Escape From Duggarville

[livetoread]

I am very aware of benefiting from the efforts of past feminist movements, much of my life path would have been impossible two generations ago. It is not the media or fear of what men will think that has made me shrink from the term feminist. It is the people who use the term.

 

About a year ago I joined an online group of self-proclaimed feminists, thinking I had enough in common to share in the community. But what I found there was--yes, harsh, shrill, negative, anti male, anti diversity of opinion, anti women who embrace traditional nurturing roles ...it was a bunch of women who wanted to rain down fire and hailstones on everyone they disagreed with while mutually patting themselves on the back for their progressive, superior thinking.

 

I don't doubt there are other brands of feminist out there, people who are able to work towards equal recognition and opportunities for women without resorting to smug dismissal of thoughts and experiences which contrast with theirs. If I find such a group I will happily unite with them.

 

I have encountered groups like that. I've encountered feminist groups, but I've also encountered other strongly ideological groups that behave similarly.

 

I think that people who care so deeply about something that they form groups to focus on it can easily slip into such behavior. All it takes is a few strong personalities and some "true believers" and somehow you end up with little pockets of totalitarianism! It's not a reflection on feminism, it's a reflection on how humans often behave in groups given certain parameters.

[SKL]

The opposite of misandry is philandry.

 

 

So non-men-haters are philanderers??

[Slartibartfast]

Do you think this is specifically a problem of kids who are sports stars coasting through without consequences, or do you think it is a problem overall of kids growing up not experiencing real consequences for their actions? Is it a boy specific problem because of an attitude of "boys will be boys"?

I think those are all part of the problem.

[SKL]

I have encountered groups like that. I've encountered feminist groups, but I've also encountered other strongly ideological groups that behave similarly.

 

I think that people who care so deeply about something that they form groups to focus on it can easily slip into such behavior. All it takes is a few strong personalities and some "true believers" and somehow you end up with little pockets of totalitarianism! It's not a reflection on feminism, it's a reflection on how humans often behave in groups given certain parameters.

 

And this is an unsurprising result of taking on a label as a way of saying "I'm part of this group which is different from non-members of the group in an important way."

 

It seems more useful to say "this is what I think about xyz" than to say "I am a ___."  The latter invites the hearer to interpret the word based on his past experiences, which may have nothing to do with what the speaker actually believes.  So I don't see the point, other than to reassure other "feminists" that we are at least not pro-mandatory-hijab or whatever.  But I like to believe they wouldn't assume that anyway.

[Slartibartfast]

Actually I thought the guy who beat his kid had been abused as a child (and I believe it).

 

I really doubt these guys were "allowed to get away with everything" growing up. Maybe once they were fancy pants football players (and then again, maybe not).

 

I think a lot of them grew up surrounded by crime and low expectations, no better than what a lot of our prison population saw as kids.

 

 

Many probably did grow up without much structure. By the time these guys are in high school it is often apparent that they are pretty special. If they do not have a stable home environment then coaches are often their surrogate dad or the man they use as an example. Some coaches handle that better than others.

 

I think this is a good article, it is about Davin Meggett, his father is Dave Meggett who was a NFL player and is currently in prison for rape. Davin was raised by a stepfather,

 

"I have a motto," Davin says. "Good things happen to you on the field when you do good things off the field. If you're living right, good things will happen. When things didn't go your way on the field at Maryland, we used to joke and say, 'Well that's only because you weren't livin' right. What did you do last weekend?' We kept that motto."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/texans/story/2012-04-28/Meggett-follows-NFL-path-of-imprisoned-father/54611792/1

 

It seems like he has a good attitude.

 

Mark Ingram's father is also in prison he was also in the NFL.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-03-22-mark-ingram_N.htm?csp=34

[AMJ]

The first was a play on the phrase "jumped the shark." It means something that has become a joke. It comes from Happy Days when Fonzie literally jumped over a shark tank with his motorcycle, it was seen as the point that the show became too ridiculous to enjoy. So if you say something has "jumped the shark" it means it was once respected or loved but is now laughed at or ignored.

