Uncategorized

Archived Posts from this Category

October 13, 2009

Stop “stop acting like a child!”

Posted by msruthmoss under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , |
[3] Comments 

NB: this post is for people who are on board with wanting to erase insulting language from their own personal lexicons. If you’re going to argue the toss about “politically correct language ZOMG you won’t be able to say anything soon” – this isn’t the place. This might be a good place to start.

I think some people are just starting to get their head around the fact the language they use sometimes has meanings they didn’t intend.

For example, saying someone is “crazy” to mean that you’re unhappy with the way they’re acting, you think they’re making no sense or they’re being unpleasant is ableist. You’re saying the person is acting like they’re mentally ill, and that to be mentally ill is synonymous with unpleasant and nasty. Which is insulting to people who are mentally ill, usually a specific type of mental illness. (And “crazy” can be a pejorative term all by itself; one thing for mentally ill people to reclaim the term “crazy” – another for people who aren’t mentally ill to use it.)

There’s something I’ve noticed recently, mainly in internet arguments but also “in real life”.

You’re acting like a child!

My two year old makes more sense than you.

You’re behaving like a spoilt brat.

Stop being so childish!

And so on. Thing is – sorry – but this isn’t okay. What they’re trying to say of course is “you’re acting ridiculously/ badly behaved / irrationally / etc.” but by invoking the child, they’re implying children are bad, ridiculous, badly behaved, irrational etc. Spoilt brat and other phrases like that are particularly bad as they’re not only using “child” to mean “bad” but the phrase itself is out and out child hate. (General rule? If it sounds like something an abuser might say to a child? It’s child hate.)

Comparing oppressions is often a bad idea, but if you’re a member of the oppressed group you’re using as a comparison, I think that’s a different kettle of fish. So here goes:

You’re acting like a woman!

My wife makes more sense than you.

You’re behaving like a nasty bitch.

Stop being such a girl!

Do you get what I’m saying now? So can we knock it off? Thanks.

 

August 16, 2009

We are all alloparents part two: why should you care?

Posted by msruthmoss under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
[5] Comments 

In part one of We Are All Alloparents, I talked about how difficult it can be to get through the day even as a TAB mother of one without the help of alloparents.

I’m very much of the opinion that alloparenting is one of many ways to stick two fingers up at the kyriarchy, and probably a feminist act too.

But why? Why should you care? Especially if you’re not the guardian of a child yourself?

Firstly, I wanted to look at the old “but you chose to have children” card that is often pulled out when guardians of children usually the mother dare to ask not to be discriminated against and possibly even helped because of their childed status.

Two things. First of all, you don’t know whether or not someone actually did choose to have children. Until contraception and abortions are freely available to all who want them, you can’t know for sure if someone really did choose to have a child. (And conversely, you don’t know for sure if someone really has chosen not to have children; they may have, but they also may not have been able to.)

Secondly, so what? So what if I chose to have a child? I also chose to rent my house from a private landlord rather than buy it or rent from a housing association. I still think I’m entitled to protection and rights in law even though it’s a choice. I chose to work part time at the local council; I could have gone onto income support or taken a full time job elsewhere. But I still should be entitled to, for example, union representation, even though I made that choice. Why does something being a “choice” immediately mean “and therefore you have no right to complain ever”?

But it’s not just that. It’s more than that. See, yes, in my case, I did have a choice. But here’s the thing. My child? Another human being? He didn’t have any say in the matter. He came into the world without a choice about it.

Even if you don’t think I’m entitled to any special rights because I made the choice to have a child, surely my child is, as another human being? I mean, children are people too, aren’t they?

And if you give a shit about standing up to kyriarchy at all, then isn’t standing up for someone in an oppressed group (and yes, children are an oppressed group – one day I will write that “adult privilege” checklist) one way of saying no, I’m not going to accept this “rule of masters” thing?

And if you give a shit about feminism at all, isn’t helping out another sister a worthwhile thing to do (and I say sister because it is usually the mother of the child who is in need of the help – usually, although not always)?

