distance to go before we
>> decide that mothers make the best parents. ...And, after all,
>> who do we want raising our children - someone who is detached and
>> uncaring or someone who is tuned-in, emotionally available, and
>> sensitive?"[8]

Can I see what is behind door number 3?

>> Interestingly enough, this "new sexism" isn't new at all.
>> It is the very breed of thinking which put women into maternal
>> bondage in the first place. And ironically, these are the very
>> bonds which the fledgling woman's movement first sought to cast
>> off. What is new about it is the number of women who have jumped
>> on the bandwagon.

Look, you know that I am as much for wimen's rights as the next
guy -- maybe more. But to suggest that wimen's lib is not new is
an error -- very similar to the one that Penny Patterson tries to
perpetuate at the Gorilla Foundation.

When Michael was alive, she would always arrange things so that
Koko had control over when Michael could ... "visit" her.

This didn't work well, for a number of reasons.

First, it is not how gorillas (or most other mamals) behave.

Second, on the few occasions when Michael was actually allowed to
be in contact with Koko, there would be a flury of physical
confrontation that *appeared* to serve to prove dominence (as in
the wild).

3) By this method, there was never any sexual intercourse.

and

D) In the end, (I'll assert) this new method ended up killing
Michael.

Wimen's lib *is* new and it attempts to change a great deal of
what has existed for one heck of a long time.

Remember, I don't oppose that, but also keep in mind that it *is*
a social experiment.

>> Carbone and Brinig's work demonstrates that the new
>> feminism, along with contemporary divorce law trends such as the
>> institution of "no-fault divorce", have conspired to set women
>> back to an age where they are only free to be whatever they want
>> so long as they can do it within the confines of maternal
>> bondage.

And men are free to do whatever they want, within the confines of
supporting their (ex?) wives and children.

Both sexes are bound.

>> According to Carbone and Brinig the new feminist ideals
>> operate to "encourage women to choose both to stay within the
>> labor force and to value childrearing above career pursuits."

Doing both is something that rarely works well.

<mo snippage>

>> If women knew going into marriage
>> that they would need to be self-sufficient in the event of
>> divorce, they would be more likely to resist the subordinated
>> position of being an unemployed or underemployed primary
>> caretaker.

Whoa! Nobody in their right mind goes into a marriage, planning
for a divorce. That would be amazingly defeatist!

Now, if the feminists would like to be truely equal and
accomodating of the real differences between the sexes, it might
make sense to redefine marriage to allow more openness.

>> III. The Men
<...>

>>
>> A much more likely account for the discrepancy between
>> what fathers truly want in terms of custody, and what they ask
>> for, is that men too have come to believe in the tradition of the
>> sacred mother-child bond, and therefore they believe that they
>> are incapable of providing that somehow unique form of nurturing
>> required by their children.

Or, their lawyers have easily convinced the fathers that, since
this is the way it is usually ruled, they should simply prepare
themselves for it and move on.

Very often (present company excepted, of course), lawyers (like
doctors) tend to take the easiest route and don't fight for their
clients. They are very good at knowing what is typical and just
going along with that.

>> Hence they conclude that the
>> children belong with the mother. In otherwords, much as these
>> fathers might genuinely want their children to live with them,
>> they believe they would be hurting their children by removing
>> them from their mother.

And, especially at the younger ages, it would hurt the children
-- in most cases, today.

<...>

>> O'Connell then goes on to a lengthy discourse to assure
>> mothers that putting a child in daycare will not disrupt the
>> maternal/child bond

Gender issues asside, O'Connell is wrong.

<...>

>> IV. The Family Law System

<...>

>>
>> It is probably safe to assume that at
>> least some of these women made this choice based on a desire to
>> pursue their career, or to avoid the constant tension between the
>> rigors of a particularly demanding career and the responsibility
>> of being the primary caretaker (or indeed to avoid subjecting
>> their children to the same). These are choices which are, or
>> should be, a woman's right to exercise as a free and equal member
>> of society. For the family court to determine that the woman
>> must be the primary caretaker, against her wishes, and at odds
>> with her career, is indefensible.

If we were raised (see how I keep coming back to this?) to better
know and accept ourselves, this type of choice would be so much
easier.

We aren't.

It ain't.

But more than that, there is the very real issue of the
physiological bond.

Remember oxytocin? Wimen spew it after birth, as well. (lack of
it can result in things like postpartum depression to the
psychosis)

Asking wimen to make a choice between their biology and the
wishes of some part of society is unfair.

Now some can do it -- to varying degrees. I know someone who
claims to have been a surogat mother (after getting to know her
better, it *may* have been that she lost a previous child to CPS,
but we do know that mother have been known to give up their
babies -- for the "higher purpose" and/or for the money).

I'm not too sure that it is a Good Idea (tm) to impose this on
mothers in general, though.

<...>

>> But so long as the maternal subsidy exists, women will
>> continue to allow themselves to be pushed into the subordinated
>> role of caregiver, giving up their own careers,

Which one is the most important, to the improvement of mankind?

<...>

>> V. Society
>> The radio commercial starts off with the lilting strains
>> of a fife, and then the announcer's smooth masculine voice
>> begins: "It's morning, and another day. There are kids to get
>> dressed, breakfast to be made. The bus is coming. As usual,
>> just a few minutes sooner than it should. But for a few moments
>> between the sound of your alarm clock and the first shout of a
>> waking child, you have a little time to sit with a cup of MJB,
>> and think of what this is all about. What it's about is what
>> it's always been about. Big people helping little people to be
>> big themselves one day. It's not easy. It never has been. But
>> then your mother managed to live through it, didn't she?
>> Besides, when you really think about it, what else could you
>> possibly do that could ever be so important?"[22]
>>
>> This commercial exemplifies the message that our society
>> sends both tacitly, and not so tacitly, to women. Mothering is
>> the most important thing you can do.

*Parenting* certinally is!

<...>

>> This message can be so pervasive as to completely
>> undermine a woman's desire to pursue a career and financial
>> independence. It is a subtle form of subterfuge which can coerce
>> a woman into "voluntarily" abandoning her career path, instead
>> "choosing" to devote her personal resources to full time
>> parenting.

In a Perfect World, wouldn't the choice have been made before the
birth of children?

All of this, in the context give, seems like so much
rationalization to attempt to assuage the (natural) guilt of
mothers who found the need (internal or external) to give up the
custody of their children.

<...>
>>
>> VI. Conclusion
<...>

>> Unfortunately, many factors have conspired to place the
>> burden of childcare squarely on the shoulders of women, while at
>> the same time subverting their ability to pursue an education, a
>> career, or some other life goal. These factors share a common
>> origin: the continued elevation of the mother-child bond to an
>> almost deified status.

It is too bad that (at least for the purposes of this paper, and
if it is only that, I understand) you have oversimplified all of
this. It is much more complex than simply a perception of the
bond.

<...>

Much of this overlooks some important factors:

1) Most people have not been *raised* to make good choices.

2) Taking on parenting *and* a career is an almost impossible
task because of what is required to be a good parent and because
what most employers require of employees (time, alone, is a huge
burdon).

3) Most people were not raised with a good "sense of self" or
tend to lose it along the way. Without that, they are screwed in
so many ways -- the ability to parent effectively often being
foremost.

In case I might be seen as a massagonist (one who manipulates the
musclature of wimen) I just want to say that I am, in reality,
squarely on both sides on this issue, as you stated in in your
paper.

[moons...@moveearthlink.net]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:16:41 GMT, dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby)
wrote:

>How males bond is quite different (in fact, much the opposite) of
>how wimen bond.
>
>Take the act of sex, for example:
>
>We produce the bonding hormone, oxytocin.
>
>Wimen produce it before they have sex (in *order to have sex and
>bond) while men produce oxytocin after sex, as a result of sex.

Not quite. Oxytocin is released during orgasm in =both= sexes.

>But more than that, there is the very real issue of the
>physiological bond.
>
>Remember oxytocin? Wimen spew it after birth, as well.

Well, technically it's released during birthing contractions.

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Glen Appleby wrote:

>(but seemed embarased
>>to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):

Argh. Actually I'm embarrassed that someone else posted it - flattered,
but embarrassed. Really, a pointer to the url - but seeing the whole thing
posted here kind of makes me wince.

Anne (besides, I'm worried that now Doris Kearns Goodwin might try to claim
it as her own)

I am: Mom, Attorney, Professor, Advocate for Fathers and Against Spam
http://www.annepmitchell.com
Resources on intuitive parenting, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, and more
http://www.intuitiveparenting.org

[Glen Appleby]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:32:45 GMT, in
ba.mountain-folk,moons...@MOVEearthlink.net wrote:

Uh, oh. Another lurker.

Where *have* you been? I almost had to come after you.

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:16:41 GMT, dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby)
>wrote:
>
>>How males bond is quite different (in fact, much the opposite) of
>>how wimen bond.
>>
>>Take the act of sex, for example:

Please.

OK, you don't have to ask *me* twice.

>>We produce the bonding hormone, oxytocin.
>>
>>Wimen produce it before they have sex (in *order to have sex and
>>bond) while men produce oxytocin after sex, as a result of sex.
>
>Not quite. Oxytocin is released during orgasm in =both= sexes.

Yes, that as well. That is the overlap. That does not
contradict what I said, though.

It is a "bonding agent". Wimen bond before sex and men bond
afterwards (but many still don't like to talk, afterwards,
because they are too busy sleeping).

>>But more than that, there is the very real issue of the
>>physiological bond.
>>
>>Remember oxytocin? Wimen spew it after birth, as well.
>
>Well, technically it's released during birthing contractions.

Again, true as well. However, the important part is that it is
spewed so that the mother and child can bond. It is still in the
system long after the contractions.

[Glen Appleby]

On 24 Mar 2002 05:38:18 GMT, in
ba.mountain-folk,shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,

Esq.) wrote:
>Glen Appleby wrote:
>
>>(but seemed embarased
>>>to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):
>
>Argh. Actually I'm embarrassed that someone else posted it - flattered,
>but embarrassed.

Why? It really was well done. I understand the context and
agree with it. I am glad to see the perspective (I have long
been a perspective junkie).

I just felt that it missed some fairly important things in the
non-legal picture.

>Really, a pointer to the url - but seeing the whole thing
>posted here kind of makes me wince.

And I didn't even have to go to the bother of playing
"titty-whistle" with you.

>Anne (besides, I'm worried that now Doris Kearns Goodwin might try to claim
>it as her own)

Aw, you already copyrighted it (note that I left that in?).

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote, quoting Anne's paper, in
message news:<3c9c72ad...@news.rcip.com>...

>
> >> According to Carbone and Brinig the new feminist ideals
> >> operate to "encourage women to choose both to stay within the
> >> labor force and to value childrearing above career pursuits."
>
> Doing both is something that rarely works well.

True, which is where you'll find your Door #3...at the Parrish house,
where both parents have careers but there's always a parent at home as
well, having planned well enough to be able to work out of the home in
order to be there for the kids as well as having the big house and the
messy SUV. :) The kids also see Mom and Dad both working in their
respective fields and have good examples to follow there. Points duly
awarded.

> >> If women knew going into marriage
> >> that they would need to be self-sufficient in the event of
> >> divorce, they would be more likely to resist the subordinated
> >> position of being an unemployed or underemployed primary
> >> caretaker.
>
> Whoa! Nobody in their right mind goes into a marriage, planning
> for a divorce. That would be amazingly defeatist!

Whoa, that's not what she said. You missed the "in the event" part.
All women should be prepared to be able to provide for themselves and
any children IN CASE OF divorce or widowhood. That's not "planning
on," that's "planning for."

This also includes the supposedly college-educated widows from 9/11
who are milking their tragedy for all it's worth. Did none of their
husbands have life insurance provided by those Fortune 500 companies?
Are they completely unable to find employment despite their degrees?
(Although a couple of them seem to have budding careers in
fundraising.) What about the custodians' widows who are already out
working two jobs to make ends meet...do they not count because they
don't photograph well or have a Web page? (Oops, I'm in alt.peeves
territory again here.)

> >> O'Connell then goes on to a lengthy discourse to assure
> >> mothers that putting a child in daycare will not disrupt the
> >> maternal/child bond
>
> Gender issues asside, O'Connell is wrong.

Maybe not, if daycare is a better place for the child to be than home
with a parent(s) who does not seem to care for it. Having a kid does
not a good parent make, as you well know. I like the comment by <?>
that it's a shame that we have to take a test to get a driver's
license but they'll let any idiot be a parent.

> >> But so long as the maternal subsidy exists, women will
> >> continue to allow themselves to be pushed into the subordinated
> >> role of caregiver, giving up their own careers,
>
> Which one is the most important, to the improvement of mankind?

Possibly curing cancer--or potentially raising another Jeffrey Dahmer?
Hmmm....

> >> The radio commercial starts off with the lilting strains
> >> of a fife, and then the announcer's smooth masculine voice
> >> begins: "It's morning, and another day. There are kids to get
> >> dressed, breakfast to be made. The bus is coming. As usual,
> >> just a few minutes sooner than it should. But for a few moments
> >> between the sound of your alarm clock and the first shout of a
> >> waking child, you have a little time to sit with a cup of MJB,
> >> and think of what this is all about. What it's about is what
> >> it's always been about. Big people helping little people to be
> >> big themselves one day. It's not easy. It never has been. But
> >> then your mother managed to live through it, didn't she?
> >> Besides, when you really think about it, what else could you
> >> possibly do that could ever be so important?"[22]

Barf. Any time you hear this, someone's selling something and it
ain't always coffee.

> >> This commercial exemplifies the message that our society
> >> sends both tacitly, and not so tacitly, to women. Mothering is
> >> the most important thing you can do.
>
> *Parenting* certinally is!

I guess we'll just forget about that fuel cell breakthrough and keep
on wading through piles of toys and fast food wrappers in the SUV,
then. Thank goodness we're properly raising Our Fyooture to solve the
problem...20 years later than it could have been solved. Maybe.

Parenting is *not* "the most important thing you can do." Just like
lots of other things, it can be done well or badly, and people who are
likely to do it badly should find Other Important Things to do well.

Granted, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE KIDS, then parenting becomes much more
important.

> >> This message can be so pervasive as to completely
> >> undermine a woman's desire to pursue a career and financial
> >> independence. It is a subtle form of subterfuge which can coerce
> >> a woman into "voluntarily" abandoning her career path, instead
> >> "choosing" to devote her personal resources to full time
> >> parenting.
>
> In a Perfect World, wouldn't the choice have been made before the
> birth of children?

Yes! <clap clap clap, and that's applause, not a disease, Glen!>

Here we are at Door #3 again. Financial resources allowing, a good
mother can also have a career, and one does not have to negate the
other. Working part-time is one choice, as is finding a good daycare
that teaches skills the mother does not have or know how to teach
(arts & crafts, cooking, learning games, etc.). They are out there;
they're just harder to find because they don't have to advertise (word
of mouth keeps the waiting list full). In addition, the child does
not get spoiled by being the Be All and End All of mommie's existence.

> Much of this overlooks some important factors:
>
> 1) Most people have not been *raised* to make good choices.

True, and may I add that many have not been raised to understand that
parenthood itself is a choice, not an obligation.

> 3) Most people were not raised with a good "sense of self" or
> tend to lose it along the way. Without that, they are screwed in
> so many ways -- the ability to parent effectively often being
> foremost.

Along with, often, the ability to make any reasoned decisions at all.

> In case I might be seen as a massagonist (one who manipulates the
> musclature of wimen)

*snort*

> I just want to say that I am, in reality,
> squarely on both sides on this issue, as you stated in in your
> paper.

Me too! Comments on the above?

Jeannie

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

hpjeannie wrote:

>> >> O'Connell then goes on to a lengthy discourse to assure
>> >> mothers that putting a child in daycare will not disrupt the
>> >> maternal/child bond
>>
>> Gender issues asside, O'Connell is wrong.
>
>Maybe not, if daycare is a better place for the child to be than home
>with a parent(s) who does not seem to care for it.

Actually, I disagree with this, and quite strongly, in part because the
quoted text says it will disrupt the maternal/child bond, so it assumes
that such a bond already exists. But also because nearly *all* evidence
points to it being orders of magnitude better for a child to be home with a
parent (or, if you like, be PC and insert here "primary caregiver") than in
*any* daycare environment. This is in large part due to the high turnover
in daycares - children bond with someone, only to have them disappear
(which reinforces the original trauma when their entire world suddenly left
them in the care of strangers, or at least non-primary caretakers).

For an excellent read on this very subject, check out Dr. Isabelle Fox
"Being there" (not about Chaunce the Gardner).

Anne

[Glen Appleby]

On 25 Mar 2002 21:10:08 GMT, in

ba.mountain-folk,shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,
Esq.) wrote:

>Actually, I disagree with this, and quite strongly, in part because the
>quoted text says it will disrupt the maternal/child bond, so it assumes
>that such a bond already exists. But also because nearly *all* evidence
>points to it being orders of magnitude better for a child to be home with a
>parent (or, if you like, be PC and insert here "primary caregiver") than in
>*any* daycare environment. This is in large part due to the high turnover
>in daycares - children bond with someone, only to have them disappear
>(which reinforces the original trauma when their entire world suddenly left
>them in the care of strangers, or at least non-primary caretakers).

This is a step away from the trauma inflicted by CPS when they
remove children from the home, presumibly to save the child.

Sometimes a child will be traumatized in the home, but removing
them *usually* further traumatizes the child. (This is one time
that I *don't* appreciate irony)

A better (if it is done correctly, and it really is not difficult
to do it correctly -- even for the often-heartless CPS folks)
method that I have seen hints of is the reunification plan that
involves a person or couple staying in the house to help the
parents be better parents.

[John R Pierce]

On 25 Mar 2002 21:10:08 GMT, shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P.
Mitchell, Esq.) wrote:

>
>Actually, I disagree with this, and quite strongly, in part because the
>quoted text says it will disrupt the maternal/child bond, so it assumes
>that such a bond already exists. But also because nearly *all* evidence
>points to it being orders of magnitude better for a child to be home with a
>parent (or, if you like, be PC and insert here "primary caregiver") than in
>*any* daycare environment. This is in large part due to the high turnover
>in daycares - children bond with someone, only to have them disappear
>(which reinforces the original trauma when their entire world suddenly left
>them in the care of strangers, or at least non-primary caretakers).

uh, not *ALL* daycare/preschools fit that picture. the preschool we took
both our tikes to (3 yrs old to K) still has the same 3 main people as it
had when my boy was there 6 years ago. now, we didn't put either of them
into any sort of daycare environment til they were 3, we didn't and still
don't feel putting young children in a external environment is
appropriate. But a preschool for 3-5/6 year olds is quite reasonable
IMHO..

[hpjeannie]

shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) wrote in message news:<91DC84E2Fshede...@204.152.184.108>...

> hpjeannie wrote:
> >
> >Maybe not, if daycare is a better place for the child to be than home
> >with a parent(s) who does not seem to care for it.
>
> Actually, I disagree with this, and quite strongly, in part because the
> quoted text says it will disrupt the maternal/child bond, so it assumes
> that such a bond already exists. But also because nearly *all* evidence
> points to it being orders of magnitude better for a child to be home with a
> parent (or, if you like, be PC and insert here "primary caregiver") than in
> *any* daycare environment. This is in large part due to the high turnover
> in daycares - children bond with someone, only to have them disappear
> (which reinforces the original trauma when their entire world suddenly left
> them in the care of strangers, or at least non-primary caretakers).

I guess it's a matter of context. I was thinking of the difference
between being at home with one parent (possible a single parent)
living a hand-to-mouth existence and rarely seeing its own kind except
perhaps for siblings (which are a Bad Idea for hand-to-mouthers
anyway), and staying in an excellent daycare center or home daycare,
learning social skills, while Parent earns money for a better life,
meanwhile providing an example of (instead of subsisting off the dole)
how to work toward being better off than you are.

Great, now "or would you rather be a fish" is ringing in my ears.

Jeannie

[Hoff, Todd]

Actually i got this picture of a new james bond
flick where some of the many kids he has "fathered"
have come back for child support. He's traded in
his beemer for a volvo. James has to change
diapers while applying rogaine. His love life
has been shot to hell of course. And the new
vilin is Dr. Nanny Evil.

--
My sig has become insig.

[Glen Appleby]

On 25 Mar 2002 13:00:33 -0800, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote, quoting Anne's paper, in
>message news:<3c9c72ad...@news.rcip.com>...
>>

<working and parenting>

>> Doing both is something that rarely works well.
>
>True, which is where you'll find your Door #3...at the Parrish house,
>where both parents have careers but there's always a parent at home as
>well, having planned well enough to be able to work out of the home in
>order to be there for the kids as well as having the big house and the
>messy SUV. :) The kids also see Mom and Dad both working in their
>respective fields and have good examples to follow there. Points duly
>awarded.

I said "rarely". I *sure* am not one to reccommend additional
incomes to make mo' money just to establish the *appearance* that
both are occuring.

I'm not saying that this is what is happening in Mike's case. I
don't know and I am not sure that he and I need to get to know
eachother well enough for me to make a properly informed
decision.

<Wimen should be financially (and otherwise) prepaired for
divorce)>

>>
>> Whoa! Nobody in their right mind goes into a marriage, planning
>> for a divorce. That would be amazingly defeatist!
>
>Whoa, that's not what she said. You missed the "in the event" part.

No, I actually didn't miss that part.

>All women should be prepared to be able to provide for themselves and
>any children IN CASE OF divorce or widowhood. That's not "planning
>on," that's "planning for."

One could easily carry that too far, taking it well into the
defeatist place.

>This also includes the supposedly college-educated widows from 9/11
>who are milking their tragedy for all it's worth. Did none of their
>husbands have life insurance provided by those Fortune 500 companies?

I thought that you were on the side of wimen taking care of
themselves.

>Are they completely unable to find employment despite their degrees?

(from the other newsgroup and other threads) Aw, they are just
bums. Wimen can be bums, too.

<Daycare disrupting the maternal bond>

>> Gender issues asside, O'Connell is wrong.
>
>Maybe not, if daycare is a better place for the child to be than home
>with a parent(s) who does not seem to care for it. Having a kid does
>not a good parent make, as you well know. I like the comment by <?>
>that it's a shame that we have to take a test to get a driver's
>license but they'll let any idiot be a parent.

I find that (by whoever) comment a bit offensive and/or ignorant.

Virtually anybody can be a good parent. That is the natural
default; but it has been obscured in recent history by other
issues.

<Maternal subsidy vs working>

>>
>> Which one is the most important, to the improvement of mankind?
>
>Possibly curing cancer--or potentially raising another Jeffrey Dahmer?
> Hmmm....