 

A "dog whistle" is when people say something that seems innocuous, but it has a double meaning that others who agree with their point of view will know and recognize.

 

The more politically correct our culture becomes, the more people get accused of using "racist dog whistles" as a way to espouse their supposedly racist views that they supposedly used to be able to discuss openly but now have to hide. It has become a way to basically sniff out supposed racists.

 

Now it seems that paranoia has set in, and more and more words and phrases that really are straight forward with no hidden meaning are being labeled as "racist dog whistles" in order to demonize political opponents, and people like Chris Matthews stupidly go along with it.

 

So, for me the concept of the media sniffing out supposed "racist dog whistles" has jumped the shark." It has gone from a valid concern to a ridiculous farce.

 

Thank you!  Very helpful and informative.

 

[gardenmom5]

sometimes it's not just the coaches . . . and it starts in high school (or even younger)

I think of the high school rape case in NW Missouri.  it's a small town in a small county.  (my mother's family is from the area.  the entire county has less than 10,000 people.)

 

the ENTIRE community, including the mayor and school officials - went after the accuser. (someone even torched their house)  that is inexcusable.  there has been similar reported in other locations - amongst high school players.   usually in more rural areas where way too much value is placed upon the performance of a high school football team. 

 

incidentally - that's is why some areas have such huge high schools (re: 4000 students is bigger than my dds undergrad university!) - so they have more kids to draw from for their football team.

Hm..

I think part of the problem is that while they are growing up they are just allowed to get away with everything, then they get to the NFL having been spoiled darlings who had never had any discipline from previous coaches.

The guys who raped that girl at OU thought the problem would be "taken care of" for them. Until the guilty verdict was read they never believed they would be punished.

 

[Free]

So non-men-haters are philanderers??

 

http://wordsmith.org/words/philogyny.html

 

Hope this helps.

[Laura Corin]

The first page on google is recipes.

 

The origins are not remotely in question. That was happening twenty years ago, not centuries, most people on the boards remember it.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-26543952

 

That's my home town.  The bombings took place when I was 11 and 15.  My home was fifteen minutes walk from there.  Not very obscure.

 

L

[ktgrok]

True, but honestly the list of words and phrases that are considered offensive is changing every day, it's become impossible for people to keep up.

And using a term that is offensive, when you don't know it is offensive, sure, there is grace there. 

 

But this isn't a matter of "keeping up". Some one is saying hey, I really find that offensive. And people are saying, well, I don't care. Since not EVERYONE that is Irish finds it offensive, it doesn't matter if some do. Which is silly. If some find it offensive, and you KNOW they find it offensive, why keep using it? Why argue? Why tell them they don't have a right to be offended? Why not just try not to use the term? Seems simple to me. 

[Joanne]

That would certainly change things. ;)

 

But I still don't see the need for a word. Do women in a developed society really need to say we prefer to be treated as full humans?

Yes. Until the overt and vestiges of patriarchy are eliminated - and we are far, far from that.

[Guest]

I have certainly had my share of admonishment for being "too sensitive" about the colloquial use of the term "sperm donor" as a pejorative, but I simply cannot think of a euphemism for the factual term that describes ds's and my relationship to a beloved member of our extended family.

 

No, it would not be helpful to randomly ask KD to give me $5 or fly across the country to babysit ds so I can take a class, but there is nothing wrong with that and your outrage based on your misunderstanding that he is my coparent or a former romantic partner is a complete waste of your time and clutter I have to scroll past.

 

Just saying....

 

 

[justasque]

Hm..

 

I think part of the problem is that while they are growing up they are just allowed to get away with everything, then they get to the NFL having been spoiled darlings who had never had any discipline from previous coaches.

 

There are also issues around the tendency towards violence associated with the use of performance-enhancing drugs, and with brain damage from multiple concussions.  In the first case, it is the business of football that may be part of the problem.  In the second case, it is the act of playing football itself that is at the root of the violence.  In both of these cases, the NFL has a role to play in addressing the violence; just firing the players when they become an image problem is not enough.