But it’s about more than that. It’s about the fact that alloparenting – assisting the parent and child who are struggling – is a great way to model to the next generation that this is what you do. That if people struggle, you don’t make it worse for them; you make it better. That you don’t discriminate against people because they’re acting in a non-kyriarchy approved way. That you don’t kick shit out of an already oppressed group. Aren’t these the lessons we want to impart? What better way then, than modeling those lessons?

And let’s not forget kyriarchy is cruel. And one day those children will become the “masters”. Do we want to be “ruled” by them? Or do we want to break that cycle?

 

August 14, 2009

Katie Price – The Nation’s Punching-Bag

Posted by Anji under Uncategorized
[10] Comments 

Say what you like about Katie Price (the former glamour model more commonly known as Jordan), the woman has been under heavy fire for the past couple of weeks. I can’t say I’ve ever been much of a fan of hers, but I can’t escape the headlines about her recently, and every time I read them I feel another pang of sympathy for her. The nation’s press have misreported and twisted her actions to make her seem like a demon, the Mother Inferior, the ‘worst kind of woman’.

The first articles I picked up on were from the ever-neutral paragons of intelligent journalism, the Daily Mail and the Sun. They were titled, respectively, “‘Daddy, why is Mummy in bed with another man?’ Jordan’s four-year-old son asks Peter Andre” and “Jordan is disgusting“. The first parts of both articles mention that Katie Price allowed her four-year-old son to see her in bed with her new partner, Alex Reid:

The Mail: Peter Andre has branded estranged wife Katie Price ‘disgusting’ for allegedly letting their four-year-old son see her in bed with her new lover. The 36-year-old singer claimed the glamour model dealt him ‘the lowest blow ever’ when Junior asked why his Mummy was in bed with another man.

The Sun: Shocked Peter Andre last night accused Jordan of dealing him “the lowest blow ever” when she let their four-year-old son see her in bed with her new lover.
Singer Pete, 36, branded his ex “disgusting” as he told how Junior asked him why Mummy was in bed with another man.

Now on the surface this sounds pretty sordid – the wording of the headlines and the opening paragraphs lead the reader to believe that Katie Price has been openly having sex in front of her four-year-old child. Dig a little deeper, however, and the reality is about as far from sordid as it gets.

The reality is that Price’s son saw a man who was not his father, occupying the same bed as his mother. Now it could just be me, but I’m failing to see what’s so immoral or disgusting about that. Hell, perhaps my family ought to call child services on me; my son has been coming into the room I share with my partner (who of course is not his father) every morning for the past nine months!

Andre has been quoted as saying “I heard Junior had been asking why Mummy was in bed with another man. I didn’t believe it. I just thought it was kids saying things. But Junior has said it to me since. It’s something a four-year-old should not be saying. I can’t even bring myself to say the other name, but Junior just said, ‘Why is he in bed with Mummy? What is he doing in Mummy’s bed?’ That’s the most disgraceful thing I have ever heard. Ever.“

Pete, dearie, if this is the most disgraceful thing you’ve ever heard – that your ex-wife has a new partner and has the temerity to sleep in the same bed with him, or even that your son saw him in that bed – then you have lived a very, very sheltered life. That’s not disgraceful, that’s life.

Disgraceful is millions of babies, children and adults dying every year as a result of malnutrition and poor water supplies. Disgraceful is two women per week dying at the hands of their domestic partner. Disgraceful is war, death and destruction. Katie Price being in a new relationship is not disgraceful, and I envy you that you live in the world where that is “the most disgraceful thing [you] have ever heard.”

My friend and I were discussing Price’s vilification yesterday. When she went on holiday recently, the papers were full of condemnation that she had gone on holiday with her new partner and that Peter Andre was “left in charge of Jordan’s kiddies as she jetted off for a wild week with Reid“. The papers were full of stuff about how she was ‘cavorting topless’ (in a swimming pool) and generally having fun, and what a horrible person this made her. This wound me up beyond belief.

Firstly, what’s this about being “left in charge of [her] kiddies”? They’re not just her kids, they’re their kids. And surely if they’re his children too, he has just as much responsibility for looking after them as she does? I know that when my partner and I were long distance and I was visiting him, my son’s father was happy to have our son for a week or two, because he genuinely values spending as much time as he can with our son.