I have to wonder what type of parent you have been hanging with
if this is the choice that you see.

The type of parent that would raise a Dahmer is the type of
parent that needs help with parenting, not a career.

>> >> The radio commercial starts off with the lilting strains
>> >> of a fife, and then the announcer's smooth masculine voice
>> >> begins: "It's morning, and another day. There are kids to get
>> >> dressed, breakfast to be made. The bus is coming. As usual,
>> >> just a few minutes sooner than it should. But for a few moments
>> >> between the sound of your alarm clock and the first shout of a
>> >> waking child, you have a little time to sit with a cup of MJB,
>> >> and think of what this is all about. What it's about is what
>> >> it's always been about. Big people helping little people to be
>> >> big themselves one day. It's not easy. It never has been. But
>> >> then your mother managed to live through it, didn't she?
>> >> Besides, when you really think about it, what else could you
>> >> possibly do that could ever be so important?"[22]
>
>Barf. Any time you hear this, someone's selling something and it
>ain't always coffee.
>
>> >> This commercial exemplifies the message that our society
>> >> sends both tacitly, and not so tacitly, to women. Mothering is
>> >> the most important thing you can do.
>>
>> *Parenting* certinally is!
>
>I guess we'll just forget about that fuel cell breakthrough and keep
>on wading through piles of toys and fast food wrappers in the SUV,
>then.

Good thing, too! That mass of fast food wrappers in the back of
the SUV is becoming a health hazard. Would you mind awfully,
cleaning it up?

"Fuel cell breakthrough" indeed! You have been reading the
headlines recently, huh? And that will be accomplished by a
woman, you say? Or are you saying that the guy who figures out
how to make effective fuel cells is gonna need a secretary?

<SLAP!!!>

OW!

>Thank goodness we're properly raising Our Fyooture to solve the
>problem...20 years later than it could have been solved. Maybe.

Ah, here we go!

So it is more important to you to have working *things* as soon
as possible, instead of having happy people who know themselves
and know where they are going?

Let me guess: (apologies -- I hate when others give my answers in
their posts) "That's not what I was saying. We should be doing
both."

Well, we have been trying that (to varying degrees) for a few
generations, now. Have things between people been getting
better? Are there fewer skool shootings, now? Less violence in
the Middle East? More honesty in politics?

>Parenting is *not* "the most important thing you can do." Just like
>lots of other things, it can be done well or badly, and people who are
>likely to do it badly should find Other Important Things to do well.

Parenting *is* the most important thing that one can do because
parenting is making the blueprint for the future (for each and
every generation). Unless one is interested in things and in
immediate gratification, then I can't imagine a whole lot that
might be more important to the future of mankind.

>> >> This message can be so pervasive as to completely
>> >> undermine a woman's desire to pursue a career and financial
>> >> independence. It is a subtle form of subterfuge which can coerce
>> >> a woman into "voluntarily" abandoning her career path, instead
>> >> "choosing" to devote her personal resources to full time
>> >> parenting.
>>
>> In a Perfect World, wouldn't the choice have been made before the
>> birth of children?
>
>Yes! <clap clap clap, and that's applause, not a disease, Glen!>
>
>Here we are at Door #3 again. Financial resources allowing, a good
>mother can also have a career, and one does not have to negate the
>other.

But, for most people (in any financial situation), attempting to
do both even reasonably well is a bear. It is draining, but not
because of financial concerns. More because of time and focus.

>Working part-time is one choice, as is finding a good daycare

Good! Find one.

Then tell everybody else where that is, so that they can take
advantage of it as well.

See, "good daycare" is as rare as sweet smelling farts. Beyong
that, I have not seen too many people who could even define "good
daycare". If it isn't defined completely, then how can people be
expected to find it, except by "random chance"?

>that teaches skills the mother does not have or know how to teach
>(arts & crafts, cooking, learning games, etc.).

If the mother (or any primary caretaker, PC) doesn't have these
skills, it would behoove them to learn them. If they are
important enough to learn, then the PC should know them and use
them enough so that the children will learn by seeing them done.
If they are not important enough, then why force some kid to
learn them?

>They are out there;

Yer arm-waving. Name 2 within an area that you might use,
presently.

>they're just harder to find because they don't have to advertise (word
>of mouth keeps the waiting list full). In addition, the child does
>not get spoiled by being the Be All and End All of mommie's existence.

One can *not* spoil a child by giving it constant love and
attention for as long as the child wants it. That will only make
the child more secure.

>> Much of this overlooks some important factors:
>>
>> 1) Most people have not been *raised* to make good choices.
>
>True, and may I add that many have not been raised to understand that
>parenthood itself is a choice, not an obligation.

Were that true, then right now (no practicing, now!), make
yourself feel happy. Done? OK, now feel so depressed that you
are suicidal. While you are deep in that, make yourself feel
extreemly horney (and call me immediately, please).

If you could do all of that, then perhaps for you, parenthood is
simply a rational choice.

For most real live people, behavior is driven by feelings. Most
folks find ways of rationalizing the behaviors. The stronger the
feelings, the more driven the behavior -- and that does not
exclude lots of time generating rational thought that supports
the behaviors and feelings.

>> 3) Most people were not raised with a good "sense of self" or
>> tend to lose it along the way. Without that, they are screwed in
>> so many ways -- the ability to parent effectively often being
>> foremost.
>
>Along with, often, the ability to make any reasoned decisions at all.

See above.

>> In case I might be seen as a massagonist (one who manipulates the
>> musclature of wimen)
>
>*snort*
>
>> I just want to say that I am, in reality,
>> squarely on both sides on this issue, as you stated in in your
>> paper.
>
>Me too! Comments on the above?

No, I just don't have tyme. I used it all in a dinner recipe,
this weekend.

[Glen Appleby]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:47:21 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,John R
Pierce <sp...@is.invalid> wrote:

>uh, not *ALL* daycare/preschools fit that picture. the preschool we took
>both our tikes to (3 yrs old to K) still has the same 3 main people as it
>had when my boy was there 6 years ago. now, we didn't put either of them
>into any sort of daycare environment til they were 3, we didn't and still
>don't feel putting young children in a external environment is
>appropriate. But a preschool for 3-5/6 year olds is quite reasonable
>IMHO..

So you *do* homeschool!

Kool!

[Glen Appleby]

On 25 Mar 2002 18:19:19 -0800, in
ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:

>I guess it's a matter of context. I was thinking of the difference
>between being at home with one parent (possible a single parent)

Wait. A single parent (of either gender) has a whole new set of
problems.

>living a hand-to-mouth existence and rarely seeing its own kind except
>perhaps for siblings (which are a Bad Idea for hand-to-mouthers
>anyway),

What is this concern for kids not seeing other kids? I hear that
as a stated concern for homeschooling. Have you ever found a
parent who is capable of keeping kids away from the other kids in
the neighborhood? Kids *will* find other kids.

>and staying in an excellent daycare center or home daycare,
>learning social skills, while Parent earns money for a better life,

Um, "learning social skills" is most effectively done by kidlet
watching parents.

>meanwhile providing an example of (instead of subsisting off the dole)
>how to work toward being better off than you are.

Sure, tomorrow or later. (well, I saw you use the "immediate
gratification" excuse, before, so I thought that I'd just try it
out for myself)

Why force either sex to struggle to have enough to "be better
off"? Why not just learn to live within one's means and focus on
those things that are most important?

Aside: I fear that I might be coming off as someone who opposes
wimenhood or the specific wimen in this group. I just want to
say that I am not aware of any (affected British accent:) "bint"
(did that sound any different with the British accent, than it
would have without it?) in this group.

I am actually quite pleased to be able to have discussions (in
agreement or not) with such a bright group of wimen (past and
presently involved, here). I don't remember any of the blatent
"Me, too :-) :-)"ers, here.

OK, do I get laid, now?

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Glen Appleby wrote:

>See, "good daycare" is as rare as sweet smelling farts. Beyong
>that, I have not seen too many people who could even define "good
>daycare". If it isn't defined completely, then how can people be
>expected to find it, except by "random chance"?

Sometimes daycare is, unfortunately, necessary. Then you are stuck with
going with the least bad option. However, daycare is *never* better *for
the child* than being _with a parent*_ (and don't anybody give me any of
that happy equinewaste about how "the parents need to be happy for the
child to be happy, and working makes the parent feel happy and fulfilled"
rationalist BS). [*For values of "parent" which do not include abusers,
etc., which is a red herring because in that case - if it is *that* bad,
the child arguably should not be with that parent anyways, and should be
with either the other parent, or another close family member or other
primary caretaker, and the thesis still applies - in fact, is arguably
*more* imperative, as a child coming out of that sort of tragic situation
needs security and stability, not to be warehoused, even more than ever.]

And _before_ anyone gets huffy and says "but I put my children in
daycare..", so it doesn't get personal - let me say _now_, before anyone so
self-identifies, that in my experience those who argue the most strongly in
favour of "daycare being good for children" are those who have *used*
daycare and are trying to assuage their own feelings of ambivalence and
guilt. [The same seems to hold true for those who argue that formula
feeding really isn't any worse than breastfeeding.]

Anne
William - 4/11/98
Jessica - 8/28/78

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Glen Appleby wrote:

> I don't remember any of the blatent
>"Me, too :-) :-)"ers, here.

Me too!

[lady_dulcinea]

Recently, the sentient creature shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P.
Mitchell, Esq.) presented us with:

>And _before_ anyone gets huffy and says "but I put my children in
>daycare..", so it doesn't get personal - let me say _now_, before anyone so
>self-identifies, that in my experience those who argue the most strongly in
>favour of "daycare being good for children" are those who have *used*
>daycare and are trying to assuage their own feelings of ambivalence and
>guilt. [The same seems to hold true for those who argue that formula
>feeding really isn't any worse than breastfeeding.]

...Bond. Anne Bond.

;-)

~Dulcinea, Who Stayed Home and Still Spends A Lot of Time Here
(obviously...)

Ben 4/24/85
Phia 10/2/86

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

wrote:

>...Bond. Anne Bond.
>
>;-)

Bwahahahaahahahahahaha!!!

Thank you!

Anne

[Glen Appleby]

On 26 Mar 2002 17:30:54 GMT, in
ba.mountain-folk,shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,

Esq.) wrote:
>Glen Appleby wrote:
>
>> I don't remember any of the blatent
>>"Me, too :-) :-)"ers, here.
>
>Me too!

See? Like I said. Not blatent.

[Glen Appleby]

On 26 Mar 2002 17:29:32 GMT, in

ba.mountain-folk,shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,
Esq.) wrote:

>Sometimes daycare is, unfortunately, necessary. Then you are stuck with
>going with the least bad option.

Sure. Occasionally parents might need a babysitter or even
longer periods of other types of care. I thought that we were
speaking in gross generalities, here.

>However, daycare is *never* better *for
>the child* than being _with a parent*_ (and don't anybody give me any of
>that happy equinewaste about how "the parents need to be happy for the
>child to be happy, and working makes the parent feel happy and fulfilled"
>rationalist BS). [*For values of "parent" which do not include abusers,
>etc., which is a red herring because in that case - if it is *that* bad,
>the child arguably should not be with that parent anyways, and should be
>with either the other parent, or another close family member or other
>primary caretaker, and the thesis still applies - in fact, is arguably
>*more* imperative, as a child coming out of that sort of tragic situation
>needs security and stability, not to be warehoused, even more than ever.]

Might I suggest that you may have been hanging out with lawyers
for just a bit too long?

>And _before_ anyone gets huffy and says "but I put my children in
>daycare..", so it doesn't get personal - let me say _now_, before anyone so
>self-identifies, that in my experience those who argue the most strongly in
>favour of "daycare being good for children" are those who have *used*
>daycare and are trying to assuage their own feelings of ambivalence and
>guilt. [The same seems to hold true for those who argue that formula
>feeding really isn't any worse than breastfeeding.]

Let me correct my last hypothesis.

You have been hanging out with way too many lawyers far too much.

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Glen Appleby wrote:

>You have been hanging out with way too many lawyers far too much.

Why thank you!

Anne

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca087ee...@news.rcip.com>...

> On 25 Mar 2002 18:19:19 -0800, in
> ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>
> >I guess it's a matter of context. I was thinking of the difference
> >between being at home with one parent (possible a single parent)
>
> Wait. A single parent (of either gender) has a whole new set of
> problems.

Yes, but you didn't allow for that possibility in your post, so I did.
We both know there are far too many single-parent families out there.

>
> What is this concern for kids not seeing other kids? I hear that
> as a stated concern for homeschooling. Have you ever found a
> parent who is capable of keeping kids away from the other kids in
> the neighborhood? Kids *will* find other kids.

Sometimes, unless the kid in question has such bad social skills
(reinforced by Mommy-as-lady-in-waiting) that no one wants to play
with him/her. I knew some of these when I was small, and they were
never able to get past that social stigma even when they had appeared
to "straighten out" later on. They made good friends for me because
they were so happy to have *someone* be nice to them and give them a
second chance.

> >and staying in an excellent daycare center or home daycare,
> >learning social skills, while Parent earns money for a better life,
>
> Um, "learning social skills" is most effectively done by kidlet
> watching parents.

Nope. Socials skills are learned best by kids watching other kids
*and* adults interacting with each other. People learn from the
mistakes of others, and seeing another kid get "redirected" when
exhibiting antisocial behavior helps the watchers learn.

I never learned to debate/argue/fight effectively because my parents
had a policy of never discussing anything controversial in front of
us. They were otherwise excellent parents and I love them dearly, but
I was at a big disadvantage when trying to argue with anyone. Even
the debate team at school was hopeless...I always agreed with both
sides. :)

> Why force either sex to struggle to have enough to "be better
> off"? Why not just learn to live within one's means and focus on
> those things that are most important?

Because sometimes one's means won't pay rent, food and utilities.
Happiness and contentment, while wonderful, do not put bread on the
table.

> Aside: I fear that I might be coming off as someone who opposes
> wimenhood or the specific wimen in this group. I just want to
> say that I am not aware of any (affected British accent:) "bint"
> (did that sound any different with the British accent, than it
> would have without it?) in this group.

In Arabic, all the women on this group are bints. "Bint" means
"daughter of" just like "ibn" means "son of" (see Thirteenth Warrior).
Lots of Arabian mares have Bint in their names. It's just convenient
that it's also the combination of two insulting words used to describe
women. Which came first?....

And how many of those are there to describe (specifically) men, I
wonder?

> I am actually quite pleased to be able to have discussions (in
> agreement or not) with such a bright group of wimen (past and
> presently involved, here). I don't remember any of the blatent
> "Me, too :-) :-)"ers, here.

Thank you.

> OK, do I get laid, now?

You'll have to beg...er, plead...er, grovel...er, ask Kathy for that.

Jeannie

[Glen Appleby]

On 26 Mar 2002 12:06:30 -0800, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca087ee...@news.rcip.com>...
>>

>> Wait. A single parent (of either gender) has a whole new set of
>> problems.
>
>Yes, but you didn't allow for that possibility in your post, so I did.

I also didn't "allow for the possibility" of true blond mothers
out there, but they exist. That didn't seem to be a problem ...
<gulp> until now, anyway.

> We both know there are far too many single-parent families out there.

And the number of true blonds?

>> What is this concern for kids not seeing other kids? I hear that
>> as a stated concern for homeschooling. Have you ever found a
>> parent who is capable of keeping kids away from the other kids in
>> the neighborhood? Kids *will* find other kids.
>
>Sometimes, unless the kid in question has such bad social skills
>(reinforced by Mommy-as-lady-in-waiting) that no one wants to play
>with him/her. I knew some of these when I was small, and they were
>never able to get past that social stigma even when they had appeared
>to "straighten out" later on. They made good friends for me because
>they were so happy to have *someone* be nice to them and give them a
>second chance.

Oh, I have run across more than a few with, at some age, poorer
social skills. When allowed to learn and when their views are
valued (so that they learn to value their own views), they
invariably get past it.

>> Um, "learning social skills" is most effectively done by kidlet
>> watching parents.
>
>Nope. Socials skills are learned best by kids watching other kids
>*and* adults interacting with each other.

OK, you added to what I said, but that didn't negate what I said.
This causes me to wonder why you would have begun that with
"Nope."

>People learn from the
>mistakes of others, and seeing another kid get "redirected" when
>exhibiting antisocial behavior helps the watchers learn.

Uh, oh.

What you describe is a method of causing a kid to conform without
anything like an understranding of the situation. It is more
like training dogs than like raising kids *should* be. This
helps to ensure that kids grow up ignoring their own needs,
thoughts and feelings, in deference for what they see others
being forced to do.

>I never learned to debate/argue/fight effectively because my parents
>had a policy of never discussing anything controversial in front of
>us.

Yup, bad move.

Our daughter has been doing well financially (relative to how she
was doing). However, her kids kept asking for more and more
stuff, simply because she would (at least try) to get it for
them. Recently, though, she has become a bit brighter and
decided to let them in on the "secrets" of income and monthly
bills.

Kids need to see it done properly before they can do it properly,
themselves.

>They were otherwise excellent parents and I love them dearly,

One thing that I should make clear is that, when I discuss bad
parenting methods, I do not intend to detract from the parents.
I nkow full well that all parents at all times have done the best
that they know how to do based on what they know at the time.

>but
>I was at a big disadvantage when trying to argue with anyone. Even
>the debate team at school was hopeless...I always agreed with both
>sides. :)

And, exactly, what would be wrong with that (aside from the
obvious bit about not winning debates -- which is, in reality,
often not the best way to go, anyway)?

>> Why force either sex to struggle to have enough to "be better
>> off"? Why not just learn to live within one's means and focus on
>> those things that are most important?
>
>Because sometimes one's means won't pay rent, food and utilities.

Hell, neither does grass growing in the front yard. People often
make sure that they have a nice lawn before they are happy.

But that has nothing to do with having enough to get by -- which
is much easier to do than it is to continuously try to be "better
off".

>Happiness and contentment, while wonderful, do not put bread on the
>table.

They ain't mutually exclusive.

>> Aside: I fear that I might be coming off as someone who opposes
>> wimenhood or the specific wimen in this group. I just want to
>> say that I am not aware of any (affected British accent:) "bint"
>> (did that sound any different with the British accent, than it
>> would have without it?) in this group.
>
>In Arabic, all the women on this group are bints. "Bint" means
>"daughter of" just like "ibn" means "son of" (see Thirteenth Warrior).
> Lots of Arabian mares have Bint in their names. It's just convenient
>that it's also the combination of two insulting words used to describe
>women. Which came first?....

If I wote that to get a lesson in Aribic, I woulda emailed Ayse,
instead (not that I don't like *you*, of course).

>And how many of those are there to describe (specifically) men, I
>wonder?

Those what? Insulting words?

If you wanna hear insulting words that are used to describe men,
just stop by many wimen's groups and listen.

>> I am actually quite pleased to be able to have discussions (in
>> agreement or not) with such a bright group of wimen (past and
>> presently involved, here). I don't remember any of the blatent
>> "Me, too :-) :-)"ers, here.
>
>Thank you.
>
>> OK, do I get laid, now?
>
>You'll have to beg...er, plead...er, grovel...er, ask Kathy for that.

Crying has long been my favorite method of foreplay.

Well, crying and showing her my blue balls.

"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love."

[hpjeannie]

shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) wrote in message news:<91DD661B1shede...@204.152.184.108>...

> guilt. [The same seems to hold true for those who argue that formula
> feeding really isn't any worse than breastfeeding.]

But it is, if the child is lactose intolerant.

Jeannie
stuck with it for 3 months of Mylicon and screaming, albeit thriving
in spite of it all

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca06c1c...@news.rcip.com>...

>
> I said "rarely". I *sure* am not one to reccommend additional
> incomes to make mo' money just to establish the *appearance* that
> both are occuring.

Me neither.

> >All women should be prepared to be able to provide for themselves and
> >any children IN CASE OF divorce or widowhood. That's not "planning
> >on," that's "planning for."
>
> One could easily carry that too far, taking it well into the
> defeatist place.

Not if one is reasonably intelligent.

> >This also includes the supposedly college-educated widows from 9/11
> >who are milking their tragedy for all it's worth. Did none of their
> >husbands have life insurance provided by those Fortune 500 companies?
>
> I thought that you were on the side of wimen taking care of
> themselves.

Making sure that the dependents will be financially OK (without public
assistance if at all possible) in the event of the demise of the
breadwinner comes under that definition.

> >Are they completely unable to find employment despite their degrees?
>
> (from the other newsgroup and other threads) Aw, they are just
> bums. Wimen can be bums, too.

Sad, but true.

> <Daycare disrupting the maternal bond>
> >> Gender issues asside, O'Connell is wrong.
> >
> >Maybe not, if daycare is a better place for the child to be than home
> >with a parent(s) who does not seem to care for it. Having a kid does
> >not a good parent make, as you well know. I like the comment by <?>
> >that it's a shame that we have to take a test to get a driver's
> >license but they'll let any idiot be a parent.
>
> I find that (by whoever) comment a bit offensive and/or ignorant.

I seem to remember that line from either a movie or a stand-up comedy
routine. I apologize for the fact that I can't remember where it's
from. I do believe that "parent training" would be a good thing; a
case in point being your neighbors who are terrified of their new baby
and/or of anyone else holding it.

> Virtually anybody can be a good parent. That is the natural
> default; but it has been obscured in recent history by other
> issues.

I agree that anybody can be a good parent. The tools are what are
lacking. Too many people have grown up without any examples of what
good parenting is.

> The type of parent that would raise a Dahmer is the type of
> parent that needs help with parenting, not a career.

But they don't get parenting help because they don't feel that they
need it, and no one else notices what's going on until it's too late.
Why do you think there are so many animal-torturing kids out there?
How are the parents supposed to get "help with parenting" when they
don't realize how badly they suck at it? How many "spirited children"
slash vandals do we have to put up with who were raised by
Parenting-Method-of-the-Week?

> >I guess we'll just forget about that fuel cell breakthrough and keep
> >on wading through piles of toys and fast food wrappers in the SUV,
> >then.
>
> Good thing, too! That mass of fast food wrappers in the back of
> the SUV is becoming a health hazard. Would you mind awfully,
> cleaning it up?

I don't have an SUV...it's not mine about which I was talking.

> "Fuel cell breakthrough" indeed! You have been reading the
> headlines recently, huh? And that will be accomplished by a
> woman, you say? Or are you saying that the guy who figures out
> how to make effective fuel cells is gonna need a secretary?

If a secretary helps him or her figure it out, by all means. I only
ask that the secretary be fairly compensated for his or her work.

> <SLAP!!!>
>
> OW!