[CaffeineDiary]

Apparently quite relevant to this conversation since they seem to be haunting this thread:

 

Straw Feminists In The Closet (cartoon)

 

[AMJ]

But here we have feminists who feel they have to reject the label feminism because of negative connotations, or because society at large (and many men in particular) somehow feel threatened by the word, or because the media continuously keeps harping on how feminists are just man-haters, or because using the word feminism is not conducive to dialogue - so let us just use something that makes others more comfortable and less threatened. Can I just say that all of this is actually a sad testimony to how our culture continues to subvert women's voices?

 

Speaking to the bolded (bolding mine), especially as it pertains to the underlined (underlining mine):  I disagree.  The way to an open and honest discourse that can share viewpoints and broaden minds isn't to force one's own definitions upon the conversation, but to use terms and definitions that the participants in the discourse can feel comfortable using.  The only way to get others comfortable with a different definition or term or concept is to first use language they accept and understand to explain what it is one wants them to consider.  One must first treat their audience with enough respect and consideration to try to help them (the audience) to understand.  Without this the audience shuts down and stops listening.

 

I see progress, regarding the social conscience.  The fact that society's mindset is changing is what's behind the reluctance some feel toward labeling themselves "feminist".

 

By it's very definition the term "feminist" indicates someone who is interested in the welfare and social status of women and girls (human females) in general.  This, by definition, leaves out a consideration of men and boys (human males).  While the vast majority, in my estimation, of feminists DO also concern themselves with the lot of men and boys (and indeed, would rather that sex & gender not even be an issue at all in society) there have been (and continue to be) some highly vocal and in-your-face women brandishing the feminist label as a weapon, with hate and anger and an apparent desire to give men their turn at being subjugated.  This is VERY off-putting.

 

Starting a conversation, in which you hope to persuade people, with a term or label that they have experience to find antagonistic is counter-productive at the least, and potentially damaging to the acceptance and credibility of your argument in the long term.  Most of the men I know, and ALL of the boys I know, agree whole-heartedly that women and girls deserve as much respect, status, rights, EQUALITY as men and boys.  They just don't want to be subjugated or reverse-discriminated against in getting us there.

 

This fear that men have of reverse discrimination is real, and we will not calm those fears by insisting that the focus must remain solely on women's issues.  What I see in our society today (U.S. in general) is that the vast majority of people want to be considered equal and granted the same rights.  They (we) are tired of the labels and the divisions and the segregationistic thinking that dividing into camps and choosing sides creates and prolongs.

 

Does this mean that every example of male privilege or dominance has been eradicated?  Is there no longer any kind of violence against women?  No.  H3ll no, and society as a whole needs to work together in ferreting these out and dealing with them as the social crimes they are.  But it does mean that it is time to stop pointing fingers at and fighting against males in general, and start working together to move forward.  Society's consciousness has been raised on this issue; society is well aware of the social crimes committed in the past and what led to them and encouraged them.  Victim-hood has been declared, established and acknowledged.  It is time for the next stage of healing.

 

I do not "reject" the term "feminism".  I find it a very useful and descriptive term for the conversations.  But I choose not to limit myself in the way I present myself to others to continue the conversation by labeling myself as such.  This is not sad.  What I find sad is that there are people who feel they must still label themselves as such, people who still feel they must identify as being on one side of society.  (I'm sad there is still the necessity, not that people who see the necessity choose to do so.)

 

I have not kept up with any feminist literature or viewpoints or what-have-you since college, not specifically.    I don't know all of the latest terms, revisions of definitions, or battles of the day.  However, I have had LOTS of conversations over the years, in the work place, in the school place (with other parents and teachers), in chatting with others, in reading things online, and engaging in forum discussions.  What I see regarding all of this heartens me.  So many of the things our feminist predecessors fought for are becoming the usual, the commonplace, what society expects as the natural order of things.  WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS.  We need to recognize the progress that has been made, because if we do not we actively discourage further efforts towards those goals, further progress.  It doesn't give anyone permission to quit and call it good; it does give a pat on the back to all who contributed (including those who changed their mindset) and encourages continued effort.