Secondly, isn’t she entitled to go on holiday, and sunbathe topless, and do what many other adults do when they go on holiday? I must have missed the memo that said that now I’m a parent, I’m not allowed to have fun any more.

If Price was the man and Andre was the woman, would there be such outrage? Let’s look at this for a moment, because it’s important and telling. “Peter Andre goes on holiday and gets drunk while Katie Price looks after the children.” Not exactly front-page news, even if they were still together. Because of course, it’s the default that women stay home looking after the children and men go out and have fun.

And then the icing on the cake this morning, in a text message from the same friend: “Headline of the Sun: “Jordan filmed romping in front of Pete’s kids“. It shows her giving her new man a quick kiss. Hardly romping, but hang on… when she went on holiday she dumped HER kids on him… now they’re HIS kids… I wish they’d make up their minds!” Wish they’d make up their minds indeed. It seems Price and Andre’s children are Price’s when it suits the papers to rag on Price, and Andre’s when it suits the papers to rag on Price.

Katie Price may not be a saint, but women do not exist to be saints, just human beings like everybody else. Katie Price, like all mothers, has every right to enter into a new relationship when her old one ends, she has every right to go on holiday and expect that her children’s father will take responsibility for their children while she’s away, she has every right to sunbathe topless at the pool (if, of course, the pool itself allows this) and she has every right to kiss her partner in front of her children. If a man did any of these things, he wouldn’t be condemned, because that’s just normal, he’s a man as well as a father. A mother, on the other hand, has an obligation to just be a mother, to sacrifice every other aspect of her being and to never be independent or to have fun.

Like I said, I’ve never been a fan of Price. I’ve never read her books and I don’t read gossip magazines, so for the most part she flies fairly low on my radar. But having had these articles brought to my attention, and actually reading them and looking between the lines for the truth in these toilet-paper red-tops, I’ve come to the conclusion that Katie Price is the same as many mothers in her position (but lucky enough not to have it plastered all over the news). She can either be an angelic Virgin Mary, or she is a whore. She can’t simply be allowed to be human as a man in her position would be. I feel for her, and am ashamed that so many of my fellow Brits see fit to judge her based purely on what they read in the tabloids, regardless of how we all know the tabloids will twist words and outright lie to get a good story, rather than actually thinking about things for a change.

This post is cross-posted from my blog Shut Up, Sit Down – apologies if you get it twice in your reader.

 

July 29, 2009

Forum!

Posted by Anji under Uncategorized
Leave a Comment 

Mothers For Women’s Lib now has its very own forum!

It was created to fill a very specific need – a parenting forum free from the tiring misogyny present on so many parenting forums that we’d used. It’s open to both mums and dads who identify as feminists, or even for feminists who aren’t parents but who feel they could either add to or gain from the forum anyway. :)

If you have any ideas for the forum, ideas for subforums you think should be here, or anything else to do with the forum that you really need to get off your chest, please PM me and we can get talking.

I hope everyone enjoys using the forum, please tell your friends, and have fun.

 

June 14, 2009

Carnival Delayed

Posted by Anji under Uncategorized
Leave a Comment 

The Carnival of Feminist Parenting was supposed to be today. But my family and I just got back from Norway a couple of days ago, then we spent the weekend with my parents, and I had to wave my son off for his week in Holland with his dad today, so I am too drained. It’ll be up tomorrow, I promise.

 

June 1, 2009

No Mother is “Too Stupid”

Posted by Anji under Uncategorized
[5] Comments 

Just read this article – Social services in Nottingham claim mother is ‘too stupid’ to bring up child – in the Telegraph.

I don’t really have words for this, and I’m sure that I’m not alone in being angry, outraged and terrified on Miss Pullen’s behalf. I do not believe there is any such thing as being ‘too stupid’ to raise a child. That she is clearly intelligent enough and loves her daughter enough to fight this every step of the way, speaks volumes about her abilities.