Why do you self-abuse, Glen? You must have Issues...or way too much
time on your hands.

> >Thank goodness we're properly raising Our Fyooture to solve the
> >problem...20 years later than it could have been solved. Maybe.
>
> Ah, here we go!
>
> So it is more important to you to have working *things* as soon
> as possible, instead of having happy people who know themselves
> and know where they are going?

Who says there can't be both?

I've seen pictures of these "happy people who know themselves and know
where they are going" on television, on those commercials for Help the
Children or Children International or whatever. Having "working
*things*" earlier may have boosted these folks over the poverty line.
Having many fewer children might have helped, too, since most of the
kids scouring the garbage dumps are looking for food.

> Let me guess: (apologies -- I hate when others give my answers in
> their posts) "That's not what I was saying. We should be doing
> both."

Yes, yes we should. Do you have a problem with that?

> Well, we have been trying that (to varying degrees) for a few
> generations, now. Have things between people been getting
> better? Are there fewer skool shootings, now? Less violence in
> the Middle East? More honesty in politics?

Women voting? More fairness in hiring and college entry? More
diversity accepted? The KKK pretty much a joke instead of terrifying?
More options, more choices, safer food, cleaner air/water, less
disease?

> Parenting *is* the most important thing that one can do because
> parenting is making the blueprint for the future (for each and
> every generation). Unless one is interested in things and in
> immediate gratification, then I can't imagine a whole lot that
> might be more important to the future of mankind.

How about having a little less of it? Many of the problems we are
facing are due to too many rats in the cage.

Great, now I have a nightmare vision of smiley face masks overrunning
the Earth. Thanks a lot.

> >Here we are at Door #3 again. Financial resources allowing, a good
> >mother can also have a career, and one does not have to negate the
> >other.
>
> But, for most people (in any financial situation), attempting to
> do both even reasonably well is a bear. It is draining, but not
> because of financial concerns. More because of time and focus.

I guess I'm lucky in my situation, then. But of course I knew that,
since I planned carefully for it.

> >Working part-time is one choice, as is finding a good daycare
>
> Good! Find one.

I did, without too much trouble, right here in Boulder Creek.

> Then tell everybody else where that is, so that they can take
> advantage of it as well.

If anyone wants to know, write me privately and I'll tell you. Be
damned if I'll advertise my kid's whereabouts on a public forum in
this day and age.

> See, "good daycare" is as rare as sweet smelling farts. Beyong
> that, I have not seen too many people who could even define "good
> daycare". If it isn't defined completely, then how can people be
> expected to find it, except by "random chance"?

A little research, asking for references, and talking to other
parents.

> >that teaches skills the mother does not have or know how to teach
> >(arts & crafts, cooking, learning games, etc.).
>
> If the mother (or any primary caretaker, PC) doesn't have these
> skills, it would behoove them to learn them. If they are
> important enough to learn, then the PC should know them and use
> them enough so that the children will learn by seeing them done.
> If they are not important enough, then why force some kid to
> learn them?

I have no interest in nor aptitude for playing the violin. I am not
going to learn to play the violin simply to demonstrate to my child
that it is done by some people. Most PC's can demonstrate basic
cooking and learning games, but there is a whole world of other stuff
out there that the stay-at-home parent may not have access to.

> >They are out there;
>
> Yer arm-waving. Name 2 within an area that you might use,
> presently.

I have one, which I found over six years ago. There was another we
used before that, but the caregiver's husband changed jobs so they
moved. I have not been "in the market" recently, so you'll have to do
your own research.

> >they're just harder to find because they don't have to advertise (word
> >of mouth keeps the waiting list full). In addition, the child does
> >not get spoiled by being the Be All and End All of mommie's existence.
>
> One can *not* spoil a child by giving it constant love and
> attention for as long as the child wants it. That will only make
> the child more secure.

Love and attention are great; the more the better. I don't think
anyone would disagree with this. However, it's good for the child to
realize that there are other things that demand mommie's attention, so
he needs to learn to entertain himself while she attends to those
other things (or be with/help her while she does them).

> >True, and may I add that many have not been raised to understand that
> >parenthood itself is a choice, not an obligation.
>
> Were that true, then right now (no practicing, now!), make
> yourself feel happy. Done? OK, now feel so depressed that you
> are suicidal. While you are deep in that, make yourself feel
> extreemly horney (and call me immediately, please).
>
> If you could do all of that, then perhaps for you, parenthood is
> simply a rational choice.

What do emotions have to do with practical family planning?

> For most real live people, behavior is driven by feelings. Most
> folks find ways of rationalizing the behaviors. The stronger the
> feelings, the more driven the behavior -- and that does not
> exclude lots of time generating rational thought that supports
> the behaviors and feelings.

You mean excuses and justifications of bad decisions here, right?

> No, I just don't have tyme. I used it all in a dinner recipe,
> this weekend.

That reminds me, I'm all out of basil. Anyone seen him?

Jeannie

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

hpjeannie wrote:

>shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) wrote in message
>news:<91DD661B1shede...@204.152.184.108>...
>> guilt. [The same seems to hold true for those who argue that formula
>> feeding really isn't any worse than breastfeeding.]
>
>But it is, if the child is lactose intolerant.

Lactose intolerance is almost NEVER an issue in breastfeeding, meaning even
if the child *is* lactose intolerant, they can breastfeed (and in fact,
*should* breastfeed) - children are almost *never* allergic or react
adversly to components of *human* milk. Sadly, lots of doctors are
completely ignorant about these matters, so some women are *told* that
their infants are lactose intolerant..sigh..it's so sad. Like women who
are told they "don't have enough milk" <snort>.

Anne

[Tim May]

In article <31ec7e6d.0203...@posting.google.com>, hpjeannie
<hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I know little, first hand, about these female things. But I vividly
remember one of my main profs in college telling us about how in the
1950s he and his wife had had a baby who was irritable, wouldn't sleep,
etc. (Maybe the term "colicky" applies, but not in the disease sense.)

A pediatrician said the problem was that the baby was getting enough
nourishment. The recommendation was for a mix of a bunch of things, the
details of which I've forgotten. But it was stuff like molasses, sugar,
honey, etc. Mixed together.

My prof said the baby quieted down immediately, slept through most or
all of the night, and grew up healthy. (As I can confirm, as his
daughter was about my age when I was in college.)

This doesn't surprise me. Evolution doesn't produce optimum results,
just "acceptable to reach reproductive age" results. It's not at all
surprising to me that man can synthesize better foods than evolution
has produced.

--Tim May

[Glen Appleby]

On 26 Mar 2002 16:59:43 -0800, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca06c1c...@news.rcip.com>...
>

>> >All women should be prepared to be able to provide for themselves and
>> >any children IN CASE OF divorce or widowhood. That's not "planning
>> >on," that's "planning for."
>>
>> One could easily carry that too far, taking it well into the
>> defeatist place.
>
>Not if one is reasonably intelligent.

Apparently, then, the large majority of wimen are simply not
"reasonably intelligent". Wow, yer kidna a turncoat for your
attitude toward the Sisterhood.

>> I thought that you were on the side of wimen taking care of
>> themselves.
>
>Making sure that the dependents will be financially OK (without public
>assistance if at all possible) in the event of the demise of the
>breadwinner comes under that definition.

IOW, making sure that the selected SugarDaddy has enough sugar.

Yer *not* making points, here, ya know.

>I do believe that "parent training" would be a good thing;

I absolutely agree that it should be available for anybody who
wants it, since it is at least as important, in life, as basic
math.

>a
>case in point being your neighbors who are terrified of their new baby
>and/or of anyone else holding it.

Oh, I have my people out talking to their people to arrange this.

>> Virtually anybody can be a good parent. That is the natural
>> default; but it has been obscured in recent history by other
>> issues.
>
>I agree that anybody can be a good parent. The tools are what are
>lacking. Too many people have grown up without any examples of what
>good parenting is.

Absolutely! That would be the most effective method of seeing
how to do it properly, today.

But even without that, it can still be done by simply uncovering
the basic "knowledge" that we are born with -- uncovering it from
the BS that has been heaped on most of us since our earliest
years, by society and the media ("drug" company advertising).

>> The type of parent that would raise a Dahmer is the type of
>> parent that needs help with parenting, not a career.
>
>But they don't get parenting help because they don't feel that they
>need it, and no one else notices what's going on until it's too late.

Oh, I'm guessing that *lots* of people notice it. The problem is
that too many people have been convinced that they don't have the
proper degrees to know what to do about it or have been convinced
not to trust their own perceptions.

>Why do you think there are so many animal-torturing kids out there?

Because those kids are practicing to grow up to be very good at
BBQ?

>How are the parents supposed to get "help with parenting" when they
>don't realize how badly they suck at it?

Community.

Well, that *woulda* worked, 40 or more years ago. Today, though,
there are simply too few people who trust themselves enough to do
what is right.

But, in a Perfect World, if sucky parents are around a group of
people who are doing it right and those parents are not judging
them (these people usually have quite negative assesments of
themselves, already and adding to that only confirms their false
negative self-assessments -- making learning more difficult),
they would simply learn from those around them, since they
couldn't learn from their own parents.

>How many "spirited children"
>slash vandals do we have to put up with who were raised by
>Parenting-Method-of-the-Week?

Here you have combined a number of things such that it makes it
very difficult for me to respond ... but I'll try (hell, we
already know of a whole shitload of stuff that I am no good at,
so I won't be going off course).

Spirited children and vandals would be two quite separate things.

The vandal is angry, boored or both.

The spirited child is actually a Good Thing (tm) in that society
has yet to slap the spirit out of them. This "spirit" is what I
most often see as "a passion for learning".

"Parenting-Method-of-the-Week" suggests that the methods come by
randomly and parents are forced to accept whichever one it is,
without thought. But you know that there really is only one way
to do it properly -- treating kids with trust, dignity and giving
them unconditional love.

When a method comes along to meet the needs of the parents at the
expense of the kids, it is safe to blow it off.

>Why do you self-abuse, Glen? You must have Issues...or way too much
>time on your hands.

Since you used the phrases "self-abuse" and "on your hands" in
the same paragraph, can we assume that you already have the
answer?

>> So it is more important to you to have working *things* as soon
>> as possible, instead of having happy people who know themselves
>> and know where they are going?
>
>Who says there can't be both?

Oh, we *can*, but what I am saying is that, with the present
state of our society, it is not the norm, it is not easy and
things are actually more working against it that in its favor.

>I've seen pictures of these "happy people who know themselves and know
>where they are going" on television, on those commercials for Help the
>Children or Children International or whatever.

I am not sure if I am thinking about the same commercials, so
this may be an aside:

I have been seeing one in particular that shows a tyke in a
highchair. The family is rushing around, getting reday to go off
and start their days.

The nararation talks about how parents shouldn't ignore kids, but
should give them attention because young mings need the
stimulation.

Now *I* noticed that, while the various "family members" are
rushing around, oblivious to the toddler, said kid is interacting
with them. He is noticing them, he is holding out his hand to
them.

Then, at the end of the commercial, they are attempting to depict
how the "mother" should interact with the child by having the
"mother" lean over and play "goo-goo" with the kid; but the kid
backs away from the "mother" (notice that they blur the kid at
this point, because it goes against what they are trying to
show).

It seems that the very folks, who are trying to tell parents how
to raise children properly, have no concept of what they are
saying.

>Having "working
>*things*" earlier may have boosted these folks over the poverty line.
>Having many fewer children might have helped, too, since most of the
>kids scouring the garbage dumps are looking for food.

Do you really buy this tripe?

There are two types of po' folk that I know: One sees poverty as
simply a challenge to be met. The other lets poverty control
their life.

>> Well, we have been trying that (to varying degrees) for a few
>> generations, now. Have things between people been getting
>> better? Are there fewer skool shootings, now? Less violence in
>> the Middle East? More honesty in politics?
>
>Women voting?

They have been doing that since fairly early in the last century.

>More fairness in hiring and college entry?

I'm not sure about this. The jury is still out.

>More diversity accepted?

Marginally!

Toss this one in with the previous point and we have a loser.

This nation used to be about accepting diversity (to a much
larger degree, but even then, not as much as it should have
been), but Unka Henery Ford changed all of that.

>The KKK pretty much a joke instead of terrifying?

I'll give you thjat one by default -- because I so enjoy humor.

> More options,

Maybe -- if those options are acceptable to the majority.

>more choices,

Same as above.

>safer food,

Absolutely NOT!!!

There is the *perception* of safer food, but that has more to do
with a good government (those two words just do not belong
together) PR program than it has to do with actually having safer
food.

>cleaner air/water,

Again, nope. We are spewing more trash into both and are
attempting to do a better job of cleaning that up, but both were
cleaner back before industrialization. (I'm not suggesting that
we do away with industrialization, as an answer to that -- just
pointing out the realities)

>less disease?

HELL no!

We have made precious few advances in scientific medicine, along
the lines of curing disease. In fact, in case you have been
hanging out with Ben Lomond in a cave for the past 30 years, we
seems to have discovered a new disease called AIDS.

>How about having a little less of it? Many of the problems we are
>facing are due to too many rats in the cage.

I'm reminded of something that Buckie Fuller said. It was
something along the lines of "We don't have polution. What we
have is resources that are in the wrong place and in the wrong
amounts."

This goes along with something that Kathy's uncle (a
horticulturist) told me when I first got into that business:
"Weeds are simply plants that someone doesn't want in that
location."

Yes, we have a coupla countries that are somewhat densly packed
(Everybody grease up! This is gonna be fun!), but even then, I'm
pretty sure that it is not so bad that one cannot walk without
stepping on someone, all across the country.

Even in this country, most of the population is in the
metropolitan areas. Last I heard, nobody is forcing this on
them. We have huge expanses of unoccupied land.

>Great, now I have a nightmare vision of smiley face masks overrunning
>the Earth. Thanks a lot.

Oh, sure. You type it, them claim it's my fault.

>> But, for most people (in any financial situation), attempting to
>> do both even reasonably well is a bear. It is draining, but not
>> because of financial concerns. More because of time and focus.
>
>I guess I'm lucky in my situation, then. But of course I knew that,
>since I planned carefully for it.

Planned for the takeover (or not) at work? Then you know the
outcome, right?

Some degree of planning is something of a Good Thing (tm).
Beyond that, though, it is a facade.

>> See, "good daycare" is as rare as sweet smelling farts. Beyong
>> that, I have not seen too many people who could even define "good
>> daycare". If it isn't defined completely, then how can people be
>> expected to find it, except by "random chance"?
>
>A little research, asking for references, and talking to other
>parents.

Still not defined? How helpful.

>> If the mother (or any primary caretaker, PC) doesn't have these
>> skills, it would behoove them to learn them. If they are
>> important enough to learn, then the PC should know them and use
>> them enough so that the children will learn by seeing them done.
>> If they are not important enough, then why force some kid to
>> learn them?
>
>I have no interest in nor aptitude for playing the violin.

Do ya get how relatively unimportant it is?

>I am not
>going to learn to play the violin simply to demonstrate to my child
>that it is done by some people.

You simply don't need to. Kidlets are quite observant and, when
other people do something, if it is of interest to them, they'll
see it and make note of it.

>Most PC's can demonstrate basic
>cooking and learning games, but there is a whole world of other stuff
>out there that the stay-at-home parent may not have access to.

And they survive -- suggesting that those other skills are
usually pretty unimportant as to Basic Life Skills.

>> >They are out there;
>>
>> Yer arm-waving. Name 2 within an area that you might use,
>> presently.
>
>I have one, which I found over six years ago. There was another we
>used before that, but the caregiver's husband changed jobs so they
>moved. I have not been "in the market" recently, so you'll have to do
>your own research.

Do ya get that *I* am not asking for it for me (or for anybody
else, for that matter), but am trying to suggest that, unless it
is defined properly, everybody is going by the seat of their
pants?

>> One can *not* spoil a child by giving it constant love and
>> attention for as long as the child wants it. That will only make
>> the child more secure.
>
>Love and attention are great; the more the better. I don't think
>anyone would disagree with this.

<wshew!>

Although, I *have* seen some disagree with it. They believe in,
for example, "potty training at gunpoint".

>However, it's good for the child to
>realize that there are other things that demand mommie's attention, so
>he needs to learn to entertain himself while she attends to those
>other things (or be with/help her while she does them).

Again, I'll recommend the reading of "The Continuum Concept" by
Jean Liedloff. It gives some hints and clues as to how kids
naturally learn about the world of the adults.

>> Were that true, then right now (no practicing, now!), make
>> yourself feel happy. Done? OK, now feel so depressed that you
>> are suicidal. While you are deep in that, make yourself feel
>> extreemly horney (and call me immediately, please).
>>
>> If you could do all of that, then perhaps for you, parenthood is
>> simply a rational choice.
>
>What do emotions have to do with practical family planning?

OUCH!!!! Did ya *read* what I wrote, below? Emotions are far
more important than most of the Rationalists would like to
accept.

>> For most real live people, behavior is driven by feelings. Most
>> folks find ways of rationalizing the behaviors. The stronger the
>> feelings, the more driven the behavior -- and that does not
>> exclude lots of time generating rational thought that supports
>> the behaviors and feelings.
>
>You mean excuses and justifications of bad decisions here, right?

You know that is not correct, right?

"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love."

[Glen Appleby]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:44:15 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
<tc...@got.net> wrote:

<*one* data point to "show" that formula is better than
breastfeeding>

We'll assume that you are trolling because you really do know
that a single data point tends to say precious little --
especially without much along the way of background of other
related data.

>This doesn't surprise me. Evolution doesn't produce optimum results,
>just "acceptable to reach reproductive age" results. It's not at all
>surprising to me that man can synthesize better foods than evolution
>has produced.

I have yet to see any evidence that this is the case -- in fact,
as far as breast milk vs formula, just the opposite is easier to
show.

"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love."

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Glen Appleby wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:44:15 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
><tc...@got.net> wrote:
>
><*one* data point to "show" that formula is better than
>breastfeeding>
>
>We'll assume that you are trolling because you really do know
>that a single data point tends to say precious little --
>especially without much along the way of background of other
>related data.

We should probably cut Tim some slack here; unless he's had kids in the
past 20 years or so, he has no reason to know that making an infant sleep
through the night is actually *not good* for it, and is counter to how
infants are hardwired. But then, so is drugging yourself so that you can
sleep, and lots of people do it. Of course, they aren't prone to things
like SIDS - more's the pity.

Anne

[Glen Appleby]

On 27 Mar 2002 17:26:13 GMT, in
ba.mountain-folk,shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,
Esq.) wrote:

>We should probably cut Tim some slack here;

Yer right. Now I feel bad.

<hanging head>

>unless he's had kids in the
>past 20 years or so,

Or ever.

EWWWWW!!!!

>he has no reason to know that making an infant sleep
>through the night is actually *not good* for it, and is counter to how
>infants are hardwired.

And, at this point, we could get into co-sleeping as well.

>But then, so is drugging yourself so that you can
>sleep, and lots of people do it.

My favorite babysitting tools are Nyquil ("Shuddap and drink the
Cool-Aid!") and duct tape.

>Of course, they aren't prone to things like SIDS - more's the pity.

Yup, train kids to sleep away from parents, so that the parents
can sleep through the night. Now *there's* a Good Idea (tm)!

[hpjeannie]

shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) wrote in message news:<91DDAD082shede...@204.152.184.108>...

>
> Lactose intolerance is almost NEVER an issue in breastfeeding, meaning even
> if the child *is* lactose intolerant, they can breastfeed (and in fact,
> *should* breastfeed) - children are almost *never* allergic or react
> adversly to components of *human* milk. Sadly, lots of doctors are
> completely ignorant about these matters, so some women are *told* that
> their infants are lactose intolerant..sigh..it's so sad. Like women who
> are told they "don't have enough milk" <snort>.

Well, I was completely ignorant, then, and so were the
pediatricians...as soon as the first mouthful hit her stomach she
would scream and scream. I cut almost everything out of my diet at
different times to try to see what the problem was, and apparently it
was the only thing I never cut out of my diet--milk. It was the milk
*I* was drinking that she was intolerant of, as near as we could
figure. The Mylicon helped immensely and, as I said, we stuck with it
for three months. The kid herself never showed any adverse effects,
staying at the 90th percentile height/weight through 18 months. Guess
she's just as stubborn as we are. :)

Jeannie

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

hpjeannie wrote:

>Well, I was completely ignorant, then, and so were the
>pediatricians...as soon as the first mouthful hit her stomach she
>would scream and scream. I cut almost everything out of my diet at
>different times to try to see what the problem was, and apparently it
>was the only thing I never cut out of my diet--milk. It was the milk
>*I* was drinking that she was intolerant of, as near as we could
>figure. The Mylicon helped immensely and, as I said, we stuck with it
>for three months. The kid herself never showed any adverse effects,
>staying at the 90th percentile height/weight through 18 months. Guess
>she's just as stubborn as we are. :)

Aaah..sorry if I misunderstood - I thought you meant that the pedi told you
that she was intolerant of a component of *your* milk!! Yes, dairy in the
mother's diet can certainly cause an infant problems if they are sensitive
to it. Sorry if I misunderstood! (And good for you for persevering!)

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca1c2a0...@news.rcip.com>...

>
> Apparently, then, the large majority of wimen are simply not
> "reasonably intelligent". Wow, yer kidna a turncoat for your
> attitude toward the Sisterhood.

Tough. Too many kids are being raised by the Entitlement Generation;
i.e., the kids of the 60's parents who believed in no discipline, no
limits, no rules, and forgot the part about teaching their kids how to
live in The Real World.

> >> I thought that you were on the side of wimen taking care of
> >> themselves.
> >
> >Making sure that the dependents will be financially OK (without public
> >assistance if at all possible) in the event of the demise of the
> >breadwinner comes under that definition.
>
> IOW, making sure that the selected SugarDaddy has enough sugar.

You're contradicting yourself. First you say that a stay-at-home
parent is better than daycare, then you criticize the stay-at-home
parent for taking steps to make sure they can *continue* to stay at
home (IOW, not use daycare) in case the breadwinning parent stops
winning bread. You're also assuming that it's the mom who's staying
home and the "sugar daddy" going out to work. Hmmmm.

> Yer *not* making points, here, ya know.

I'm not here to make points. (I must be taking my example from you.
:)

> >I do believe that "parent training" would be a good thing;
>
> I absolutely agree that it should be available for anybody who
> wants it, since it is at least as important, in life, as basic
> math.

It's also mostly common sense, which seems to be in short supply these
days, unfortunately for the Next Generation.

> >case in point being your neighbors who are terrified of their new baby
> >and/or of anyone else holding it.
>
> Oh, I have my people out talking to their people to arrange this.