 

My hope, my vision, for future "feminists", is that they become instead "humanists", "equal rights-ists" without regard to sex and gender.  My goal is that one day society will look back on all of these fights and struggle to imagine what it was like simply because the concept of treating men and women unequally is so foreign.

[AMJ]

Women in a developed society will need to say that as long as there are people who need to hear it, I suppose. But there is more to feminism than that. Do you really think humans will outgrow a need for philosophy? :)

 

Heck, no!  Philosophizing is too much fun!  Even the kids are enjoying it, now that I've added weekly philosophy work!

[AMJ]

I have encountered groups like that. I've encountered feminist groups, but I've also encountered other strongly ideological groups that behave similarly.

 

I think that people who care so deeply about something that they form groups to focus on it can easily slip into such behavior. All it takes is a few strong personalities and some "true believers" and somehow you end up with little pockets of totalitarianism! It's not a reflection on feminism, it's a reflection on how humans often behave in groups given certain parameters.

 

Yes!  Well said!

[PrairieSong]

I have encountered groups like that. I've encountered feminist groups, but I've also encountered other strongly ideological groups that behave similarly.

 

I think that people who care so deeply about something that they form groups to focus on it can easily slip into such behavior. All it takes is a few strong personalities and some "true believers" and somehow you end up with little pockets of totalitarianism! It's not a reflection on feminism, it's a reflection on how humans often behave in groups given certain parameters.

I saw this quote in AMJ's post. I read the last paragraph first, and the first two sentences made me think you were talking about Gothardites/Quiverful types! Caring deeply about something, forming groups, a few strong personalities, little pockets of totalitarianism...hmmm. Then I realized you meant certain feminists. Funny how it all sounds the same.

[VeritasMama]

And using a term that is offensive, when you don't know it is offensive, sure, there is grace there.

 

But this isn't a matter of "keeping up". Some one is saying hey, I really find that offensive. And people are saying, well, I don't care. Since not EVERYONE that is Irish finds it offensive, it doesn't matter if some do. Which is silly. If some find it offensive, and you KNOW they find it offensive, why keep using it? Why argue? Why tell them they don't have a right to be offended? Why not just try not to use the term? Seems simple to me.

I didn't say people don't have a right to be offended, I said I see both sides and I was just trying to explain the point of view of people who are burned ou on trying to be politically correct and have swung in the other direction. I see the valid frustration on both sides, that was my only point.

[VeritasMama]

I saw this quote in AMJ's post. I read the last paragraph first, and the first two sentences made me think you were talking about Gothardites/Quiverful types! Caring deeply about something, forming groups, a few strong personalities, little pockets of totalitarianism...hmmm. Then I realized you meant certain feminists. Funny how it all sounds the same.

The group dynamics within fringe groups are all pretty similiar, even when their ideology is on opposite ends.

[LucyStoner]

Feminists DO support equal rights for people regardless of gender. Feminism is not misandry. My husband is a feminist. He does not, to the very best of my knowledge, hate himself to say nothing of our children, both of whom are boys. This exceedingly tired old myth, that feminism means hating men or gynarchy replacing patriarchy, is obnoxious.

 

ETA- feminism is a "label" I wear proudly. It's a fundamental part of who I am. I think it ironic that those who chide others for being easily offended or politically correct claim that feminist is a negative, offensive word to them or that it is less correct than the very much already taken term humanist or the just plain stupidly awkward mouthful equal-rightists.

[Catwoman]

And using a term that is offensive, when you don't know it is offensive, sure, there is grace there. 

 

But this isn't a matter of "keeping up". Some one is saying hey, I really find that offensive. And people are saying, well, I don't care. Since not EVERYONE that is Irish finds it offensive, it doesn't matter if some do. Which is silly. If some find it offensive, and you KNOW they find it offensive, why keep using it? Why argue? Why tell them they don't have a right to be offended? Why not just try not to use the term? Seems simple to me.