This woman could be me. She could be you. This is not something that just happens to other people. The feminist community is huge and our actions have made a difference in the past on so many occasions. There’s a big community here these days, so I’d like to ask – is there anything we could do to help her? Answers in comments or via email, please.

 

May 20, 2009

The Carnival of Feminist Parenting

Posted by Anji under Uncategorized
Leave a Comment 

I said there would be a carnival, and by golly there will be one. :)

The first Carnival of Feminist Parenting will be posted Sunday 14th June 2009. The deadline for submissions is Sunday 7th June 2009.

Feel free to submit your own posts or those of someone else. If you think it’s relevant to feminist motherhood/parenting, then it probably is. Almost everything will be considered; we at MFWL are a diverse bunch, and our readership doubly so!

Submissions can be made using the carnival submission form.

Thanks all! :)

 

May 17, 2009

Feminist Guilt

Posted by pennif under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

I knew there would be people who criticised the way I brought up Austin, because they’d say that I was (in my father-in-law’s words) “making a lass out of him.” I was ready for that, and have been able to live with it. But the awful realisation came to me just the other day, when Austin was telling me about his ‘best’ friends – I, too, have a good amount of these gendered ideas left in me.

Austin has five close friends, of which four are girls. And when he went through his list of friends, I found myself wondering whether I’d done something ‘wrong’. Whether I’d forced my views on him so much that he could only identify with girls (ignoring, of course, the boy amongst his friends, as one does when guilt tripping happens!). I was pleased that he could make friends with girls, of course, but realised that I felt guilty about the amount of female friends he had compared to male. I want my son to have the friends he wants – if he made friends with lots of traditionally-masculine boys I’d put up with it, though I’d wonder what I’d done to him to make him feel so comfortable with them. I never thought I’d worry about female friends.

It just SHOWS how central the gender divide is in life, though. The first thing you know about a child is hir  sex: zie is labelled “boy” or “girl” from the moment of birth, and that knowledge affects what the child wears, what zie is shown, how zie is treated. No matter how much we disagree with the gender divide, it’s still THERE – and it still affects us to some extent.

I’ve never put Austin in dresses. Although I say I let him choose his clothes (hence his pink tops and purple trousers), I’ve never given him the option of wearing a dress as ‘normal’ wear (he tries things on, of course, at home). I’ve done this so that he won’t be teased, but as long as everyone (including me) continues to make this distinction between what is suitable for boys and what is suitable for girls, the teasing is always going to be an issue.

There are two problems here. Firstly, the fact that no matter how much we may agree or disagree with them, gendered ideas are fairly central to our world. Secondly, given problem #1, it is difficult to know how far to push the boundaries with our children. I want my son to be a happy, well-balanced boy. The fact is, if I ignored all gender ideas and (for example) sent him to pre-school in a dress, the teachers would have some sort of negative/weirded out reaction to him, and so would some of the children he goes to school with. I might think that the idea that “boys are like this” and “girls are like this” is an unhelpful way of looking at the world, but do I have the right to make an example of my son? As an adult, I can choose to accept/reject the gender ideas and understand what I am doing. But Austin is three. He’s too young to understand all the background to it, so is it fair for me to ask my son to do things which will almost certainly make his young life harder, and get him teased, perhaps bullied, by his peers?

 

May 4, 2009

Department of WIN! Star Child Shoes

Posted by msruthmoss under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , |
[6] Comments 

I’d like to nominate Star Child shoes for the very first department of WIN award.

What’s the department of WIN?

Well, some time ago I wrote a blog post, Breeched from Birth, looking at how we use children’s clothing right from birth to push them into gender stereotypes.

I mused on why children’s clothes needed to be segregated into “girl” and “boy” clothes seeing as the basic shape of children is the same until puberty begins. Why couldn’t clothes for children just be organised by category, e.g. babygro, trouser, skirt, jumper etc.?

That would be a start, but I would also like to see less frillyfication of girls’ clothing (it gets to the point where the garment is impractical as the frills don’t wash well) and less, erm, blokification of boys’ clothing (“mummy’s little soldier” etc.) too.