Heh. My dad says "Give me" and most people hand their babies right
over. He has that kind of look, and babies love him. He's also been
caught sneaking bites of his hotdog to strange toddlers at sporting
events. His line of thinking is, "Hey, if their parents aren't
watching them, they're mine to play with until they're retrieved."

> >I agree that anybody can be a good parent. The tools are what are
> >lacking. Too many people have grown up without any examples of what
> >good parenting is.
>
> Absolutely! That would be the most effective method of seeing
> how to do it properly, today.
>
> But even without that, it can still be done by simply uncovering
> the basic "knowledge" that we are born with -- uncovering it from
> the BS that has been heaped on most of us since our earliest
> years, by society and the media ("drug" company advertising).

Oh, you're talking about Ritalin and such. Yes, I agree that far too
many kids who are just being kids (and could use a little parental
involvement) are "diagnosed" with Made-Up-Disease-of-the-Week so the
drug companies can make money. It's the lazy parent's way out: if I
drug him to make him mind, I don't have to do any active parenting,
watching, or caring.

Glen, I'm really enjoying this discussion. It seems we agree on many
things, but I often have trouble (that "bad debater" thing again)
articulating my point of view in a coherent manner. This is really
good practice. Now if I could only stop stuttering at public
gatherings....

> Oh, I'm guessing that *lots* of people notice it. The problem is
> that too many people have been convinced that they don't have the
> proper degrees to know what to do about it or have been convinced
> not to trust their own perceptions.

Or have no clue how to set limits on their child's behavior and back
that up with appropriate consequences, because they were unable to
learn by example from *their* parents.

My neighbor with out-of-control kids asks me what she should to to
make her kids behave better. I just don't know where to begin, so I
told her she should try making them all two years old again and start
over.

> >How are the parents supposed to get "help with parenting" when they
> >don't realize how badly they suck at it?
>
> Community.

First they'd have to get out from behind their TVs and *into* said
community.

> Well, that *woulda* worked, 40 or more years ago. Today, though,
> there are simply too few people who trust themselves enough to do
> what is right.

Or are too afraid of criticism *from* the community if they do what is
right.

> But, in a Perfect World, if sucky parents are around a group of
> people who are doing it right and those parents are not judging
> them (these people usually have quite negative assesments of
> themselves, already and adding to that only confirms their false
> negative self-assessments -- making learning more difficult),
> they would simply learn from those around them, since they
> couldn't learn from their own parents.

I'm actually glad that my neighbor keeps asking me, because I do give
her hints here and there that seem to be working. It really is too
bad that she didn't learn the right stuff earlier on...the earlier the
better. She didn't even have a chance at an opportunity because her
mother abandoned the family when she was small.

> Spirited children and vandals would be two quite separate things.

What others call "spirited" I call flaming brats (usually due to that
no-limits-from-parents thing again). They often become vandals sooner
or later, when their parents have given up trying and no one has
showed them right from wrong.

> The vandal is angry, boored or both.
>
> The spirited child is actually a Good Thing (tm) in that society
> has yet to slap the spirit out of them. This "spirit" is what I
> most often see as "a passion for learning".

Oh, that's a different definition from mine. What you call "spirited"
I call "insatiably curious," and that's lots of fun!

> Then, at the end of the commercial, they are attempting to depict
> how the "mother" should interact with the child by having the
> "mother" lean over and play "goo-goo" with the kid; but the kid
> backs away from the "mother" (notice that they blur the kid at
> this point, because it goes against what they are trying to
> show).
>
> It seems that the very folks, who are trying to tell parents how
> to raise children properly, have no concept of what they are
> saying.

I've seen that one, and I agree. Don't just interact with the kid
when it's convenient for *you*...everyone should have been at least
giving him noogies when they went by.

> >Having "working
> >*things*" earlier may have boosted these folks over the poverty line.
> >Having many fewer children might have helped, too, since most of the
> >kids scouring the garbage dumps are looking for food.
>
> Do you really buy this tripe?

Fewer mouths to feed means being able to feed the remaining mouths
more/better food. Sounds reasonable to me.

> There are two types of po' folk that I know: One sees poverty as
> simply a challenge to be met. The other lets poverty control
> their life.

Not surprising--what other choices are there, really?

> >> Well, we have been trying that (to varying degrees) for a few
> >> generations, now. Have things between people been getting
> >> better? Are there fewer skool shootings, now? Less violence in
> >> the Middle East? More honesty in politics?
> >
> >Women voting?
>
> They have been doing that since fairly early in the last century.

Sorry, I forgot to ask how many years "a few generations" spans.

> Toss this one in with the previous point and we have a loser.
>
> This nation used to be about accepting diversity (to a much
> larger degree, but even then, not as much as it should have
> been), but Unka Henery Ford changed all of that.

You're blaming all this on cars?

> >safer food,
>
> Absolutely NOT!!!
>
> There is the *perception* of safer food, but that has more to do
> with a good government (those two words just do not belong
> together) PR program than it has to do with actually having safer
> food.

I think the perception of safer food may be due to more PR by the food
industry, but more widespread communication methods are part of that.
Back when lots of people were dying from food poisoning, it wasn't
well known because there were no widespread intercommunity
communication channels.

> >cleaner air/water,
>
> Again, nope. We are spewing more trash into both and are
> attempting to do a better job of cleaning that up, but both were
> cleaner back before industrialization. (I'm not suggesting that
> we do away with industrialization, as an answer to that -- just
> pointing out the realities)

So now "industrialization" is part of the "last few generations"? I
think we're working off different timelines here.

> We have made precious few advances in scientific medicine, along
> the lines of curing disease. In fact, in case you have been
> hanging out with Ben Lomond in a cave for the past 30 years, we
> seems to have discovered a new disease called AIDS.

Which seems to have replaced smallpox, TB, and typhoid. The
difference is that there are lots more people for diseases to kill
nowadays. It's a percentage thing, I think. What percent of the
world's population was dying from xxx in the 1930's versus now? Add
all those percentages together for all deadly diseases, and I believe
the earlier percentage would be the greater.

Any actual facts on this would be welcome.

> This goes along with something that Kathy's uncle (a
> horticulturist) told me when I first got into that business:
> "Weeds are simply plants that someone doesn't want in that
> location."

They're also orders of magnitude more prolific, unfortunately.

My dad had my brother out in the yard weeding so much that my brother
swore when he got his own yard, he'd have a weeds-only garden.

> Yes, we have a coupla countries that are somewhat densly packed
> (Everybody grease up! This is gonna be fun!), but even then, I'm
> pretty sure that it is not so bad that one cannot walk without
> stepping on someone, all across the country.

But how many of the country's resources are being used up to feed all
those people?

> Even in this country, most of the population is in the
> metropolitan areas. Last I heard, nobody is forcing this on
> them. We have huge expanses of unoccupied land.

Most jobs are in cities, and most people don't want to commute very
far. The unoccupied land is mostly too arid, too resource-deficient,
or too governmentalized (BLM, nat'l parks, subsidized ranchland, etc.)
to be good places for people to live. You seem to be against
cars...how are people supposed to get to their jobs without them?
Going back to an agricultural society will not work, and true
telecommuting isn't getting here fast enough.

> Oh, sure. You type it, them claim it's my fault.

I've got a good example to follow. ;)

> >I guess I'm lucky in my situation, then. But of course I knew that,
> >since I planned carefully for it.
>
> Planned for the takeover (or not) at work? Then you know the
> outcome, right?

Yup. If I get laid off, I know there's severance coming and I've kept
my job skills up so it won't be too hard to get another job. The
career I (deliberately) chose is in demand even when times are bad.
It's satisfying, albeit sadly undervalued, but then don't we all think
the same about our jobs?

> Some degree of planning is something of a Good Thing (tm).
> Beyond that, though, it is a facade.

The law of diminishing returns?

> >> See, "good daycare" is as rare as sweet smelling farts. Beyong
> >> that, I have not seen too many people who could even define "good
> >> daycare". If it isn't defined completely, then how can people be
> >> expected to find it, except by "random chance"?
> >
> >A little research, asking for references, and talking to other
> >parents.
>
> Still not defined? How helpful.

I could use all the popular buzzwords (loving, accepting, teaching,
nonconfrontational, ad nauseum) and you'd happily accept it, though,
wouldn't you? The definition of a good daycare is how happy and
well-adjusted the kid comes out of it at the end of the day. How's
that?

> >I have no interest in nor aptitude for playing the violin.
>
> Do ya get how relatively unimportant it is?

So are cooking and arts and crafts, to a lot of people. Good
parenting seems also to be grossly undervalued, wouldn't you agree?

> You simply don't need to. Kidlets are quite observant and, when
> other people do something, if it is of interest to them, they'll
> see it and make note of it.

But if they're stuck at home with mommie all day and never see or hear
anyone playing the violin, they won't know it exists. I know it's the
parent's responsibility to expose the child to as many experiences as
possible, but the sad fact is that Many Parents Don't. They either
don't know they should or can't be bothered, which is why daycare can
be a good place for such exposure.

> >Most PC's can demonstrate basic
> >cooking and learning games, but there is a whole world of other stuff
> >out there that the stay-at-home parent may not have access to.
>
> And they survive -- suggesting that those other skills are
> usually pretty unimportant as to Basic Life Skills.

I have a point to make here, but I can't see it because I'm a little
glazed over by this point. Plus, work keeps interrupting me.

> Do ya get that *I* am not asking for it for me (or for anybody
> else, for that matter), but am trying to suggest that, unless it
> is defined properly, everybody is going by the seat of their
> pants?

We rejected several daycares based on site visits. Anyone can do
this; all it takes is a little common sense. One place had an infant
lying on the floor with active kindergarteners playing roughly around
it, one place had all the kids glued to the VCR and no books in sight,
and one place stank of cigarette smoke and animal urine. ("Oh, but
kids and animals go together!") The place we chose had kids playing
outside with a variety of toys, arts and crafts projects drying on a
large table, healthy snacks, and a large bookshelf.

> <wshew!>
>
> Although, I *have* seen some disagree with it. They believe in,
> for example, "potty training at gunpoint".

Those are the parents I was talking about who should not be parents.

> Again, I'll recommend the reading of "The Continuum Concept" by
> Jean Liedloff. It gives some hints and clues as to how kids
> naturally learn about the world of the adults.

I haven't seen you recommend that before. I'll keep an eye out for
it.

> >What do emotions have to do with practical family planning?
>
> OUCH!!!! Did ya *read* what I wrote, below? Emotions are far
> more important than most of the Rationalists would like to
> accept.
>
> >> For most real live people, behavior is driven by feelings. Most
> >> folks find ways of rationalizing the behaviors. The stronger the
> >> feelings, the more driven the behavior -- and that does not
> >> exclude lots of time generating rational thought that supports
> >> the behaviors and feelings.
> >
> >You mean excuses and justifications of bad decisions here, right?
>
> You know that is not correct, right?

No, I don't know any such thing. Maybe concrete examples would help;
I seem to be a little fuzzy on your theory. People justify having
kids, even if they suspect they will be bad parents, by parroting
tripe like, "But having kids might save my marriage" and "But my
parents are pressuring me to make them grandparents" and "But
EVERYBODY has kids" and "When the baby arrives, I'll know just what to
do" and, subconsciously, "Babies get lots of attention; therefore so
do their moms" and "Maybe he'll love me more if I have his child".

This is not even considering the bottom feeders who know that the more
children they have, the more welfare money they get.

As for feelings rationalizing behaviors (non-parental), I'm also
familiar with that. "But my current car doesn't have <this> or do
<that>; therefore I "need" this other car.

Glen, can you maybe narrow down just what kind of "behavior driven by
feelings" you're talking about? Maybe we're going along parallel
tracks and just don't know it yet.

Jeannie

[hpjeannie]

shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) wrote in message news:<91DE79517shede...@204.152.184.108>...

>
> Aaah..sorry if I misunderstood - I thought you meant that the pedi told you
> that she was intolerant of a component of *your* milk!! Yes, dairy in the
> mother's diet can certainly cause an infant problems if they are sensitive
> to it. Sorry if I misunderstood! (And good for you for persevering!)

Well, actually, Ms. Bond, you did stress *human* milk, so we were both right!

Jeannie

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca20023...@news.rcip.com>...

> On 27 Mar 2002 17:26:13 GMT, in
> ba.mountain-folk,shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,
> Esq.) wrote:
>
> >he has no reason to know that making an infant sleep
> >through the night is actually *not good* for it, and is counter to how
> >infants are hardwired.
>
> And, at this point, we could get into co-sleeping as well.

I was always worried that she'd fall out of bed or get rolled onto. I
didn't mind getting up multiple times a night, though (I'm lucky in
that I can go right back to sleep) so it was OK.

I have a friend whose three kids have terrible teeth (her 1 y.o.
required a root canal) due to both baby and mom falling asleep during
breastfeeding. Does anyone know what is recommended for this
situation, besides not falling asleep and/or rinsing the baby's mouth
with water? Apparently they're all unusually susceptible to bad
teeth.

> >But then, so is drugging yourself so that you can
> >sleep, and lots of people do it.

We discovered "cereal bottles" at about 5 months IIRC (thought it was
our own idea)...she loved 'em. Still woke up hungry in the night, but
only once instead of thrice and much less angry about it. Now we hear
that Cereal Bottles are Evil; go figure.

Jeannie

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca0e6bf...@news.rcip.com>...

>
> >Sometimes, unless the kid in question has such bad social skills
> >(reinforced by Mommy-as-lady-in-waiting) that no one wants to play
> >with him/her. I knew some of these when I was small, and they were
> >never able to get past that social stigma even when they had appeared
> >to "straighten out" later on. They made good friends for me because
> >they were so happy to have *someone* be nice to them and give them a
> >second chance.
>
> Oh, I have run across more than a few with, at some age, poorer
> social skills. When allowed to learn and when their views are
> valued (so that they learn to value their own views), they
> invariably get past it.

Except for a certain residual clinginess that makes it really hard to
peel them off when you need/want to be somewhere else.

> >> Um, "learning social skills" is most effectively done by kidlet
> >> watching parents.
> >
> >Nope. Socials skills are learned best by kids watching other kids
> >*and* adults interacting with each other.
>
> OK, you added to what I said, but that didn't negate what I said.
> This causes me to wonder why you would have begun that with
> "Nope."

Oops, I didn't notice that you had again left yourself wiggle room by
putting in "most effectively." My point was that if there is only one
kid in the household, the kid cannot learn from another kid's learning
process ("he put his hand on the stove and got hurt...I'd better not
do that then"). Whereas if the kid is around other kids frequently
enough, those examples are presented much more often.

> >People learn from the
> >mistakes of others, and seeing another kid get "redirected" when
> >exhibiting antisocial behavior helps the watchers learn.
>
> Uh, oh.
>
> What you describe is a method of causing a kid to conform without
> anything like an understranding of the situation. It is more
> like training dogs than like raising kids *should* be. This
> helps to ensure that kids grow up ignoring their own needs,
> thoughts and feelings, in deference for what they see others
> being forced to do.

Kid #1 sees Kid #2 hit Kid #3, then sees Kid #2 go into timeout for it
(assuming Kid #2 has already had explained to him why hitting is not
good and what will happen if he does it again). Kid #1 decides
hitting is not worth having timeout. Voila!

> Our daughter has been doing well financially (relative to how she
> was doing). However, her kids kept asking for more and more
> stuff, simply because she would (at least try) to get it for
> them. Recently, though, she has become a bit brighter and
> decided to let them in on the "secrets" of income and monthly
> bills.
>
> Kids need to see it done properly before they can do it properly,
> themselves.

Sounds like common sense to me. "Sure, we can buy that, but if we do,
we don't have enough money left for <something else good>. Which do
you think we should buy?" Of course, the choices you let the kid make
are not between candy and vegetables but between one kind of vegetable
and another. Kind of along the lines of "which shirt do you want to
wear today?" It makes the kid feel like she has control over
something, so when you come across something she is not allowed to
have control over, it's less of a big deal to her.

> One thing that I should make clear is that, when I discuss bad
> parenting methods, I do not intend to detract from the parents.
> I nkow full well that all parents at all times have done the best
> that they know how to do based on what they know at the time.

I like to tell my kid, "Sorry, but you're my first kid...I've never
done this before." One day I'll tell her, "You don't want to know
what happened to the practice kid" and see her eyes get big before she
catches on to the joke. ;)

> >but
> >I was at a big disadvantage when trying to argue with anyone. Even
> >the debate team at school was hopeless...I always agreed with both
> >sides. :)
>
> And, exactly, what would be wrong with that (aside from the
> obvious bit about not winning debates -- which is, in reality,
> often not the best way to go, anyway)?

See my other post--lack of ability to present my views in a compelling
manner.

>
> Hell, neither does grass growing in the front yard. People often
> make sure that they have a nice lawn before they are happy.

If a lawn fits comfortably in the budget, why not?

> But that has nothing to do with having enough to get by -- which
> is much easier to do than it is to continuously try to be "better
> off".

"Enough to get by" varies wildly between attitudes, cultures, regions,
and upbringing. It should be recognized that the law of diminishing
returns applies to "trying to be better off"...at some point, the
trying is not worth the returns (or consequences).

> >Happiness and contentment, while wonderful, do not put bread on the
> >table.
>
> They ain't mutually exclusive.

I didn't say they were; I wanted to make the point that one cannot be
happy and content if one is stressed about trying to make the rent.

> If I wote that to get a lesson in Aribic, I woulda emailed Ayse,
> instead (not that I don't like *you*, of course).

Yes, but then all of these nice people reading this would not know.

> >And how many of those are there to describe (specifically) men, I
> >wonder?
>
> Those what? Insulting words?

Convenient already-existing insulting words that can be combined to
make another insulting word, applying exclusively to males. ("Bint"
is actually the only one I know of for females, so don't strain
yourself.)

> If you wanna hear insulting words that are used to describe men,
> just stop by many wimen's groups and listen.

<shudder> Don't make me, please, no!

Jeannie

[Glen Appleby]

This is gonna be another long one (and without me even having to
stroke it -- saving me from getting a sore arm) and I may be
interrupted in mid-reply. If that happens I may lose my train of
thought (cho-CHOOOOO) and I hope I'll be forgiven if that
happens.

On 27 Mar 2002 12:04:26 -0800, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca1c2a0...@news.rcip.com>...
>>
>> Apparently, then, the large majority of wimen are simply not
>> "reasonably intelligent". Wow, yer kidna a turncoat for your
>> attitude toward the Sisterhood.
>
>Tough.

Wow. And *I* was accused of being harsh!

>Too many kids are being raised by the Entitlement Generation;
>i.e., the kids of the 60's parents who believed in no discipline, no
>limits, no rules, and forgot the part about teaching their kids how to
>live in The Real World.

(beeg trouble for moose and squirl, coming up, here)

There are a couple of aspects to this -- both appearing to be
similar, but both quite different.

If a parent is neglecting their kids, this is less than a Good
Thiong (tm), which is, I believe, what you are talking about,
here.

However, I am a huge fan on unschooling (student-led learning),
which gives a great deal of freedom to kids and has inherent in
it the trust that kids will learn self-discipline (the only thing
that they will really have after leaving home. Also inherent in
this is the realization that a parent or teacher cannot force
information into the mind of another, but that learning is
internal to the student.

>> >> I thought that you were on the side of wimen taking care of
>> >> themselves.
>> >
>> >Making sure that the dependents will be financially OK (without public
>> >assistance if at all possible) in the event of the demise of the
>> >breadwinner comes under that definition.
>>
>> IOW, making sure that the selected SugarDaddy has enough sugar.
>
>You're contradicting yourself.

No. I was just rewording what you said, but with a different
(and a bit more ugly) spin on it. You know, just for fun.

>First you say that a stay-at-home parent is better than daycare,

In general, I'll hold to that.

>then you criticize the stay-at-home
>parent for taking steps to make sure they can *continue* to stay at
>home (IOW, not use daycare) in case the breadwinning parent stops
>winning bread.

Whoa! Did ya make that leap without a safety net? I am
impressed!

Now, like seeing a magician do their magic, I really want to know
how you performed that trick.

>You're also assuming that it's the mom who's staying
>home and the "sugar daddy" going out to work. Hmmmm.

"Sugar daddy" is a genderless concept.

I kinda like the idea of a harem of hoes bringing me their money
each morning.

Hey, leave me the few dreams that I can still remember, OK?

>> Yer *not* making points, here, ya know.
>
>I'm not here to make points. (I must be taking my example from you.
>:)

Would you mind, awfully, putting it back when you are done?

Actually, there is really no need. If you put it back where you
got it, by the time that I need it again, I will have forgotten
where I put it.

<Parent training>

>It's also mostly common sense, which seems to be in short supply these
>days, unfortunately for the Next Generation.

But the common sense is often obscured by those things that
society heaps on top.

>> Oh, I have my people out talking to their people to arrange this.
>
>Heh. My dad says "Give me" and most people hand their babies right
>over. He has that kind of look, and babies love him. He's also been
>caught sneaking bites of his hotdog to strange toddlers at sporting
>events. His line of thinking is, "Hey, if their parents aren't
>watching them, they're mine to play with until they're retrieved."

Most often, my offers to babysit are welcomed with something like
"Ahhhh. A little nap time for mama."

Right now, though, this set of parents just needs some time to
get comfortable with things.

In all honesty, as much as I would like to do otherwise, I don't
want to start imposing on them, until they get a higher degree of
comfort.

When I first met Kathy, she was pretty clueless as to how to deal
with babies. This was unfortunate because out oldest daughter
was about 5 months old at the time. When the baby slept, Kathy
was not even sure that she was still alive, so she would
occasionally kick the crib to startle the baby.

She was both chagrined and relieved when I told her that she
really didn't have to do that.

I'll let them get a bit more comfortable ... before I set into
effect, my plan to steal the baby.

>> Absolutely! That would be the most effective method of seeing
>> how to do it properly, today.
>>
>> But even without that, it can still be done by simply uncovering
>> the basic "knowledge" that we are born with -- uncovering it from
>> the BS that has been heaped on most of us since our earliest
>> years, by society and the media ("drug" company advertising).
>
>Oh, you're talking about Ritalin and such.

No ... that's a whole different level of kidlet control that I
didn't even see a need to address, here.

I will say, though, that when I see the dok next month, I will be
asking him to perscribe Ritalin for me. As a mild stimulant (and
a coupla other things) it my well help me. Plus, I really hate
to let go all of that testing done by millions of kids.