 

I'm one of the people who posted that I don't know anyone who finds "Irish twin" to be offensive. That said, I don't use the term myself -- the only people I have heard use it were describing their own children. And they were Irish. :D

 

I tend to avoid using terms that involve religions and nationalities if I can, mainly because you just never know who will take them the wrong way.

 

In this thread, though, a poster was chided for describing her own kids as Irish twins. If she was saying it about her own children, chances are pretty good she didn't mean it in a negative way. ;)

 

I think intentions are of primary importance. I'm sure we have all used an inappropriate word or phrase every now and then, without realizing someone might have been offended by it. Fortunately, most people seem to extend grace for that sort of thing and are wise enough to see that we meant well even if we said the wrong thing.

[PrairieSong]

I'm one of the people who posted that I don't know anyone who finds "Irish twin" to be offensive. That said, I don't use the term myself -- the only people I have heard use it were describing their own children. And they were Irish. :D

 

I tend to avoid using terms that involve religions and nationalities if I can, mainly because you just never know who will take them the wrong way.

 

In this thread, though, a poster was chided for describing her own kids as Irish twins. If she was saying it about her own children, chances are pretty good she didn't mean it in a negative way. ;)

 

I think intentions are of primary importance. I'm sure we have all used an inappropriate word or phrase every now and then, without realizing someone might have been offended by it. Fortunately, most people seem to extend grace for that sort of thing and are wise enough to see that we meant well even if we said the wrong thing.

Count me as another one who had no idea "Irish twins" was offensive to anyone. I have heard it used a handful of times. My mother used it in describing someone's closely spaced children, and knowing my mother, she would not have used a slur on purpose. She tried to be conscious of things like that.

 

Honestly I cannot remember the last time I heard that phrase. Maybe it is less common these days? I bet my kids don't even know what it means.

[CaffeineDiary]

Regarding the side issue of people misunderstanding what "feminist" means, Emma Watson (i.e., Hermione Granger...) gave a speech on this very topic at the UN yesterday.  I found it very moving and powerful.

 

 

 

I'm a feminist.  I think every man should be.

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Regarding the side issue of people misunderstanding what "feminist" means, Emma Watson (i.e., Hermione Granger...) gave a speech on this very topic at the UN yesterday. I found it very moving and powerful.

<snip>

I'm a feminist. I think every man should be.

LOL, I posted this video earlier in the thread. :D I haven't caught up on this thread yet. I have to get back to it.

[CaffeineDiary]

I missed it!  Sorry, there are so many topics flying in the air here I have gotten lost.

[Joanne]

Why "woman" is not enough and the continued need for feminism.

 

 

[ktgrok]

I didn't say people don't have a right to be offended, I said I see both sides and I was just trying to explain the point of view of people who are burned ou on trying to be politically correct and have swung in the other direction. I see the valid frustration on both sides, that was my only point.

 

I don't understand being burned out on trying to be nice. Or any value in swinging the "other direction", not even sure what that would mean? Just not giving a rat's behind?

 

I can understand being embarrassed to find out a term you used offended someone. But I cannot understand continuing to use the term, once you know. 

[ktgrok]

I'm one of the people who posted that I don't know anyone who finds "Irish twin" to be offensive. That said, I don't use the term myself -- the only people I have heard use it were describing their own children. And they were Irish. :D

 

I tend to avoid using terms that involve religions and nationalities if I can, mainly because you just never know who will take them the wrong way.

 

In this thread, though, a poster was chided for describing her own kids as Irish twins. If she was saying it about her own children, chances are pretty good she didn't mean it in a negative way. ;)

 

I think intentions are of primary importance. I'm sure we have all used an inappropriate word or phrase every now and then, without realizing someone might have been offended by it. Fortunately, most people seem to extend grace for that sort of thing and are wise enough to see that we meant well even if we said the wrong thing.

 

Yes, I should clarify, I don't think it is nice to give someone a hard time if they didn't know a term was offensive. Extending grace and assuming they didn't mean it that way is the right action. My complaints were about continuing to use it after being told it has offended people. Hopefully that makes sense. 