I got chatting to Anji about it and she had the idea of coming up with a department of WIN, a department of FAIL (o hai Tesco!) and I wouldn’t mind a department of MEH too but maybe that’s pushing it!

So how to define WIN? Personally, I think in order to WIN a clothing shop, whether online or in real life, needs to meet at least two of the following criteria (and to get a MEH would meet just one, to get a FAIL would meet none):

1)      Clothes are separated by garment type or other way that isn’t based on gender

2)      No clothes that are so flimsy as to be impractical; no clothes that glorify violence (especially not if these are showcased as “girl” and “boy” respectively)

3)      Pictures of children in the clothes that include boys that aren’t wearing blue, grey, dark green or brown, and girls that aren’t wearing pink, purple or lilac.

But that’s just a rough idea. Any additions or subtractions are welcome. Of course, it also helps if the clothes wash well, are reasonably priced, do not use sweatshop labour to produce them, are environmentally responsible and so on.

Anyway without further ado onto Star Child shoes.

I was looking for some shoes for Bertie (my two year old) for a wedding. He was going in a maroon pair of flairs with maroon cravat and waistcoat and a white shirt (all from charity shops). I wanted something smart but quirky. I scoured the shops and found only clunky, ugly looking shoes, or incredibly flimsy, impractical looking shoes (can you guess which was intended for boys and which for girls?)

Via the natural parenting magazine Juno, I happened upon a company called Star Child shoes. Not only are the shoes organised by style (and not boy/girl) but they come in a wonderfully diverse range of colours and patterns, whilst all being the same basic shape.

They are also incredibly practical in that they are more like slippers, but with a solid suede base so they are not particularly slippery. They also allow a lot of room for feet to stretch; despite what the likes of Clarks might tell you to get you to part with your £20+, less is often more when it comes to shoes (with bare feet being best of all).

The price? Well, they’re not amazingly cheap, weighing in at around £17 a pair, but unlike shoes that come in sizes (e.g. 4, 5, 6) they come in months, so your child’s feet grow into them and they last about six months.

They are handmade in the UK, and use non-toxic dyes (you know how kids love to suck their feet).

And, you can fling them in the washing machine on a low heat (although, I did notice the dye did run a little on Bertie’s shoes, so take care to wash with other similar colours) and even when they dry (not in a tumble drier) they are still soft and pliable.

The one thing that does concern me is that the shoes have leather uppers, which is not an option for the majority of vegetarians and vegans.

Back to the beginning though, the thing I’m most impressed by is the sheer range of styles and the fact none of them are listed as “perfect for your little princess / soldier”. They feature styles that children love (bright, colourful, pictures of vehicles, animals and confectionary) and they don’t shoehorn (pun intended) children into stereotypical gender roles.

Star Child shoes = WIN!

(Well, you wanted to see the shoes on, didn’t you?)

 

March 10, 2009

And here is the reason!

Posted by msruthmoss under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , |
[7] Comments 

In my last post I talked about why my husband often fails to do basic housework tasks and why I end up doing much more than my biology dictates.

To give me a break from thinking about it, I decided to pop to my local supermarket and buy a toy or two for my little boy.

I am pretty skint at the moment, so the “pocket money toys” really appealed.

Imagine my surprise when for just three quid I found the perfect toy for him. He loves doing what the big people in his life do, just like all young children, and I saw a dustpan and brush set which firstly he would love and secondly it would stop him using the adult broom like a lance heading dangerously in the direction of the television.

Unfortunately, it was bright pink and in a box marked “the little princess playset”.

Now obviously, I bought it for him.

But I thought, how many Mums are actually going to buy these for their sons, no matter how much they might enjoy cleaning up like the grown ups? How many Mums are rather going to walk on by until they get to the cars and trucks and other “boy” toys?

I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with cars and trucks. My little boy is also obsessed with pickup trucks and will not let me on the computer for very long before he comes up to me and informs me in no uncertain he wants to look at pictures of pickup trucks.

But when they’re the only type of toys we buy for boys, they miss out on essential role play (which children love) and also they’re told their role is to sit around and play while the women work. That housework is only fun if you’re a girl. And it looks like often this pattern continues into adulthood.

 

Next Page »