>Yes, I agree that far too
>many kids who are just being kids (and could use a little parental
>involvement) are "diagnosed" with Made-Up-Disease-of-the-Week so the
>drug companies can make money. It's the lazy parent's way out: if I
>drug him to make him mind, I don't have to do any active parenting,
>watching, or caring.

So, yer saying that Nyquil is out?

>Glen, I'm really enjoying this discussion. It seems we agree on many
>things, but I often have trouble (that "bad debater" thing again)
>articulating my point of view in a coherent manner. This is really
>good practice.

I kinda like that you seem to have a somewhat different view of
parenting (something of the Auld Skool?) to mine, yet we can
still discuss it without threats from either side of killfiles or
actual killings.

As I had said (to Queenie, I think, in the other group), I'm
*pretty* sure that I am basically correct in most of my positions
in this area, but have trouble knowing how to express it in a way
that is clear enough to be understood and accepted. (so that
just *everybody* will bow down to me and call me their leader)

>Now if I could only stop stuttering at public gatherings....

Wha-ha-ha-at?

>> Oh, I'm guessing that *lots* of people notice it. The problem is
>> that too many people have been convinced that they don't have the
>> proper degrees to know what to do about it or have been convinced
>> not to trust their own perceptions.
>
>Or have no clue how to set limits on their child's behavior and back
>that up with appropriate consequences, because they were unable to
>learn by example from *their* parents.

But, again, this is external control, which is really ineffective
learning in the long-term.

That's not to say that a parent should discard their own needs.
If kidlet is doing something that is a real bother, the parent
should be clear to the kid that it is a bother. If the kids are
raised with a proper bond (see? I can still remember how this
started), the kids *want* to please the parent.

>My neighbor with out-of-control kids asks me what she should to to
>make her kids behave better. I just don't know where to begin, so I
>told her she should try making them all two years old again and start
>over.

Hmmm ... too bad that she can't be offered more serious advice
for now.

If she's on the net, send her to some of the parenting newsgroups
and keep an eye out for folks like Toto, Barb and Anne (who was
there somewhat infrequently, unfortunately). Also tell her how
to use killfiles and I can give you an outdated list of folks who
do very well in killfiles.

Along the lines of fun parenting advice that I would prefer not
to give: I remember a discussion about how to tell kids "no".
One parent responded with an answer that was something like "Yes,
but I don't know when."

>> >How are the parents supposed to get "help with parenting" when they
>> >don't realize how badly they suck at it?
>>
>> Community.
>
>First they'd have to get out from behind their TVs and *into* said
>community.

Ya think that guns could come into play, here?

Maybe the occasional power outage?

OK, how about standing outside of their door and yelling "FIRE"?

>> Well, that *woulda* worked, 40 or more years ago. Today, though,
>> there are simply too few people who trust themselves enough to do
>> what is right.
>
>Or are too afraid of criticism *from* the community if they do what is
>right.

Well, yes ... but "criticizm" can be done without judgement.

It is most often (from my experiences) best received when it is
not perceived to be a negative judgement.

One of the best ways that I have found to get somebody to do
something is to show them how to do it. If ya tell them, tell
them what *to* do and not what not to do.

>> But, in a Perfect World, if sucky parents are around a group of
>> people who are doing it right and those parents are not judging
>> them (these people usually have quite negative assesments of
>> themselves, already and adding to that only confirms their false
>> negative self-assessments -- making learning more difficult),
>> they would simply learn from those around them, since they
>> couldn't learn from their own parents.
>
>I'm actually glad that my neighbor keeps asking me, because I do give
>her hints here and there that seem to be working.

Have you mentioned Nyquil and duct tape, yet?

>It really is too
>bad that she didn't learn the right stuff earlier on...the earlier the
>better. She didn't even have a chance at an opportunity because her
>mother abandoned the family when she was small.

Ouch and POOP!

OK, be watchful of her getting ready to do the same.

As much as we may hate some of what is done to us, we *do* tend
to repeat it.

>> Spirited children and vandals would be two quite separate things.
>
>What others call "spirited" I call flaming brats (usually due to that
>no-limits-from-parents thing again). They often become vandals sooner
>or later, when their parents have given up trying and no one has
>showed them right from wrong.

Now, see, I have the problem (in most situations) with the
"showing" part. It sounds so punitive.

>> The spirited child is actually a Good Thing (tm) in that society
>> has yet to slap the spirit out of them. This "spirit" is what I
>> most often see as "a passion for learning".
>
>Oh, that's a different definition from mine. What you call "spirited"
>I call "insatiably curious," and that's lots of fun!

I remember one unschooling parent that I got to know some time
ago, who said that it was her job simply to keep the kids from
burning down the house. IOW, just stay out of the way unless it
got *really* ugly.

>> Then, at the end of the commercial, they are attempting to depict
>> how the "mother" should interact with the child by having the
>> "mother" lean over and play "goo-goo" with the kid; but the kid
>> backs away from the "mother" (notice that they blur the kid at
>> this point, because it goes against what they are trying to
>> show).
>>
>> It seems that the very folks, who are trying to tell parents how
>> to raise children properly, have no concept of what they are
>> saying.
>
>I've seen that one, and I agree. Don't just interact with the kid
>when it's convenient for *you*...everyone should have been at least
>giving him noogies when they went by.

I guess that, what I was saying was that, the *kid* was
interacting with the others. He was getting what he needed.

Now, yes, it would be kool if, the others would, eventually,
supply some feedback; but the main point was that the kid was
doing stuff that he needed to do to get his needs (at the time)
met.

Most importantly, though, was that the producers of that
commercial seemed not to see that.

>> >> Well, we have been trying that (to varying degrees) for a few
>> >> generations, now. Have things between people been getting
>> >> better? Are there fewer skool shootings, now? Less violence in
>> >> the Middle East? More honesty in politics?
>> >
>> >Women voting?
>>
>> They have been doing that since fairly early in the last century.
>
>Sorry, I forgot to ask how many years "a few generations" spans.

Not a problem. The answer would be "It depends on the question."

>> Toss this one in with the previous point and we have a loser.
>>
>> This nation used to be about accepting diversity (to a much
>> larger degree, but even then, not as much as it should have
>> been), but Unka Henery Ford changed all of that.
>
>You're blaming all this on cars?

Well, only in the most indirect manner.

Nobody would have listed to or tried to emulate Ford had it not
been for his success with the cars.

>> There is the *perception* of safer food, but that has more to do
>> with a good government (those two words just do not belong
>> together) PR program than it has to do with actually having safer
>> food.
>
>I think the perception of safer food may be due to more PR by the food
>industry, but more widespread communication methods are part of that.

Sure, that's a part of it and were it not for the efforts of
government, I coulda blamed it totally on the food industry.

>Back when lots of people were dying from food poisoning, it wasn't
>well known because there were no widespread intercommunity
>communication channels.

There are still lotsa people getting food poisioning. You know
those "24 hours flus"? Food poisioning, usually.

>> >cleaner air/water,
>>
>> Again, nope. We are spewing more trash into both and are
>> attempting to do a better job of cleaning that up, but both were
>> cleaner back before industrialization. (I'm not suggesting that
>> we do away with industrialization, as an answer to that -- just
>> pointing out the realities)
>
>So now "industrialization" is part of the "last few generations"? I
>think we're working off different timelines here.

No, I was just using that as an example of the cause of the
problem.

>> We have made precious few advances in scientific medicine, along
>> the lines of curing disease. In fact, in case you have been
>> hanging out with Ben Lomond in a cave for the past 30 years, we
>> seems to have discovered a new disease called AIDS.
>
>Which seems to have replaced smallpox, TB, and typhoid. The
>difference is that there are lots more people for diseases to kill
>nowadays. It's a percentage thing, I think. What percent of the
>world's population was dying from xxx in the 1930's versus now? Add
>all those percentages together for all deadly diseases, and I believe
>the earlier percentage would be the greater.

Yeah, we have "beaten" the obvious ones by methods like "Stop
drinking water from sewers".

Now we are into more creative diseases.

People *will* find ways to die when they want to.

>Any actual facts on this would be welcome.

WAIT! Yer trying to bring *facts* into this discussion? Even
this *newsgroup*? Where did we put that charter? I'm sure that
it had outlawed such things.

>> This goes along with something that Kathy's uncle (a
>> horticulturist) told me when I first got into that business:
>> "Weeds are simply plants that someone doesn't want in that
>> location."
>
>They're also orders of magnitude more prolific, unfortunately.

Only in those places that are suited for them.

The actual fact is that, when something annoys us, it seems more
obvious when it occurs.

>My dad had my brother out in the yard weeding so much that my brother
>swore when he got his own yard, he'd have a weeds-only garden.

That was one of the reasons that I so enjoyed living in the
hills. No lawn. No yard to maintain. Nature at its best, doing
what it does best.

When the house sells, my one fear is that we will end up buying a
more conventional house in a more conventional area and the
proverbial Jonses will not allow Kathy to allow me to go natural.

>> Yes, we have a coupla countries that are somewhat densly packed
>> (Everybody grease up! This is gonna be fun!), but even then, I'm
>> pretty sure that it is not so bad that one cannot walk without
>> stepping on someone, all across the country.
>
>But how many of the country's resources are being used up to feed all
>those people?

Clearly not all of them.

One of the things that we might want to consider "wrapping our
brains around" (patui!) is that (another bit of wisdom from
Buckminister Fuller) "There is more than enough of everything for
everybody." When we can get to that point, we can back off on
stressing about stuff that just doesn't matter and start focusing
on that which does.

>> Even in this country, most of the population is in the
>> metropolitan areas. Last I heard, nobody is forcing this on
>> them. We have huge expanses of unoccupied land.
>
>Most jobs are in cities, and most people don't want to commute very
>far.

Commute? For *what?

>The unoccupied land is mostly too arid, too resource-deficient,
>or too governmentalized (BLM, nat'l parks, subsidized ranchland, etc.)
>to be good places for people to live.

You might want to get out and look at some of the options. There
some awfully nice places out there.

>You seem to be against cars

Perhaps I was unclear. I don't oppose cars (*especially* since I
have come into a damned good excuse for not walking anymore). I
just hope that people will start recognizing the many ways that
they play an active part in the problems of the world and cars is
one of the biggies.

>...how are people supposed to get to their jobs without them?

Walk?

>Going back to an agricultural society will not work,

<sigh> Theoretically, yes it still will. You are listening to
the big food producers, again.

>and true
>telecommuting isn't getting here fast enough.

Shortly. *Very* shortly.

>> Some degree of planning is something of a Good Thing (tm).
>> Beyond that, though, it is a facade.
>
>The law of diminishing returns?

Or smoke and mirrors.

I honestly prefer to just go along for the ride. It really
worked well for me all of my life. I just found stuff that I
liked to do, then made it a point to find ways to do it.

< good daycare>

>> Still not defined? How helpful.
>
>I could use all the popular buzzwords (loving, accepting, teaching,
>nonconfrontational, ad nauseum) and you'd happily accept it, though,
>wouldn't you? The definition of a good daycare is how happy and
>well-adjusted the kid comes out of it at the end of the day. How's
>that?

Then we have to define "well-adjusted", I guess.

Yes, it could easily get caught up in defining the definitions to
the point where the initial focus is lost in the muddle; but it
does seem like something of a Good Idea (tm) for folks to spend
some time defining things (like "terrorism", for example) because
it helps keep everybody on the (another barf coming up) "same
page".

>> >I have no interest in nor aptitude for playing the violin.
>>
>> Do ya get how relatively unimportant it is?
>
>So are cooking and arts and crafts, to a lot of people.

Well, I think that we would both disagree that cooking is
unimportant.

>Good
>parenting seems also to be grossly undervalued, wouldn't you agree?

Hell, yes!!!

It's also poorly defined, today.

>> You simply don't need to. Kidlets are quite observant and, when
>> other people do something, if it is of interest to them, they'll
>> see it and make note of it.
>
>But if they're stuck at home with mommie all day and never see or hear
>anyone playing the violin, they won't know it exists.

Worst case, is yer TV broke?

>I know it's the
>parent's responsibility to expose the child to as many experiences as
>possible,

"Expose" is good, as well as the words "as possible".

>but the sad fact is that Many Parents Don't. They either
>don't know they should or can't be bothered, which is why daycare can
>be a good place for such exposure.

Delegate responsibility and then be satisfied with the result.

>> >Most PC's can demonstrate basic
>> >cooking and learning games, but there is a whole world of other stuff
>> >out there that the stay-at-home parent may not have access to.
>>
>> And they survive -- suggesting that those other skills are
>> usually pretty unimportant as to Basic Life Skills.
>
>I have a point to make here, but I can't see it because I'm a little
>glazed over by this point. Plus, work keeps interrupting me.

I'm reminded of our daughter telling me of crap teachers at
skool, causing problems with the grandkids.

I keep saying to her "Want me to go down there and give them a
good talking to?"

She remembers how I was with teachers when she was a kid, and
declines my kind offers.

Want me to give yer boss a good talking to? Sometimes they can
be *so* inconsiderate.

>> Do ya get that *I* am not asking for it for me (or for anybody
>> else, for that matter), but am trying to suggest that, unless it
>> is defined properly, everybody is going by the seat of their
>> pants?
>
>We rejected several daycares based on site visits. Anyone can do
>this; all it takes is a little common sense. One place had an infant
>lying on the floor with active kindergarteners playing roughly around
>it, one place had all the kids glued to the VCR and no books in sight,
>and one place stank of cigarette smoke and animal urine. ("Oh, but
>kids and animals go together!") The place we chose had kids playing
>outside with a variety of toys, arts and crafts projects drying on a
>large table, healthy snacks, and a large bookshelf.

OK. That is one way. Now, how could you pass that method onto
others in an objective manner?

>> Again, I'll recommend the reading of "The Continuum Concept" by
>> Jean Liedloff. It gives some hints and clues as to how kids
>> naturally learn about the world of the adults.
>
>I haven't seen you recommend that before.

I have been remiss in my over-recommendations.

Ever read "A General Theory Of Love"?

Just thought that I'd ask.

>I'll keep an eye out for it.

Don't *make* me retell the story about Kathy's client who lost
her prosthetic eye!

OK, you make a good point. I was hesitant to go into it too much
because I remember going over it and over it in some of the
parenting newsgroups in past years.

Ya know what I'll do? (if ya do, tell me, cuz I sure don't)
This one is getting *really* long (plus, I'm kinda tired right
now) and, I'll let this continue (it keeps me offa the streets
during the day), but I'll start another thread with this last
part.

Deal?

[Glen Appleby]

On 27 Mar 2002 14:41:24 -0800, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca20023...@news.rcip.com>...
>>

>> And, at this point, we could get into co-sleeping as well.
>
>I was always worried that she'd fall out of bed or get rolled onto.

That really doesn't happen. Are you also afraid of rolling out
of bed at night? Same thing is true of co-sleeping.

>I
>didn't mind getting up multiple times a night, though (I'm lucky in
>that I can go right back to sleep) so it was OK.

Ok, but it isn't for the benefit (mostly) of the parent. It is
for the benefit of the baby.

>I have a friend whose three kids have terrible teeth (her 1 y.o.
>required a root canal) due to both baby and mom falling asleep during
>breastfeeding. Does anyone know what is recommended for this
>situation, besides not falling asleep and/or rinsing the baby's mouth
>with water?

I'd simply bash their teeth out ... but I have simple-minded
approaches to a lot of things.

>Apparently they're all unusually susceptible to bad
>teeth.

That (in part) may be your answer. At least a partial one.

>> >But then, so is drugging yourself so that you can
>> >sleep, and lots of people do it.
>
>We discovered "cereal bottles" at about 5 months IIRC (thought it was
>our own idea)...she loved 'em. Still woke up hungry in the night, but
>only once instead of thrice and much less angry about it. Now we hear
>that Cereal Bottles are Evil; go figure.

Well, don't feel too guilty. You weren't the first to come up
with the idea so don't go trying to take on the blame for all of
mankind.

[Tim May]

In article <3ca25fbc...@news.rcip.com>, Glen Appleby
<dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:

> On 27 Mar 2002 14:41:24 -0800, in
> ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
> >dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message
> >news:<3ca20023...@news.rcip.com>...
> >>
> >> And, at this point, we could get into co-sleeping as well.
> >
> >I was always worried that she'd fall out of bed or get rolled onto.
>
> That really doesn't happen. Are you also afraid of rolling out
> of bed at night? Same thing is true of co-sleeping.

The facts prove your "Glenscience" is wrong:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99175.html

"CPSC's study is the first to quantify the number of fatalities
resulting from the practice of co-sleeping with babies. Of the 515
deaths, 121 were reported to be due to a parent, caregiver or sibling
rolling on top of or against the baby while sleeping. More than
three-quarters of these deaths occurred to infants younger than 3
months. The other 394 deaths resulted from suffocation or from
strangulation caused by entrapment of the child's head in various
structures of the bed. Entrapments occurred between the mattress and
the wall, bed frame, headboard, footboard, bed railings or adjacent
furniture.

""Don't sleep with your baby or put the baby down to sleep in an adult
bed," said CPSC Chairman Ann Brown."

Now you may think it's a reasonable tradeoff to make, and I might even
agree, but don't make ridiculous claims like "That really doesn't
happen."

It happens at a predictable rate.

--Tim May

[Glen Appleby]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:40:52 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
<tc...@got.net> wrote:

>In article <3ca25fbc...@news.rcip.com>, Glen Appleby
><dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:
>

<Fear of hurting baby from co-sleeping>

>> That really doesn't happen. Are you also afraid of rolling out
>> of bed at night? Same thing is true of co-sleeping.
>
>The facts prove your "Glenscience" is wrong:
>
>http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99175.html

Didja see that about 3/4 of the deaths were due to the baby being
pinned in some part of the structure of the bed (such as between
the matress and frame)? That will tend not to happen if the baby
is sleeping between the two adults (most typical).

>""Don't sleep with your baby or put the baby down to sleep in an adult
>bed," said CPSC Chairman Ann Brown."

Yes, and you would be among the first to jump all over most of
the government studies for their falacies.

Please also recognize that the URL was awfully sketchy as to the
specifics of the study. For example, how many of the parents had
been drinking or taking some sort of drug (perscription or not)?

>Now you may think it's a reasonable tradeoff to make, and I might even
>agree, but don't make ridiculous claims like "That really doesn't
>happen."

"It really doesn't happen" is about the same as "It rarely
happens".

That is a pretty fair risk, since the few deaths mentioned in the
study (a total of 515 in 7 years) is an extreemly small number by
comparison to the more typically heard of causes of death in
children (drowning in swimming pools, as an example). Try as you
might, you can't force them not to die.

>It happens at a predictable rate.

I'm guessing that, if you were to accept "studies" like this at
face value (without knowing anything more about it), you'd be the
same type of person who would wear a helmet when mowing the lawn.

[Glen Appleby]

On 27 Mar 2002 15:00:04 -0800, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca0e6bf...@news.rcip.com>...
>>

>> Oh, I have run across more than a few with, at some age, poorer
>> social skills. When allowed to learn and when their views are
>> valued (so that they learn to value their own views), they
>> invariably get past it.
>
>Except for a certain residual clinginess that makes it really hard to
>peel them off when you need/want to be somewhere else.

That sounds like the typical "needy child", which is usually a
symptom of still not feeling secure.

>My point was that if there is only one
>kid in the household, the kid cannot learn from another kid's learning
>process ("he put his hand on the stove and got hurt...I'd better not
>do that then").

Aside: Kids *normally* (as opposed to typically) don't touch
stoves, heaters or other hot objects when left to their own
devices (unless they accidentally fall).

I got the opportunity to test this with out grandkids, when they
were able to move around.

We had both a woodstove and a keroscene heater that the kids
*could* easily touch.

We made it a point to let them grab and touch any old thing in
the house without yelling "NO!" or giving up with the other
typical parental reactions. (We both agreed that the kids were
more important than the things -- if they broke something then it
could probibly be replaced)

Now, on various occasions, they would stay with us for weeks at a
time (oh, for those days!), so this isn't some brief moment in
time.

They might go *near* the sources of heat (and we watched
carefully, always at the ready to act, if needed), but would
sense the heat might hurt them long before they got close enough
to get burned. They never even got close to being burned and we
never had to say a word.

>Whereas if the kid is around other kids frequently
>enough, those examples are presented much more often.

Again, I'll recommend "The Continuum Concept". Those kids
diddled with sharp arrows and knives from as soon as they were
able to move around. Injuries were rare. Kids learned by
watching the adults handle the sharp stuff.

I was watching "Antique Roadshow" recently. Some mother was
there having some old cup appraised. She was holding a toddler
who had the mate to that in her hands.

The toddler was manipulating the cup in much the same manner as
the appraiser was manipulating his. The mother had her hand
*under* the cup that the kid had, but that was about it.

I thought that it might be kinda funny if the kid had dropped the
cup (pretty expensive, as it turned out), but it never happened
-- not even close.

Now don't go thinking me evil for my expectations. I always
watch for the various apprasers to drop and break something, as
well.

<Finances>

>> Kids need to see it done properly before they can do it properly,
>> themselves.
>
>Sounds like common sense to me. "Sure, we can buy that, but if we do,
>we don't have enough money left for <something else good>. Which do
>you think we should buy?"

Something like that, yes.

Initially I would just be showing them the income, the outgo and
what would happen if we missed a few outgos.

Then we could get into "what if's".

>> And, exactly, what would be wrong with that (aside from the
>> obvious bit about not winning debates -- which is, in reality,
>> often not the best way to go, anyway)?
>
>See my other post--lack of ability to present my views in a compelling
>manner.

As I responded to that, I often feel woefully inadequate, myself.

I see what Geoff or some other wordsmith can do and I'm tempted
to just pack it in and go home.

In another newsgroup, long ago and far away, someone whom I
respect a great deal told me that my posts were "elegant and
eloquent". I was floored.

Then I realized that she was probibly drinking.

>> But that has nothing to do with having enough to get by -- which
>> is much easier to do than it is to continuously try to be "better
>> off".
>
>"Enough to get by" varies wildly between attitudes, cultures, regions,
>and upbringing.

That was one of the things that keyed me to this.

>> If I wote that to get a lesson in Aribic, I woulda emailed Ayse,
>> instead (not that I don't like *you*, of course).
>
>Yes, but then all of these nice people reading this would not know.

Whoa! There aree people, aside from you and I, who are *reading*
this?

Ashcroft, for example?

>> >And how many of those are there to describe (specifically) men, I
>> >wonder?
>>
>> Those what? Insulting words?
>
>Convenient already-existing insulting words that can be combined to
>make another insulting word, applying exclusively to males. ("Bint"
>is actually the only one I know of for females, so don't strain
>yourself.)