 

I think your choice to avoid religious and ethnic/nationality terms when possible is probably a good idea, and I try to do the same. 

[Trish]

I don't understand being burned out on trying to be nice. Or any value in swinging the "other direction", not even sure what that would mean? Just not giving a rat's behind?

 

I can understand being embarrassed to find out a term you used offended someone. But I cannot understand continuing to use the term, once you know. 

 

That is a liberal idea.

 

[Joanne]

I just personally have not felt held hostage by "political correctness". I have not personally observed that "each day" a new phrase or word becomes an issue. I have not seen a radical, pervasive, or alarming concern with regard to language use.

 

In the course of my lifetime, probably no more than 20 words or phrases have been reduced or eliminated because they emerged from an origin or usage that was unkind, cruel, bigoted. It doesn't seem too much to ask to consider not using a word or phrase.

[raptor_dad]

I think to further expound upon why I do not like the QF version of popping them out yearly - there is no choice, it's an expectation they will be frequent .

 

One thing that puzzles me in these cases is the breast feeding question. If your family is very "traditional" like QF, I would expect to see breast feeding. It is more natural, Godly, better for the baby, cheaper... whatever argument works. However, breast feeding also tends to delay ovulation. If you BF for the first year it is unlikely, not impossible, but unlikely to have spacing much below every 2 years. Certainly spacing under every 18 mos would be very unusual. How does that work?

 

[happi duck]

Why "woman" is not enough and the continued need for feminism.

Thanks for linking to this.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The first was a play on the phrase "jumped the shark." It means something that has become a joke. It comes from Happy Days when Fonzie literally jumped over a shark tank with his motorcycle, it was seen as the point that the show became too ridiculous to enjoy. So if you say something has "jumped the shark" it means it was once respected or loved but is now laughed at or ignored.

 

SMH.

 

He didn't jump over the shark with his motorcycle.  He was water skiing.  In boots and a leather jacket.

:laugh:

[BrookValley.]

SMH.

 

He didn't jump over the shark with his motorcycle.  He was water skiing.  In boots and a leather jacket.

:laugh:

 

And he was miraculously completely dry when he sauntered across the beach afterward.

[Catwoman]

Yes, I should clarify, I don't think it is nice to give someone a hard time if they didn't know a term was offensive. Extending grace and assuming they didn't mean it that way is the right action. My complaints were about continuing to use it after being told it has offended people. Hopefully that makes sense. 

 

I think your choice to avoid religious and ethnic/nationality terms when possible is probably a good idea, and I try to do the same.

 

:iagree:

 

No need to clarify -- I was already agreeing with you! :D

[LucyStoner]

One thing that puzzles me in these cases is the breast feeding question. If your family is very "traditional" like QF, I would expect to see breast feeding. It is more natural, Godly, better for the baby, cheaper... whatever argument works. However, breast feeding also tends to delay ovulation. If you BF for the first year it is unlikely, not impossible, but unlikely to have spacing much below every 2 years. Certainly spacing under every 18 mos would be very unusual. How does that work?

 

Some women don't get much, if any contraceptive benefit from breastfeeding after the first few months. It varies. Once a child is eating solids or often are partially on formula, some women will see a return of menses (I didn't until my sons had totally stopped). Most women have stopped breastfeeding long before the first year. IIRC, Michelle Duggar has stated that she weaned most all of her kids at 6 months. That makes a closer spacing much more likely. I am sure QF families cross a wide array of feeding choices though. I'd imagine there are some where extended BF is the norm and the kids are more widely spaced. I'd also imagine there are some where they start them on bottles of formula fairly early on.

[SKL]

I watched Emma Watson's speech.  IMO it reflected a lack of understanding of the history of the term "feminism."

 

So I just thought I should note (for those who don't remember or aren't old enough to) that there is nothing new about women not wanting to identify themselves as "feminist."  People are talking like this is a new thing.  There has never been a time when women could call themselves "feminist" without having it bring out all sorts of negative (to many) connotations.  If anything, "feminism" is a safer term now than it ever used to be.