Here's where you'll have to ask Geoff. He is bunches better at
that sort of thing that I would ever be. b Oh, we both *know*
that he has a gadzillion of them.

>> If you wanna hear insulting words that are used to describe men,
>> just stop by many wimen's groups and listen.
>
><shudder> Don't make me, please, no!

OK, but you must promise to behave.

Remember, though, that I didn't say *how* you should behave.

[Tim May]

In article <3ca271b3...@news.rcip.com>, Glen Appleby
<dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:40:52 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
> <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <3ca25fbc...@news.rcip.com>, Glen Appleby
> ><dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:
> >
> <Fear of hurting baby from co-sleeping>
> >> That really doesn't happen. Are you also afraid of rolling out
> >> of bed at night? Same thing is true of co-sleeping.
> >
> >The facts prove your "Glenscience" is wrong:
> >
> >http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99175.html
>
> Didja see that about 3/4 of the deaths were due to the baby being
> pinned in some part of the structure of the bed (such as between
> the matress and frame)? That will tend not to happen if the baby
> is sleeping between the two adults (most typical).
>

Nitwit, you said "doesn't happen," I cited examples where it does.

Q.E.D.

--Tim May

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

>"CPSC's study is the first to quantify the number of fatalities
>resulting from the practice of co-sleeping with babies. Of the 515
>deaths, 121 were reported to be due to a parent, caregiver or sibling
>rolling on top of or against the baby while sleeping. More than
>three-quarters of these deaths occurred to infants younger than 3
>months. The other 394 deaths resulted from suffocation or from
>strangulation caused by entrapment of the child's head in various
>structures of the bed. Entrapments occurred between the mattress and
>the wall, bed frame, headboard, footboard, bed railings or adjacent
>furniture.
>
>""Don't sleep with your baby or put the baby down to sleep in an adult
>bed," said CPSC Chairman Ann Brown."

This study has been debunked, disputed, and disproven all over the place.
Their methodology was atrocious:

The original research, on which the CPSC's report is based, can be found at
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/103/5/e59

Some of the problems with the CPSC's report (and with the original
research) include:

1. The CPSC report fails to mention that the 180 infants they claim died as
a result of "overlying" came from a population of 2178
infant deaths.

2. The CPSC report fails to highlight that the report is based on total
deaths over an *18* year period! (1980-1997)

3. There is no mention of the fact that the research found that the number
for _all_ infant deaths studied (including being wedged
between the wall and bed, etc.), the rate was 29 deaths per 100,000
infants.

4. The CPSC report fails to mention that of the 180 infants they claim died
as a result of "overlying", only 102 were actually sleeping
in a bed. The others were on a sofa, or "other".

5. The CPSC report fails to mention that of the infants they claim died as
a result of "overlying", 37 were in waterbeds. This means
that of the 180 deaths reported in an 18 year period, only 65 occurred in a
standard bed, or 3.61 per year.

6. Of those 65 remaining deaths, there is _no_ accounting for whether or
not the parents of the infants in question were under the
influence of a substance, or morbidly overweight (both being
contraindications for co-sleeping). Nor is there any analysis of the type
of bedding used.

7. More generally, there is _no_ control as to the use of the term
"overlaying". The original research was based on this: the CPSC
purchases death certificates from all 50 states, and D.C.. They purchased
ones specifically coded for infant deaths resulting from
asphyxia. Some of these were blamed on "overlying". However, that
classification is done by the person reporting the death, who
may be a doctor, or may be a coroner with no medical training), etc. etc..
'Overlying' is a catch-all term, and describes only that the
family co-slept, and they may have had no other obvious explanation. Also,
it does not take into account WHERE the baby was
sleeping (so it would include babies who had been sleeping on, say, the
couch with a parent), or the condition of the parent (so it
would include parents who were under the influence of a substance).
Finally, of course, it does not screen out for those parents who
have intentionally caused their child's death, and blamed it on rolling on
the infant. None of these factors are screened out, so there
is no way to know which, *if any*, of these infant deaths were _truly_ the
result of overlying by a sober, non-morbidly-obese parent
in an appropriately baby-safe bed.

8. The report fails to highlight that of this sample, at least *43* deaths
involved _cribs_! (Yet the CPSC's report rushed to
recommend sleeping *only* in cribs!)

Dr. McKenna's rebuttal:
http://www.lalecheleague.org/Release/cosleeping.html

Dr. Schreiber's rebuttal:
http://www.littlekoala.com/familybed.html

Dr. Vonnegut's rebuttal:
http://www.intuitiveparenting.org/bglobe.html

[Glen Appleby]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:38:43 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
<tc...@got.net> wrote:

>Nitwit, you said "doesn't happen," I cited examples where it does.

Nitwit, you claim to be bright and human. You just showed that
neither is true.

[Glen Appleby]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:38:43 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May

<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>> >In article <3ca25fbc...@news.rcip.com>, Glen Appleby
>> ><dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:
>> >
>> <Fear of hurting baby from co-sleeping>
>> >> That really doesn't happen. Are you also afraid of rolling out
>> >> of bed at night? Same thing is true of co-sleeping.
>> >
>> >The facts prove your "Glenscience" is wrong:
>> >
>> >http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99175.html

I had been thinking about this and going through some of my
research.

Tim's response to this is much like his "thoughts" about diabetes
and heart disease. He looks only at numbers without even
considering what is behind them.

The "study" he cites is not really a study at all, but really
nothing more than a compillation of such fine sources as
newspaper articles ("TV is called a 'medium' because it is
neither rare nor well done." -- the same applies, too often, to
the press as well).

It didn't take into effect such things (as I mentioned)
imparement of the parents from drugs or alcohol, intentional
smothering of the babies, SIDS, etc.

Heck, kids die at a much higher rate sleeping in cribs, from
things like SIDS, being smothered in blankets, being strangled
between the matress and the rails, etc.

Further, there were nothing like control groups.

For all of the "intellect", Tim sure isn't really bright
sometimes.

[Geoff Miller]

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org> writes:

> Of course, they aren't prone to things like SIDS - more's the pity.

Q: What's a foot long, has a purple head and makes women scream?

A: Crib death.

Geoff

--
"Wouldn't you like to own a video of Condoleeza Rice having sex
with a Komodo dragon?" -- Lenore Levine

[Glen Appleby]

On 29 Mar 2002 15:37:58 -0800, in
ba.mountain-folk,geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:

>Q: What's a foot long, has a purple head and makes women scream?
>
>A: Crib death.

Not quite on par with the other one that I talked about, but ...
not at all bad (... well, of course it was bad, but that is part
of what made it good).

[Geoff Miller]

hpjeannie <hpje...@yahoo.com> writes:

> In Arabic, all the women on this group are bints. "Bint" means
> "daughter of" just like "ibn" means "son of" (see Thirteenth Warrior).
> Lots of Arabian mares have Bint in their names. It's just convenient
> that it's also the combination of two insulting words used to describe
> women.

It should be pointed out that "dozy bint" is Commonwealth slang
for "numb cunt."

[Geoff Miller]

Tim May <tc...@got.net> writes:

> A pediatrician said the problem was that the baby was getting enough
> nourishment. The recommendation was for a mix of a bunch of things, the
> details of which I've forgotten. But it was stuff like molasses, sugar,
> honey, etc. Mixed together.

The parents of a friend of mine were hippies, and instead of feeding
my friend milk, or formula, or tit-juice, or some other traditional,
"Establishment" nourishment when he was an infant, they gave him
(if I remember correctly) apple juice. Reminds me of stories I've
heard about misguided people thinking they knew better than millions
of years of evolution and trying to convert their cats to vegetarianism.

This guy's now only in his early thirties, and his teeth are falling out
of his head -- quite possibly due to the lack of calcium in his diet at
a critical point in his development.

[Julian Macassey]

On 31 Mar 2002 09:40:15 -0800, Geoff Miller <geo...@u1.netgate.net> wrote:
>
>
> hpjeannie <hpje...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> In Arabic, all the women on this group are bints. "Bint" means
>> "daughter of" just like "ibn" means "son of" (see Thirteenth Warrior).

Don't you mean "Eaters of the Dead"? Which is the
author's original title for the book before the PC Mafia stepped
in.

>
>
> It should be pointed out that "dozy bint" is Commonwealth slang
> for "numb cunt."

A term picked up by Brit and Commonwealth soldiers during
a couple of world wars.

Along with words like chai, now abused by the
ignorant trustafarians that hang out in Starbucks.

--
If it's a good idea ... go ahead and do it. It is much easier to
apologize than it is to get permission. -- Grace M. Hopper

[Geoff Miller]

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org> writes:

> We should probably cut Tim some slack here; unless he's had kids in the
> past 20 years or so, he has no reason to know that making an infant
> sleep through the night is actually *not good* for it,

Why not?

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Geoff Miller wrote:

>> We should probably cut Tim some slack here; unless he's had kids in the
>> past 20 years or so, he has no reason to know that making an infant
>> sleep through the night is actually *not good* for it,
>
>
>Why not?

Human babies are not made to sleep through the night - and while I don't
disagree that there may be times that we can 'improve on nature', the
evidence indicates that this is not one of those times - that there is a
*reason* babies should not sleep through the night.

Babies, especially very young ones, are not able to well-regulate their own
breathing during sleep, particularly if they are induced into too deep a
sleep. One of the reasons that co-sleeping leads to a lower incidence of
SIDS is that, it has been determined, there is a synergy between mother and
infant, and the infant actually synchs its breathing to the mother -
following her lead if you will, which helps keep the infant breathing
regularly (infants in deep sleep may experience a sort of apnea - I've read
it described as being almost like the infant "forgetting" to breathe -
being with the mother offers a natural correction in this situation). But
with mother, or alone, if the infant is induced into an unnaturally deep
slumber, and experiences an infant apnea. it will be unable to rouse itself
and start breathing again.

Additionally, infants wake during the night to nurse because breast milk is
very easily digested, and so goes through the system, and is utilized by
the system, quickly. Then the infant wakes up, ready for more sustenance.
When you give an infant cereal, or some other "unnatural" (for wont of a
better word) for the age food, the food takes much longer to digest, as the
baby's immature system is not really capable of handling, let alone
utilizing, it - so the baby sleeps longer - not waking up for its regular
feedings of food it can actually utilize. This is almost certainly a less
serious concern - certainly lots of babies are fed solids too early, and
live to tell the tale, but the concern supra is genuine, and speaks to
quite serious consequences. There is a reason it's called "crib death" -
there are *very* few instances of true SIDS where the family co-sleeps,
which includes the vast majority of the rest of the world - only in the
West, in "modern" 'civilized' countries, do we make babies sleep alone, and
that is where you will find the highest incidences of SIDS.

Here are some reference links:

http://www.prairienet.org/laleche/detsleepthrough.html

http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/ilm1su98.html

[Glen Appleby]

On 1 Apr 2002 07:56:11 GMT, in

ba.mountain-folk,shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,
Esq.) wrote:

>There is a reason it's called "crib death" -
>there are *very* few instances of true SIDS where the family co-sleeps,
>which includes the vast majority of the rest of the world - only in the
>West, in "modern" 'civilized' countries, do we make babies sleep alone, and
>that is where you will find the highest incidences of SIDS.

We will convert the rest of the heathens! Just give us time. We
have our priorities, you know. First we have to clean up that
*huge* mess that we played a part in making in the Middle East,
*then* we can move on to less important stuff like converting the
Third World contries to things like no longer co-sleeping and
getting them on the formula train .... oh, wait ... it would seem
that some of our subsidiary countries (oops, companies) have
already been working at the later for many years by using methods
that the FTC simply would not allow in our own country.

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca84d77....@news.rcip.com>...

>
> We will convert the rest of the heathens! Just give us time. We
> have our priorities, you know. First we have to clean up that
> *huge* mess that we played a part in making in the Middle East,
> *then* we can move on to less important stuff like converting the
> Third World contries to things like no longer co-sleeping and
> getting them on the formula train .... oh, wait ... it would seem
> that some of our subsidiary countries (oops, companies) have
> already been working at the later for many years by using methods
> that the FTC simply would not allow in our own country.

Proper education on birth control not being one of them, unfortunately.

Jeannie

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca235b8...@news.rcip.com>...

>
> If a parent is neglecting their kids, this is less than a Good
> Thiong (tm), which is, I believe, what you are talking about,
> here.

They're not neglecting them...they get anything they whine for,
including plenty of Happy Meals!

What the parents are neglecting is to teach their kids (OK, "help the
children learn") that there are consequences, sometimes negative, to
their actions.

> However, I am a huge fan on unschooling (student-led learning),
> which gives a great deal of freedom to kids and has inherent in
> it the trust that kids will learn self-discipline (the only thing
> that they will really have after leaving home.

When did the unschooling school of thought start? Long enough ago to
see results? Are there any statistics on what percentage of
"unschooled" kids are able to be on their own; i.e., completely
independent of any assistance in procuring food and shelter?

Is the idea that, if left to their own devices, kids will get bored
enough to open a book or two?

Some schools today seem to be leaning towards "unschooling" in that
the kids are allowed to run wild all day in the classroom. The
teacher's role is simply to keep them from maiming each other. The
(bigger, stronger) kids are happy; the teachers have less work to do;
and the resulting adults will be completely unable to live in the
world with any degree of success (for whatever definition of "success"
you prefer). I hope this isn't what you're advocating!

> Also inherent in
> this is the realization that a parent or teacher cannot force
> information into the mind of another, but that learning is
> internal to the student.

But don't you agree that providing the information to the student, and
letting the student "internalize" it (or not), is more helpful than
simply turning the student loose to either learn or play as it sees
fit?

> >> >> I thought that you were on the side of wimen taking care of
> >> >> themselves.
> >> >
> >> >Making sure that the dependents will be financially OK (without public
> >> >assistance if at all possible) in the event of the demise of the
> >> >breadwinner comes under that definition.
> >>
> >> IOW, making sure that the selected SugarDaddy has enough sugar.
> >
> >You're contradicting yourself.
>
> No. I was just rewording what you said, but with a different
> (and a bit more ugly) spin on it. You know, just for fun.

And dodging the issue, again. Why can't you, once in awhile, admit
that someone might have a good point, instead of making an ugly joke
instead?

> >First you say that a stay-at-home parent is better than daycare,
>
> In general, I'll hold to that.
>
> >then you criticize the stay-at-home
> >parent for taking steps to make sure they can *continue* to stay at
> >home (IOW, not use daycare) in case the breadwinning parent stops
> >winning bread.
>
> Whoa! Did ya make that leap without a safety net? I am
> impressed!
>
> Now, like seeing a magician do their magic, I really want to know
> how you performed that trick.

Can another rational human explain this to Glen? If I have to make it
any more clear, I'm afraid I'll regress to thumbsucking.

> <Parent training>
> >It's also mostly common sense, which seems to be in short supply these
> >days, unfortunately for the Next Generation.
>
> But the common sense is often obscured by those things that
> society heaps on top.

Which is why parent training would be a Good Thing. Why do you always
sound like you're arguing when you're not?

> I'll let them get a bit more comfortable ... before I set into
> effect, my plan to steal the baby.

Hee hee. When we see a cute one in a public place, we begin devising
football plays which end with the ball...er, babyholder at the car
door with keys in hand. Of course, we scan the parents carefully and
try to hear some of their conversation to make sure we won't end up
with just a cute dud.

> So, yer saying that Nyquil is out?

For the littlies, but not for Mom! (holding Nyquil bottle in death
grip, teeth bared ;)

> I kinda like that you seem to have a somewhat different view of
> parenting (something of the Auld Skool?) to mine, yet we can
> still discuss it without threats from either side of killfiles or
> actual killings.

Yes, I was raised Auld Skool, and find myself doing and saying things
I swore I'd never do or say When I Had Kids. Sigh. At least I can
then use the excuse that I've never done this before and I only have
one example to follow. :) (I will say that I will Never Ever use
"because I said so" as a reason.)

> As I had said (to Queenie, I think, in the other group), I'm
> *pretty* sure that I am basically correct in most of my positions
> in this area, but have trouble knowing how to express it in a way
> that is clear enough to be understood and accepted. (so that
> just *everybody* will bow down to me and call me their leader)

That's true; I'm not quite getting it yet....

> >Or have no clue how to set limits on their child's behavior and back
> >that up with appropriate consequences, because they were unable to
> >learn by example from *their* parents.
>
> But, again, this is external control, which is really ineffective
> learning in the long-term.
>
> That's not to say that a parent should discard their own needs.
> If kidlet is doing something that is a real bother, the parent
> should be clear to the kid that it is a bother. If the kids are
> raised with a proper bond (see? I can still remember how this
> started), the kids *want* to please the parent.

Until That Certain Age, anyway, like 7 or 8.

>
> Hmmm ... too bad that she can't be offered more serious advice
> for now.

I haven't the knowledge, the time or the patience. I just know that
what she's doing now (yelling and putting them in their room--yes,
three kids, two genders, one room) isn't working at all.

> If she's on the net, send her to some of the parenting newsgroups
> and keep an eye out for folks like Toto, Barb and Anne (who was
> there somewhat infrequently, unfortunately). Also tell her how
> to use killfiles and I can give you an outdated list of folks who
> do very well in killfiles.

That's a good suggestion. I'll see how net-literate she is (or tell
the hubby about the groups). Can you send me some group names, plus
the killfile fodder, privately please? I'd like to lurk there too.

> Along the lines of fun parenting advice that I would prefer not
> to give: I remember a discussion about how to tell kids "no".
> One parent responded with an answer that was something like "Yes,
> but I don't know when."

"Of course you can...when hell freezes over." Yes, humor helps
immensely.

> >First they'd have to get out from behind their TVs and *into* said
> >community.
>

> Maybe the occasional power outage?

But how would they reach the parenting newsgroups?

> >Or are too afraid of criticism *from* the community if they do what is
> >right.
>
> Well, yes ... but "criticizm" can be done without judgement.

It can, but only if the receiver does not *perceive* judgement. There
are so many people out their with gigantic chips on their shoulders
that even the gentlest suggestion is perceived as meddling and
judgemental.

> It is most often (from my experiences) best received when it is
> not perceived to be a negative judgement.

I've found that "Can I help?" is good, followed by "Would you like to
know what worked for me?" Anything else doesn't go over well at all.

> One of the best ways that I have found to get somebody to do
> something is to show them how to do it. If ya tell them, tell
> them what *to* do and not what not to do.

Kinda like one does when raising kids, eh?

> >I'm actually glad that my neighbor keeps asking me, because I do give
> >her hints here and there that seem to be working.
>
> Have you mentioned Nyquil and duct tape, yet?

She seems to be a little edgy sometimes, so the most I've done in that
direction is to let her know that they're still little enough to be
buried up to their necks in sand. The mouths are sometimes the worst
part, though, so I guess duct tape would be next.

I'm dying to tell her that "I'm your mami, you should respeck me!!" is
NOT the right thing to say, but then she'd ask how to earn respect and
I'd have to go back to the "It's way too late for that" discussion.

> >It really is too
> >bad that she didn't learn the right stuff earlier on...the earlier the
> >better. She didn't even have a chance at an opportunity because her
> >mother abandoned the family when she was small.
>
> Ouch and POOP!
>
> OK, be watchful of her getting ready to do the same.

She's already said half-jokingly that she sometimes just wants to run
away. It's amazing--she can't do enough for "the chilllllrun,"
they're The Most Important Thing In Her Life (yes, she has a husband)
and then she says that about running away. Oy.

> As much as we may hate some of what is done to us, we *do* tend
> to repeat it.

"Because I said so." Agh! No! Nonono!!

> >> Spirited children and vandals would be two quite separate things.
> >
> >What others call "spirited" I call flaming brats (usually due to that
> >no-limits-from-parents thing again). They often become vandals sooner
> >or later, when their parents have given up trying and no one has
> >showed them right from wrong.
>
> Now, see, I have the problem (in most situations) with the
> "showing" part. It sounds so punitive.

OK. No one has learned them right from wrong. "Better" word, same
idea.

> >Oh, that's a different definition from mine. What you call "spirited"
> >I call "insatiably curious," and that's lots of fun!
>
> I remember one unschooling parent that I got to know some time
> ago, who said that it was her job simply to keep the kids from
> burning down the house. IOW, just stay out of the way unless it
> got *really* ugly.

Again, I really hope this is not the kind of "unschooling" you mean.
Sounds like lazy parent syndrome again.

> I guess that, what I was saying was that, the *kid* was
> interacting with the others. He was getting what he needed.

Really? It looked to me like he was *trying* to interact with the
others, and being ignored/rebuffed each time. It made me sad.

> Now, yes, it would be kool if, the others would, eventually,
> supply some feedback; but the main point was that the kid was
> doing stuff that he needed to do to get his needs (at the time)
> met.

I was envisioning the next scene being, if he didn't get any
attention, throwing his breakfast on the floor. After all, negative
attention is better than none.

> Most importantly, though, was that the producers of that
> commercial seemed not to see that.

Producers of commercials seem not to see a lot. I think they're in
cahoots with the sitcom folks.

> >You're blaming all this on cars?
>
> Well, only in the most indirect manner.
>
> Nobody would have listed to or tried to emulate Ford had it not
> been for his success with the cars.

In what way? Assembly lines? Factories? Only one color available?
I'm betting it's the "factories begat commuting to work begat less
time at home begat less time with the children begat social ruin." Or
is that "factories begat larger salaries begat larger homes begat
keeping-up-with-the-Joneses begat SUV's begat social ruin"? Either
way the result is the same; the question is how to get to a better
place instead of a worse one, right?

> >Back when lots of people were dying from food poisoning, it wasn't
> >well known because there were no widespread intercommunity
> >communication channels.
>
> There are still lotsa people getting food poisioning. You know
> those "24 hours flus"? Food poisioning, usually.

I guess we need to define "lots" now. Eh, no thanks. Anyway, there
are better ways to prevent dehydration now than there were then, and
those ways are more widely available and communicated.

> >> Again, nope. We are spewing more trash into both and are
> >> attempting to do a better job of cleaning that up, but both were
> >> cleaner back before industrialization.

Agreed.

> >> (I'm not suggesting that
> >> we do away with industrialization, as an answer to that -- just
> >> pointing out the realities)

Um. So what, exactly, *are* you suggesting? Do you have a way to get
past all this nastiness and you're just not telling, or are these
conversations part of your thinking process?

And are you getting all your research down on disk or paper someplace
so it's not all for naught when Your Time Comes?

> Yeah, we have "beaten" the obvious ones by methods like "Stop
> drinking water from sewers".
>
> Now we are into more creative diseases.
>
> People *will* find ways to die when they want to.

Too many rats in the cage again.

> >Any actual facts on this would be welcome.
>
> WAIT! Yer trying to bring *facts* into this discussion? Even
> this *newsgroup*? Where did we put that charter? I'm sure that
> it had outlawed such things.

Oops, sorry...must've lost my head. :)

<ugly joke space here>

> The actual fact is that, when something annoys us, it seems more
> obvious when it occurs.

Like slow drivers? ;)

> When the house sells, my one fear is that we will end up buying a
> more conventional house in a more conventional area and the
> proverbial Jonses will not allow Kathy to allow me to go natural.

<more joke space here>

> One of the things that we might want to consider "wrapping our
> brains around" (patui!)

Indeed.

> is that (another bit of wisdom from
> Buckminister Fuller) "There is more than enough of everything for
> everybody." When we can get to that point, we can back off on
> stressing about stuff that just doesn't matter and start focusing
> on that which does.

Yeah, we need to figure out how to get the stuff that's needed to
where it needs to be instead of where it's not needed but is.

I can hear Geoff yowling in pain from here! Kewl!

> >Most jobs are in cities, and most people don't want to commute very
> >far.
>
> Commute? For *what?

That unimportant career and the doesn't-matter lifestyle that goes
with it, along with the unnecessary stress.

> >The unoccupied land is mostly too arid, too resource-deficient,
> >or too governmentalized (BLM, nat'l parks, subsidized ranchland, etc.)
> >to be good places for people to live.
>
> You might want to get out and look at some of the options. There
> some awfully nice places out there.

Yes, there are, for varying values of "nice." How about both "usable"
and "un-previously-owned"?

> Perhaps I was unclear. I don't oppose cars (*especially* since I
> have come into a damned good excuse for not walking anymore). I
> just hope that people will start recognizing the many ways that
> they play an active part in the problems of the world and cars is
> one of the biggies.

Okay.

> >...how are people supposed to get to their jobs without them?
>
> Walk?

You first.

> >Going back to an agricultural society will not work,
>
> <sigh> Theoretically, yes it still will. You are listening to
> the big food producers, again.

Theoretically, lots of things will work. Most of them haven't been
done, usually for practical reasons. Many, many people will have to
prove the practicality of proving the theorem before anyone with any
clout will notice.

> >and true
> >telecommuting isn't getting here fast enough.
>
> Shortly. *Very* shortly.

Let's not get personal here.

> I honestly prefer to just go along for the ride. It really
> worked well for me all of my life. I just found stuff that I
> liked to do, then made it a point to find ways to do it.

Which probably included some of doing things you didn't like to do in
order to be able to do the things you do like to do. Tradeoffs, IOW.
The trick is to figure out if the good stuff is worth having to deal
with the not-so-good stuff.

> < good daycare>
> >> Still not defined? How helpful.
> >
> >I could use all the popular buzzwords (loving, accepting, teaching,
> >nonconfrontational, ad nauseum) and you'd happily accept it, though,
> >wouldn't you? The definition of a good daycare is how happy and
> >well-adjusted the kid comes out of it at the end of the day. How's
> >that?
>
> Then we have to define "well-adjusted", I guess.

Able to successfully function in his/her current society.
"Successful" meaning not getting shunned and not preventing others
from <life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness>. Damn, but that
"redheaded tombstone" (Ob1776) could turn a phrase.

> Yes, it could easily get caught up in defining the definitions to
> the point where the initial focus is lost in the muddle; but it
> does seem like something of a Good Idea (tm) for folks to spend
> some time defining things (like "terrorism", for example) because
> it helps keep everybody on the (another barf coming up) "same
> page".

ObBarf.

> >> >I have no interest in nor aptitude for playing the violin.
> >>
> >> Do ya get

Another ObBarf there, BTW. Or maybe it's just an irritated twitch.
Your use of "do ya get" or "didja learn" indicates (maybe it's just
me) that you think you are speaking to a moron, thus my defense of
Kathy in the accident post. ("Didja *learn* anything?)

> >>how relatively unimportant it is?
> >
> >So are cooking and arts and crafts, to a lot of people.
>
> Well, I think that we would both disagree that cooking is
> unimportant.

Why? Standing in as devil's advocate, you can get everything you need
precooked or pre-prepared from restaurants or the grocery store.

Oh, you mean in your ideal agrarian everybody-stays-home society.
Well, then, yes, I suppose knowing how to prepare food (from the
ground up, as it were) would be essential. It's also a hell of a lot
of work, and you would have been worn out and dead long ago and not
been able to spread around your Great Ideas (tm).

> >But if they're stuck at home with mommie all day and never see or hear
> >anyone playing the violin, they won't know it exists.
>
> Worst case, is yer TV broke?

Anne, do you have a TV? Do your kids watch it? How about Heather's?
The cars I see with "nurturing parent" type bumperstickers have a
sticker on the other side of the bumper saying "Kill Your TV." I
really don't think people who subscribe to unparenting would have TVs,
let alone advocate their use as learning devices.

> >I know it's the
> >parent's responsibility to expose the child to as many experiences as
> >possible,
>
> "Expose" is good, as well as the words "as possible".

I'm learning to use your language to communicate with you. I only
hope that people don't read what I write in your language and think
I'm your sister or acolyte or something.

> >but the sad fact is that Many Parents Don't. They either
> >don't know they should or can't be bothered, which is why daycare can
> >be a good place for such exposure.
>
> Delegate responsibility and then be satisfied with the result.

Right, and most are, which is not a good thing if the daycare is
mediocre, but potentially better than staying at home glued to the
electronic babysitter or running feral in the streets. In many more
homes than you care to think about, parental influence is limited to
doing as little as possible while spending lots of time on the phone
complaining about your lot.

Or spending time on computer chat groups seeking support (not
solutions--that's too much work) for problems they themselves have
created instead of spending time with said problem, helping it <learn
to> solve itself.

> >> >Most PC's can demonstrate basic
> >> >cooking and learning games, but there is a whole world of other stuff
> >> >out there that the stay-at-home parent may not have access to.
> >>
> >> And they survive -- suggesting that those other skills are
> >> usually pretty unimportant as to Basic Life Skills.

Is simple survival/existence enough for most people? Seems like it is
for you, but lots of people are contaminated with a disease called,
variously, Initiative or Nervous Energy or Invention or (dare I say
it?) Ambition. Or are there enough people afflicted with such
diseases to provide for those who choose to simply get along? And
will they do so willingly?

Why does this start to sound so familiar?

> >I have a point to make here, but I can't see it because I'm a little
> >glazed over by this point. Plus, work keeps interrupting me.
>

> Want me to give yer boss a good talking to? Sometimes they can
> be *so* inconsiderate.

No, it's OK, I remembered what I was going to say (see above). Thanks
anyway, though.

> >> Do ya get

twitch

> >> that *I* am not asking for it for me (or for anybody
> >> else, for that matter), but am trying to suggest that, unless it
> >> is defined properly, everybody is going by the seat of their
> >> pants?
> >
> >We rejected several daycares based on site visits. Anyone can do
> >this; all it takes is a little common sense. One place had an infant
> >lying on the floor with active kindergarteners playing roughly around
> >it, one place had all the kids glued to the VCR and no books in sight,
> >and one place stank of cigarette smoke and animal urine. ("Oh, but
> >kids and animals go together!") The place we chose had kids playing
> >outside with a variety of toys, arts and crafts projects drying on a
> >large table, healthy snacks, and a large bookshelf.
>
> OK. That is one way. Now, how could you pass that method onto
> others in an objective manner?

I just did, didn't I?

> Don't *make* me retell the story about Kathy's client who lost
> her prosthetic eye!

Whee...I'll do a search instead. I'm *sure* it must be out there
somewhere.

> >> >What do emotions have to do with practical family planning?
> >>
> >> OUCH!!!! Did ya *read* what I wrote, below?

TWITCH

> >> Emotions are far
> >> more important than most of the Rationalists would like to
> >> accept.
> >

> >Glen, can you maybe narrow down just what kind of "behavior driven by
> >feelings" you're talking about? Maybe we're going along parallel
> >tracks and just don't know it yet.
>
> OK, you make a good point. I was hesitant to go into it too much
> because I remember going over it and over it in some of the
> parenting newsgroups in past years.

So point me at the right newsgroups and give me a couple of
keywords--I'll find 'em myself. No need for you to rehash the whole
thing.

> Ya know what I'll do? (if ya do, tell me, cuz I sure don't)
> This one is getting *really* long (plus, I'm kinda tired right
> now) and, I'll let this continue (it keeps me offa the streets
> during the day), but I'll start another thread with this last
> part.
>
> Deal?

Deal. See "ya" there....

Jeannie

[Glen Appleby]

On 1 Apr 2002 10:46:27 -0800, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>
>Proper education on birth control not being one of them, unfortunately.

Ah, because you think their population too large, that justifies
companies killing the babies by convincing the mothers (by, what
would be in this country, illegal methods) to convert to formula
feeding at least for a long enough time that the mothers' natural
milk to dry up?

[Tim May]

In article <3ca8ec53....@news.rcip.com>, Glen Appleby
<dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:

> On 1 Apr 2002 10:46:27 -0800, in
> ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
> >
> >Proper education on birth control not being one of them, unfortunately.
>
> Ah, because you think their population too large, that justifies
> companies killing the babies by convincing the mothers (by, what
> would be in this country, illegal methods) to convert to formula
> feeding at least for a long enough time that the mothers' natural
> milk to dry up?

Babies in the Turd World are like potato chips: they'll make more.

It really doesn't matter if the potato chips are killed off by abortion
on demand in USAID-funded abortion clinics or with Iraqi baby milk
bombs or whatever.

--Tim May

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Tim May wrote:

>It really doesn't matter if the potato chips are killed off by abortion
>on demand in USAID-funded abortion clinics or with Iraqi baby milk
>bombs or whatever.

Ok, here, this oughta really get things going:

What is the feminista machine going to do once it realizes that the very
same 'rights' to abortion for which it fights in so many '3rd world'
countries are being used to *selectively abort female babies* *because*
they are girls? Now *there's* a quandry. Or it is a paradox. Wrapped up
in an enigma...

[Tim May]

In article <91E3B7958shede...@204.152.184.108>, Anne P.
Mitchell, Esq. <shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote:

> Tim May wrote:
>
> >It really doesn't matter if the potato chips are killed off by abortion
> >on demand in USAID-funded abortion clinics or with Iraqi baby milk
> >bombs or whatever.
>
> Ok, here, this oughta really get things going:
>
> What is the feminista machine going to do once it realizes that the very
> same 'rights' to abortion for which it fights in so many '3rd world'
> countries are being used to *selectively abort female babies* *because*
> they are girls? Now *there's* a quandry. Or it is a paradox. Wrapped up
> in an enigma...

Indeed. And though I am "agnostic" on many of these issues (if wimmin
want to slaughter their babies in utero, who am I to complain? ain't my
babies, and if they were, the law would give me no say whatsoever), I
see a delicioius schaden"freud"enistic irony in the NOW abortion
machine moving to China and essentially destroying the female race in
China by the year 2030.

(Eventually things will equilibrate, but probably only when the China
of 2030 is 75% male/25% female. This will likely be a time when females
are kept cloistered just as they were when foot binding was the norm.
They'll be too valuable to be allowed to work. A fucked up society,
courtesy of "one child" laws which obviously favor having a male child
and aborting the female "fingernails" that NOW prattles about.)

--Tim May

[Glen Appleby]

On 1 Apr 2002 15:06:21 -0800, in
ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:

>What the parents are neglecting is to teach their kids (OK, "help the
>children learn") that there are consequences, sometimes negative, to
>their actions.

Ah, but that stuff is easy. Natural (as opposed to "logical" or
other artifically imposed) consequences are "taught" ...
naturally.

Yes, I know -- a lot of people who were brought up under the
harsh tutelage of the "seen but not heard" skool of parenting
will find this most disturbing, but the imposition of that sort
of parenting (since that is the strong majority of parenting
styles since the Industrial Revolution) has given us many of the
problems that we see with kids, today.

>When did the unschooling school of thought start?

Oh, gosh, it has been around for hundreds of years. Thousands,
perhaps.

Look, publik skools are a fairly recent development. It was one
of those "social experiments" where someone thought it would be a
much more effecient method to indoctrinate all of those young
minds. (And, at one time, it made some sense, because before
forced education, kids *wanted* to learn)

Prior to that, everybody who cared about the education of their
kids would homeschool. In with the homeschooling, some forms of
unschooling existed.

But the term "unschooling" was coined by John Holt, somewhere
late in the last century. I suspect that he intentionally picked
a term that sounded so anti-establishment specifically to get
people's attention.

>Long enough ago to see results?

Well, *I* sure have!

>Are there any statistics on what percentage of
>"unschooled" kids are able to be on their own; i.e., completely
>independent of any assistance in procuring food and shelter?

Ya know, that is something that I have simply not been asked for
before.

>Is the idea that, if left to their own devices, kids will get bored
>enough to open a book or two?

No. The idea is that kids are inherently insatiable learners and
it takes something like a publik skool to turn them off to
learning.

>Some schools today seem to be leaning towards "unschooling" in that
>the kids are allowed to run wild all day in the classroom. The
>teacher's role is simply to keep them from maiming each other. The
>(bigger, stronger) kids are happy; the teachers have less work to do;
>and the resulting adults will be completely unable to live in the
>world with any degree of success (for whatever definition of "success"
>you prefer). I hope this isn't what you're advocating!

Over the years since Holt started pushing this (in the face of a
huge wall of publik skool), some educators have attempted to slip
in some of the terms and concepts. Virtually all have failed
miserably because they were not the whole ball-o-wax and because
the majority of teachers felt threatened.

Recently, though, there has come into existence, some schools
that (while they deny that they are doing it) are doing much of
the unschooling in a pay-to-learn setting. The place is Sudbury.
<http://www.sudval.org/>

No, I am not advocating anything where the parents just walk away
from the kids. In fact, this method, at least in the early
years, require far more parental involvement that conventional
parenting and publik education. However, once the kids have the
basics, it gets more intense -- the parents had better buckle up
and put on their helments, because they are going to be taken on
the ride of a lifetime by their kids.

In an unschooling home, one does not tend to hear the typical
"I'm boored", "I wanna play Nentendo." as much as "Mom, can you
take us to the <library, museum, etc.> so that we can work on
this kool project?"

As soon as the kids are old enough, they tend to be off on their
own (giving the parents a much-needed and deserved rest) doing
all sorts of things that involve learning about all of the things
that they want to know.

>But don't you agree that providing the information to the student, and
>letting the student "internalize" it (or not), is more helpful than
>simply turning the student loose to either learn or play as it sees
>fit?

... well, think younger.

Did you have to "teach" your child(ren?) to walk and talk?

The same idea is true for everything else.

Now, some portion of the unschooled kids will elect to give the
publik skools a go -- at least for a while, if for no other
reason than just to see what it is all about. Teachers find,
though, that when a 10, 12, 14 year old unschooler comes into
their class, the student can be pretty much left to their own
devices and they will still tend to leave the others in their
dust.

>> >> >> I thought that you were on the side of wimen taking care of
>> >> >> themselves.
>> >> >
>> >> >Making sure that the dependents will be financially OK (without public
>> >> >assistance if at all possible) in the event of the demise of the
>> >> >breadwinner comes under that definition.
>> >>
>> >> IOW, making sure that the selected SugarDaddy has enough sugar.
>> >
>> >You're contradicting yourself.
>>
>> No. I was just rewording what you said, but with a different
>> (and a bit more ugly) spin on it. You know, just for fun.
>
>And dodging the issue, again. Why can't you, once in awhile, admit
>that someone might have a good point, instead of making an ugly joke
>instead?

OK, just to keep you from getting all wired, I'll say that you
have a point ... not that I fully agree with it, but you have a
point.

IIRC, this was about widows of the WTC yammering for governmental
assistance. You *know* that I find our government (going back to
the second World War) to be a big part of the reasons behind the
WTC, so suing them would not seem totally out of line. However,
I dislike government involvement in general, so I oppose these
folks holding out their hand to Unka Sugar.

Is it possible that a lot of these widows' hubbies had a nice
chunk of life insurance? Yup, and if they did, these wimpering
bints should go quietly away and enjoy their good fortune. If
their hubbie happened to be a janitor who didn't happen to have
taken out a multimillion dollar life insurance policy, they,
because we were behind all of this, we should help them.

Is that serious enough of an answer for ya?

>> >First you say that a stay-at-home parent is better than daycare,
>>
>> In general, I'll hold to that.
>>
>> >then you criticize the stay-at-home
>> >parent for taking steps to make sure they can *continue* to stay at
>> >home (IOW, not use daycare) in case the breadwinning parent stops
>> >winning bread.
>>
>> Whoa! Did ya make that leap without a safety net? I am
>> impressed!
>>
>> Now, like seeing a magician do their magic, I really want to know
>> how you performed that trick.
>
>Can another rational human explain this to Glen? If I have to make it
>any more clear, I'm afraid I'll regress to thumbsucking.

... <thinking> ... <pondering that mentqal image>

STOPPIT!!!!

Look, while staying at home is better for the kids, sometimes it
just isn't possible.

Should one *try* to get things to work out the best way possible?
Of *course*.

If, for whatever reason, they fail, should they be villified?
Well, some find that fun, apparently, but I don't find it useful.

>> <Parent training>
>> >It's also mostly common sense, which seems to be in short supply these
>> >days, unfortunately for the Next Generation.
>>
>> But the common sense is often obscured by those things that
>> society heaps on top.
>
>Which is why parent training would be a Good Thing. Why do you always
>sound like you're arguing when you're not?

Because "parent training" sounds like imposed learning and what I
was talking about is simply not imposed.

>> I kinda like that you seem to have a somewhat different view of
>> parenting (something of the Auld Skool?) to mine, yet we can
>> still discuss it without threats from either side of killfiles or
>> actual killings.
>
>Yes, I was raised Auld Skool, and find myself doing and saying things
>I swore I'd never do or say When I Had Kids. Sigh. At least I can
>then use the excuse that I've never done this before and I only have
>one example to follow. :)

It's not an excuse. It is an explaination or a way of
understanding it that simply makes sense.

>(I will say that I will Never Ever use
>"because I said so" as a reason.)

Get ready, because for most parents (if they heard it), it *will*
be used, eventually.

>> As I had said (to Queenie, I think, in the other group), I'm
>> *pretty* sure that I am basically correct in most of my positions
>> in this area, but have trouble knowing how to express it in a way
>> that is clear enough to be understood and accepted. (so that
>> just *everybody* will bow down to me and call me their leader)
>
>That's true; I'm not quite getting it yet....

Well, I'm still gathering together my bribe chocolate.

When I get enough to convert everybody to my way of thinking,
then I'll be in charge.

Unfortunately, I keep eating the chocolate instead of saving it.

>> should be clear to the kid that it is a bother. If the kids are
>> raised with a proper bond (see? I can still remember how this
>> started), the kids *want* to please the parent.
>
>Until That Certain Age, anyway, like 7 or 8.

What you say is true *typically*, but we see so little typical
behavior that is normal.

>> Hmmm ... too bad that she can't be offered more serious advice
>> for now.
>
>I haven't the knowledge, the time or the patience.

No, wait! I wasn't saying that it was exclusively *your* job. I
would assume that she has other neighbors, friends and family.

>I just know that
>what she's doing now (yelling and putting them in their room--yes,
>three kids, two genders, one room) isn't working at all.

That sounds like an ugly scruntch. We see a lot of that around
here. Cramming families into apartments that are really just too
small. Then lotsa yelling and, to relieve stress, occasional
parties.

>> If she's on the net, send her to some of the parenting newsgroups
>> and keep an eye out for folks like Toto, Barb and Anne (who was
>> there somewhat infrequently, unfortunately). Also tell her how
>> to use killfiles and I can give you an outdated list of folks who
>> do very well in killfiles.
>
>That's a good suggestion. I'll see how net-literate she is (or tell
>the hubby about the groups). Can you send me some group names, plus
>the killfile fodder, privately please? I'd like to lurk there too.

Yup. Consider it done.

>> >Or are too afraid of criticism *from* the community if they do what is
>> >right.
>>
>> Well, yes ... but "criticizm" can be done without judgement.
>
>It can, but only if the receiver does not *perceive* judgement.

Yes and this is a whole different problem. When someone has
experienced enough negative crtitcism in their life they tend to
feel that the negativity is true and take on the assigned
attributes. When this happens (read The Book (tm) to see more
about this), even positive things will be distorted to fit the
negative self-perceptions that they are used to.

There is a book called "Radical Honesty" (by Brad Blanton) where
the author talks about a method of honesty that he describes as
"drive-by honesty". It's like the hit-and-run sorta thing that
peeves is somewhat famous for, sometimes. It is not terribly
useful in getting people to see a different perspective, usually.

>There
>are so many people out their with gigantic chips on their shoulders
>that even the gentlest suggestion is perceived as meddling and
>judgemental.

When I see stressed parents (a lot, around here), I use a smile,
humor, and help them with some *other* problem, just so that they
will recognize that the entire world is not quite as bad as it
might appear to be at that moment.

>> It is most often (from my experiences) best received when it is
>> not perceived to be a negative judgement.
>
>I've found that "Can I help?" is good, followed by "Would you like to
>know what worked for me?" Anything else doesn't go over well at all.

Yesh, CPS tends to instill fear, with generates adrenaline which
shuts down learning.

>> One of the best ways that I have found to get somebody to do
>> something is to show them how to do it. If ya tell them, tell
>> them what *to* do and not what not to do.
>
>Kinda like one does when raising kids, eh?

Interestingly (and something that many seem to forget), adults
are really just older kids -- all of the same species and
everything.

>I'm dying to tell her that "I'm your mami, you should respeck me!!" is
>NOT the right thing to say, but then she'd ask how to earn respect and
>I'd have to go back to the "It's way too late for that" discussion.

Actually it's not.

As I said, we learn best from what we see. Kids will respect
parents the most when the parents respect the kids.

Now, it may be really difficult for this parent to get to the
place where she can respect her kids (because she wasn't
respected as a child), but she *can* get there.

>She's already said half-jokingly that she sometimes just wants to run
>away. It's amazing--she can't do enough for "the chilllllrun,"
>they're The Most Important Thing In Her Life (yes, she has a husband)

Po' guy!

>and then she says that about running away. Oy.

I'm guessing that it is half-joking -- but she'd never admit to
that.

>> As much as we may hate some of what is done to us, we *do* tend
>> to repeat it.
>
>"Because I said so." Agh! No! Nonono!!

Oh, give it time. One day, you'll be up to yer neck in
alligators and the kid will stop and ask you why you want them to
pull the drain plug on the swamp. *Then* they will hear those
words.

>> I remember one unschooling parent that I got to know some time
>> ago, who said that it was her job simply to keep the kids from
>> burning down the house. IOW, just stay out of the way unless it
>> got *really* ugly.
>
>Again, I really hope this is not the kind of "unschooling" you mean.

Oh, but it *is*. Parents, in this society, have forgotten how to
trust -- both kids and themselves.

>Sounds like lazy parent syndrome again.

Again, just the opposite.

>> I guess that, what I was saying was that, the *kid* was
>> interacting with the others. He was getting what he needed.
>
>Really? It looked to me like he was *trying* to interact with the
>others, and being ignored/rebuffed each time. It made me sad.

Made you sad, I'm guessing, because of what the announcer was
saying.

At first, notice that the kid is just looking/noticing. He is
learning (clearly these people were new to him).

Then he was trying to see if they would respond to him. He was
testing his hypothesis.

If they had shown a kid who was lethargic, not looking and not
reacting to his environment, *then* that would be something sad
because that kid would already have been rejected multiple times.

>> Now, yes, it would be kool if, the others would, eventually,
>> supply some feedback; but the main point was that the kid was
>> doing stuff that he needed to do to get his needs (at the time)
>> met.
>
>I was envisioning the next scene being, if he didn't get any
>attention, throwing his breakfast on the floor.

I was envisioning exactly that happening -- and the friggin'
producer had to stop and have someone clean it up.

Now *that* would be fair!

>> Well, only in the most indirect manner.
>>
>> Nobody would have listed to or tried to emulate Ford had it not
>> been for his success with the cars.
>
>In what way? Assembly lines? Factories? Only one color available?

Things like Ford's "Melting Pot", then, in his aulder, crazier
daze, his views on Jews.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate a lot of what he did. It's
just that people held him in such high regard that I believe that
he may have gotten a god complex and tossed critical thought out
the window.

>I'm betting it's the "factories begat commuting to work begat less
>time at home begat less time with the children begat social ruin."

Nope. That's all second order stuff.

>> There are still lotsa people getting food poisioning. You know
>> those "24 hours flus"? Food poisioning, usually.
>
>I guess we need to define "lots" now. Eh, no thanks. Anyway, there
>are better ways to prevent dehydration now than there were then, and
>those ways are more widely available and communicated.

Gosh, ya mean like a teaspoon of salt and a teaspoon of sugar in
a glass of water or milk? That is a recent invention?

>> >> (I'm not suggesting that
>> >> we do away with industrialization, as an answer to that -- just
>> >> pointing out the realities)
>
>Um. So what, exactly, *are* you suggesting?

The only thing that I am *suggesting* is that we are, as so
commonly happens, shooting at the wrong target.

>Do you have a way to get
>past all this nastiness and you're just not telling, or are these
>conversations part of your thinking process?

It will all be laid out in my "Plan To Take Over The World",
which should be published in June of 3005 ... if the advance
check ever comes through.

>And are you getting all your research down on disk or paper someplace

Well, firstly, it ain't just *my* research. There are a lotta
kool folks in on much of this. Further, it is archived on the
net ... as much as DejaGoggle allows.

>so it's not all for naught when Your Time Comes?

Oh, sure -- my time comes, but *I* don't get to? Are all wimen
as mean as you are?

>> People *will* find ways to die when they want to.
>
>Too many rats in the cage again.

Whoa! So yer saying that simply because I am living in this huge
apartment complex, I am going to die soon?

I'm gonna turn in my 30 day notice *today*!

>> One of the things that we might want to consider "wrapping our
>> brains around" (patui!)
>
>Indeed.
>
>> is that (another bit of wisdom from
>> Buckminister Fuller) "There is more than enough of everything for
>> everybody." When we can get to that point, we can back off on
>> stressing about stuff that just doesn't matter and start focusing
>> on that which does.
>
>Yeah, we need to figure out how to get the stuff that's needed to
>where it needs to be instead of where it's not needed but is.

But wouldn't that be a lot more useful than a lot of the stuff
that we are doing?

>I can hear Geoff yowling in pain from here! Kewl!

I can't hear anything from him right now. I suspect that he is
out trying to run over bicyclists.

>> You might want to get out and look at some of the options. There
>> some awfully nice places out there.
>
>Yes, there are, for varying values of "nice." How about both "usable"
>and "un-previously-owned"?

Aw, geeze. Are ya saying that the only places worth owning are
those plots right on the ocean?

>> >...how are people supposed to get to their jobs without them?
>>
>> Walk?
>
>You first.

If you give me enough time, I can do it ... especially if
"stagger" falls under the category of "walk".

>> >Going back to an agricultural society will not work,
>>
>> <sigh> Theoretically, yes it still will. You are listening to
>> the big food producers, again.
>
>Theoretically, lots of things will work. Most of them haven't been
>done, usually for practical reasons. Many, many people will have to
>prove the practicality of proving the theorem before anyone with any
>clout will notice.

But an agricultural lifestyle has already been shown to work.
It's just that the agricultural companies are fat and happy as
long as we are tied to them.

I am honestly looking forward to the day when some company
convinces us that we have to buy our air from them.

Scoff? Hell, companies have done it with water!

Can you say "Baaaaaaaa"?

>> I honestly prefer to just go along for the ride. It really
>> worked well for me all of my life. I just found stuff that I
>> liked to do, then made it a point to find ways to do it.
>
>Which probably included some of doing things you didn't like to do in
>order to be able to do the things you do like to do.

Ya know what? Not really.

One of the advantages of contracting was that it was dead easy to
switch jobs for whatever reason. The old shoppers that I worked
with, initially, would switch jobs for a quarter increase. That
showed me that I was not bound to a company and I was not forced
to do what I didn't like.

>Another ObBarf there, BTW. Or maybe it's just an irritated twitch.
>Your use of "do ya get" or "didja learn" indicates (maybe it's just
>me) that you think you are speaking to a moron, thus my defense of
>Kathy in the accident post. ("Didja *learn* anything?)

Ah! See, instead of emoticons, I'll often use that sort of
phrase or spelling.

It *is* how most of us talk (well, Julian is one of those ...
Brits, but I'm referring to the more normal folks) and I use that
often to keep things less formal -- kinda like conversation-lite.

Trust me, I seldom think that much of anybody is a moron.

>> Well, I think that we would both disagree that cooking is
>> unimportant.
>
>Why? Standing in as devil's advocate, you can get everything you need
>precooked or pre-prepared from restaurants or the grocery store.

DIE YUPPIE SCUM!!!!!

>> Worst case, is yer TV broke?
>
>Anne, do you have a TV? Do your kids watch it? How about Heather's?
>The cars I see with "nurturing parent" type bumperstickers have a
>sticker on the other side of the bumper saying "Kill Your TV." I
>really don't think people who subscribe to unparenting would have TVs,
>let alone advocate their use as learning devices.

But ... look up. See that I said "worst case"?

>> Delegate responsibility and then be satisfied with the result.
>
>Right, and most are, which is not a good thing if the daycare is
>mediocre, but potentially better than staying at home glued to the
>electronic babysitter or running feral in the streets. In many more
>homes than you care to think about, parental influence is limited to
>doing as little as possible while spending lots of time on the phone
>complaining about your lot.

Oh, I *fully* understand.

>Or spending time on computer chat groups seeking support (not
>solutions--that's too much work) for problems they themselves have
>created instead of spending time with said problem, helping it <learn
>to> solve itself.

HEY! What do you want from me? I *have* no life!!!!

>> >> And they survive -- suggesting that those other skills are
>> >> usually pretty unimportant as to Basic Life Skills.
>
>Is simple survival/existence enough for most people?

I consider that to be a reasonable baseline.

>Seems like it is
>for you, but lots of people are contaminated with a disease called,
>variously, Initiative or Nervous Energy or Invention or (dare I say
>it?) Ambition. Or are there enough people afflicted with such
>diseases to provide for those who choose to simply get along? And
>will they do so willingly?
>
>Why does this start to sound so familiar?

Because you have heard it all before ... which is why you are
telling it to me as if It Is So.

>> >I have a point to make here, but I can't see it because I'm a little
>> >glazed over by this point. Plus, work keeps interrupting me.
>>
>> Want me to give yer boss a good talking to? Sometimes they can
>> be *so* inconsiderate.
>
>No, it's OK, I remembered what I was going to say (see above). Thanks
>anyway, though.

DANG! Our daughter won't let me go down to the skool, either.

>> >> that *I* am not asking for it for me (or for anybody
>> >> else, for that matter), but am trying to suggest that, unless it
>> >> is defined properly, everybody is going by the seat of their
>> >> pants?
>> >
>> >We rejected several daycares based on site visits. Anyone can do
>> >this; all it takes is a little common sense. One place had an infant
>> >lying on the floor with active kindergarteners playing roughly around
>> >it, one place had all the kids glued to the VCR and no books in sight,
>> >and one place stank of cigarette smoke and animal urine. ("Oh, but
>> >kids and animals go together!") The place we chose had kids playing
>> >outside with a variety of toys, arts and crafts projects drying on a
>> >large table, healthy snacks, and a large bookshelf.
>>
>> OK. That is one way. Now, how could you pass that method onto
>> others in an objective manner?
>
>I just did, didn't I?

Not in an *objective* manner. Remember that this is what I had
asked about?

>> Don't *make* me retell the story about Kathy's client who lost
>> her prosthetic eye!
>
>Whee...I'll do a search instead. I'm *sure* it must be out there
>somewhere.

Just ... "keep an eye out for it".

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca8ec53....@news.rcip.com>...

> On 1 Apr 2002 10:46:27 -0800, in
> ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
> >
> >Proper education on birth control not being one of them, unfortunately.
>
> Ah, because you think their population too large, that justifies
> companies killing the babies by convincing the mothers (by, what
> would be in this country, illegal methods) to convert to formula
> feeding at least for a long enough time that the mothers' natural
> milk to dry up?

No, the idea is to avoid conception in the first place.

Jeannie

[hpjeannie]

shed...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) wrote in message news:<91E3B7958shede...@204.152.184.108>...

>
> What is the feminista machine going to do once it realizes that the very
> same 'rights' to abortion for which it fights in so many '3rd world'
> countries are being used to *selectively abort female babies* *because*
> they are girls? Now *there's* a quandry. Or it is a paradox. Wrapped up
> in an enigma...

The only possible response is "Oh, the irony."

Jeannie

[lady_dulcinea]

Recently, the sentient creature hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie)
presented us with:

I'm won't claim to have any special knowledge about the feminist
agenda, particularly in China. (I do know that women in China undergo
*forced* abortions, and that there are special clinics in India for
women to have their fetus's sex checked and aborted if it's a female.)

Still, I believe that all women have an interest in maintaining the
legality of *safe* abortions. I don't see how anyone can argue
against that, particularly when abortion is often the safest option
for a woman carrying an unviable fetus, such as the situation I was
in. This is different from arguing for abortion on demand, at any
stage of fetal development.

~Lady Dulcinea

[Glen Appleby]

On 2 Apr 2002 11:40:53 -0800, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca8ec53....@news.rcip.com>...
>> On 1 Apr 2002 10:46:27 -0800, in
>> ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>> >
>> >Proper education on birth control not being one of them, unfortunately.
>>
>> Ah, because you think their population too large, that justifies
>> companies killing the babies by convincing the mothers (by, what
>> would be in this country, illegal methods) to convert to formula
>> feeding at least for a long enough time that the mothers' natural
>> milk to dry up?
>
>No, the idea is to avoid conception in the first place.

Even in Afri-fucking-ca?

A little bigotry going on under those curley locks?

Shhhh. I won't tell anybody. It'll be our little secret.

[Jim King]

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:

> What is the feminista machine going to do once it realizes that the very
> same 'rights' to abortion for which it fights in so many '3rd world'
> countries are being used to *selectively abort female babies* *because*
> they are girls? Now *there's* a quandry. Or it is a paradox. Wrapped up
> in an enigma...

Even in the not-very-long term, that is a self-limiting policy.

Jim

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3caa1b2f....@news.rcip.com>...

> On 2 Apr 2002 11:40:53 -0800, in
> ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
> >dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3ca8ec53....@news.rcip.com>...
> >> On 1 Apr 2002 10:46:27 -0800, in
> >> ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Proper education on birth control not being one of them, unfortunately.
> >>
> >> Ah, because you think their population too large, that justifies
> >> companies killing the babies by convincing the mothers (by, what
> >> would be in this country, illegal methods) to convert to formula
> >> feeding at least for a long enough time that the mothers' natural
> >> milk to dry up?
> >
> >No, the idea is to avoid conception in the first place.
>
> Even in Afri-fucking-ca?
>
> A little bigotry going on under those curley locks?

Not mine; I call it Africa. You must be thinking of my evil twin.

My remark was in regard to *any* country that doesn't have the
resources to feed its own citizens. Fewer citizens, more resources to
go around, at least until (back to our other conversation) it's
figured out how to get the resources distributed properly (and
evenly).

Jeannie

[Glen Appleby]

On 3 Apr 2002 11:00:41 -0800, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>
>My remark was in regard to *any* country that doesn't have the
>resources to feed its own citizens.

Um, this evolved (devolved?) out of how some of the fine 'Murikun
companies have been going to Africa (and other third world
countries) and convincing new mothers not to breastfeed, but to
buy their "superior" baby formulas, instead. The sales people
were often dressed as doctors to supply that air of knowledge
(HEY, it works there, too?).

Much like drug dealers, the first few months were supplied for
free. Then the mothers were expected to begin buying the
formula.

Now, the "marketing studies" apparently failed to mention that
many of these people simply didn't make enough 'Murikun buks to
be able to accomplish those purchaces. I'm being as kind as I
possibly can, to assume that the marketing studies were done and
pointed out this obvious fact.

[lady_dulcinea]

Recently, the sentient creature dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby)
presented us with:

>>No, the idea is to avoid conception in the first place.
>
>Even in Afri-fucking-ca?
>
>A little bigotry going on under those curley locks?

Talk about a classic double-bind... support birth-control for women
and you're supporting genocide?

Gee, and to think this morning I read a story in the paper about a
woman in Oklahoma who tried to trade her baby for a chihuahua.

~Dulcinea

P.S. Do you think I could get my bathrooms remodeled for a couple of
teenagers?

[Glen Appleby]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:50:55 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,Lady
Dulcinea wrote:
>Recently, the sentient creature dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby)
>presented us with:
>>>No, the idea is to avoid conception in the first place.
>>
>>Even in Afri-fucking-ca?
>>
>>A little bigotry going on under those curley locks?
>
>Talk about a classic double-bind... support birth-control for women
>and you're supporting genocide?

Ah, but Jeanie was either misunderstanding or was changing the
rules, midstream.

>Gee, and to think this morning I read a story in the paper about a
>woman in Oklahoma who tried to trade her baby for a chihuahua.

For higher values of "Chihuahua" (OK, use yer imagination and
squint *really* hard), it might be a fair trade.

>P.S. Do you think I could get my bathrooms remodeled for a couple of
>teenagers?

Virgins?

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3cab5a44....@news.rcip.com>...

> On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:50:55 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,Lady
> Dulcinea wrote:
> >
> >Talk about a classic double-bind... support birth-control for women
> >and you're supporting genocide?
>
> Ah, but Jeanie was either misunderstanding or was changing the
> rules, midstream.

I was misunderstanding Glen's point about the formula companies
"hooking" <poor countries'> babies. A common mistake, I'm sure.

OK, so if poorer countries can't afford to buy formula from US
companies, they also can't afford birth control. True?

My point was, so why not have some of our $$$ in aid money be in the
form of birth control devices (or at least educational
treatises--heck, even the rhythm method works better than nothing, and
it's free!), so we don't have to send as much $$$ in aid money later
for more mouths they can't seem to feed?

Jeannie
these are rhetorical questions--i know there's much more to it than
this, including <poor countries'> males' cultural ideas of their
"rights" to their women, etc.

[Glen Appleby]

On 3 Apr 2002 16:19:56 -0800, in
ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:

>I was misunderstanding Glen's point about the formula companies
>"hooking"

Interesting term ... but true.

>OK, so if poorer countries can't afford to buy formula from US
>companies, they also can't afford birth control. True?

Well, most of the African countries aren't overly populated, so
it really isn't that big of a concern ... unless one just wants
to limit blacks in the world.

>My point was, so why not have some of our $$$ in aid money be in the
>form of birth control devices (or at least educational
>treatises--heck, even the rhythm method works better than nothing, and
>it's free!), so we don't have to send as much $$$ in aid money later
>for more mouths they can't seem to feed?

Boy, you are just out to stop any-old-body from making babies,
aren't you.

>these are rhetorical questions--i know there's much more to it than
>this, including <poor countries'> males' cultural ideas of their
>"rights" to their women, etc.

Oh, yeah. I forgot about your cultural biases as well.

[Tim May]

In article <31ec7e6d.02040...@posting.google.com>, hpjeannie
<hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message
> news:<3cab5a44....@news.rcip.com>...
> > On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:50:55 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,Lady
> > Dulcinea wrote:
> > >
> > >Talk about a classic double-bind... support birth-control for women
> > >and you're supporting genocide?
> >
> > Ah, but Jeanie was either misunderstanding or was changing the
> > rules, midstream.
>
> I was misunderstanding Glen's point about the formula companies
> "hooking" <poor countries'> babies. A common mistake, I'm sure.
>
> OK, so if poorer countries can't afford to buy formula from US
> companies, they also can't afford birth control. True?
>
> My point was, so why not have some of our $$$ in aid money be in the
> form of birth control devices (or at least educational
> treatises--heck, even the rhythm method works better than nothing, and
> it's free!), so we don't have to send as much $$$ in aid money later
> for more mouths they can't seem to feed?

You _seriously_ misunderstand the situation that leads to high birth
rates.

In general, poor people _want_ a lot of children. Their children are
their only form of security in their old age, when they can no longer
work. And high infant mortality and the inevitable loss of more
children doing what poor people do, means they must produce _many_
children.

If a wife dies in childbirth, as many do, the fathers can marry another
destitute young woman and continue the process.

It is only when the "demographic transition" occurs that birth control
of whatever means is sought and family sizes drop. Often precipitously,
to below replacement, once the DT has been reached.

(Which is why Israeli Jews realize that in 30 years they will no longer
be a Jewish state, even by their own Nazi-like exclusion of most
untermenschen as Israelis.)

--Tim May

[Glen Appleby]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 01:11:46 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
<tc...@got.net> wrote:

Gosh, a major bigot heard from.

Anybody surprised?

[hpjeannie]

dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3cab9f29....@news.rcip.com>...

>
> >OK, so if poorer countries can't afford to buy formula from US
> >companies, they also can't afford birth control. True?
>
> Well, most of the African countries aren't overly populated, so
> it really isn't that big of a concern ... unless one just wants
> to limit blacks in the world.

I specifically said *poorer countries* on purpose, to avoid naming ANY
country. Geez, the PC'er I get, the more often I'm accused of
bigotry.

> >My point was, so why not have some of our $$$ in aid money be in the
> >form of birth control devices (or at least educational
> >treatises--heck, even the rhythm method works better than nothing, and
> >it's free!), so we don't have to send as much $$$ in aid money later
> >for more mouths they can't seem to feed?
>
> Boy, you are just out to stop any-old-body from making babies,
> aren't you.

Anybody who can't afford to feed 'em themselves, yes. It just seems
so irresponsible, and it's certainly not the poor bairnies' faults but
they get the rough end of it anyway.

> >these are rhetorical questions--i know there's much more to it than
> >this, including <poor countries'> males' cultural ideas of their
> >"rights" to their women, etc.
>
> Oh, yeah. I forgot about your cultural biases as well.

And yet you leap upon any opportunity, no matter how farfetched, to
ask for JPG's and crow about your hard drive's porn collection. One
could make quite a few assumptions about your cultural biases, too!
I'd better try to be careful of my sodium intake for a while just to
offset all these grains of salt I've been taking.

Jeannie

[Glen Appleby]

On 8 Apr 2002 14:38:48 -0700, in

ba.mountain-folk,hpje...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote:
>dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3cab9f29....@news.rcip.com>...
>>

>> Well, most of the African countries aren't overly populated, so
>> it really isn't that big of a concern ... unless one just wants
>> to limit blacks in the world.
>
>I specifically said *poorer countries* on purpose, to avoid naming ANY
>country. Geez, the PC'er I get, the more often I'm accused of
>bigotry.

Take that as a lesson. It's free, so enev po' folk should be
able to afford it.

>> Boy, you are just out to stop any-old-body from making babies,
>> aren't you.
>
>Anybody who can't afford to feed 'em themselves, yes.

How much, exactly, does it cost to feed breastmilk?

>> Oh, yeah. I forgot about your cultural biases as well.
>
>And yet you leap upon any opportunity, no matter how farfetched, to
>ask for JPG's and crow about your hard drive's porn collection.

Actually, "crowing" is farfetched, but if you are of a mind to
leap, please feel free.

>One
>could make quite a few assumptions about your cultural biases, too!

I'll have you know that I collect porn from any culture!

>I'd better try to be careful of my sodium intake for a while just to
>offset all these grains of salt I've been taking.

And here I thought that I was somewhat good for most people's
diets.

[C. Deforrest Smith]

jul...@tele.com (Julian Macassey) wrote in message

> Along with words like chai, now abused by the
> ignorant trustafarians that hang out in Starbucks.

Speaking of which, though its completely OT, did anyone see this?

http://www.latexnet.org/~burnt/junk/starbucks.jpg
http://www.latexnet.org/~burnt/junk/article.jpg

Hadn't heard any mention of it here.
..now where's that upscale hottub place & art gallery?

cds

[hpjeannie]

jul...@tele.com (Julian Macassey) wrote in message news:<uaemse...@corp.supernews.com>...
> On 31 Mar 2002 09:40:15 -0800, Geoff Miller <geo...@u1.netgate.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > hpjeannie <hpje...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> In Arabic, all the women on this group are bints. "Bint" means
> >> "daughter of" just like "ibn" means "son of" (see Thirteenth Warrior).
>
> Don't you mean "Eaters of the Dead"? Which is the
> author's original title for the book before the PC Mafia stepped
> in.

Well, yes, but far more people are familiar with the movie than with
the book, as is often the case, more's the pity. Besides, what really
tickled me was the way the Scandinavians, after hearing his pages-long
formal Arabic name, gave up and called him Ibn since that was the
sound that appeared most often.

That said, I actually had the original knowledge from familiarity with
Arabian horses' bloodlines. There is a mare at the Eddy Ranch who was
called Bint until someone clued her owners that she should probably be
called by another part of her name. :D

Jeannie