 

I still will not use it.

 

I reject the view that we haven't come far enough that Western women are viewed as full humans.

 

There are still incidents of discrimination, but I don't need to go around calling myself names to show I don't agree with that.  I mean, why don't we all call ourselves "pro-child" to show we don't agree with child abuse or neglect?  Do we need to label ourselves as "pro-melanin" to avoid being assumed racist?

 

This "concern" with the fact that women don't want to adopt the "feminist" badge stinks of conformity and borderline bullying.

[raptor_dad]

Some women don't get much, if any contraceptive benefit from breastfeeding after the first few months. It varies. Once a child is eating solids or often are partially on formula, some women will see a return of menses (I didn't until my sons had totally stopped). Most women have stopped breastfeeding long before the first year. IIRC, Michelle Duggar has stated that she weaned most all of her kids at 6 months. That makes a closer spacing much more likely. I am sure QF families cross a wide array of feeding choices though. I'd imagine there are some where extended BF is the norm and the kids are more widely spaced. I'd also imagine there are some where they start them on bottles of formula fairly early on.

 

Thanks! That is helpful... I know DW wasn't fertile for ~12mos after birth. We have several friends who were surprised to conceive after 9-13mos after birth with no contarception. The discussion of a child every year has always seemed unrealistic to me for anyone who breastfeeds for a "reasonable" time. 

[Guest]

dd1 was put on formula for 24 hours when she was hospitalized for jaundice in 1988 and my first period after her was within a week of when the postpartum bleeding stopped.

 

It doesn't take much to mess up the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding. I had another baby 14 months later, who I was able to nurse normally, and did not use BC. My next child was born 2 years and 10 months later.

[Leav97]

I watched Emma Watson's speech.  IMO it reflected a lack of understanding of the history of the term "feminism."

 

So I just thought I should note (for those who don't remember or aren't old enough to) that there is nothing new about women not wanting to identify themselves as "feminist."  People are talking like this is a new thing.  There has never been a time when women could call themselves "feminist" without having it bring out all sorts of negative (to many) connotations.  If anything, "feminism" is a safer term now than it ever used to be.

 

I still will not use it.

 

I reject the view that we haven't come far enough that Western women are viewed as full humans.

 

There are still incidents of discrimination, but I don't need to go around calling myself names to show I don't agree with that.  I mean, why don't we all call ourselves "pro-child" to show we don't agree with child abuse or neglect?  Do we need to label ourselves as "pro-melanin" to avoid being assumed racist?

 

This "concern" with the fact that women don't want to adopt the "feminist" badge stinks of conformity and borderline bullying.

 

The "concern" is the # of women who view equality as achieved or unimportant.

 

Are women viewed as full humans. In most places, yes.  Women issue are legislated considerably more then men's.  Women are not seen as capable of making there own medical choices.  Women are payed less then men.  Even when you take account for different career choices.  Women are encourage to view appearance as important way way more then men.  Women's actions are judged differently then men's.  To paraphrase Emma Watson, when she directed plays she was being bossy.  When her brother directed plays they were leaders.

[albeto.]

The "concern" is the # of women who view equality as achieved or unimportant.

 

Are women viewed as full humans. In most places, yes.  Women issue are legislated considerably more then men's.  Women are not seen as capable of making there own medical choices.  Women are payed less then men.  Even when you take account for different career choices.  Women are encourage to view appearance as important way way more then men.  Women's actions are judged differently then men's.  To paraphrase Emma Watson, when she directed plays she was being bossy.  When her brother directed plays they were leaders.

 

I think I might tweak this a tiny bit only to suggest "women are not seen as authorized to make their own medical choices." I think there's a distinction there, because I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding to equate misogyny with hating or devaluing women. Lots of men are misogynist in action, but they don't hate or devalue women at all. It boggles the mind to watch women speak out against their own best interests and I don't think they hate or devalue themselves. The "benevolent tyrant" image is one who does not hate or devalue the other, they just don't share authority/power/control. 

 

[/side bar]

[Lawana]

Thanks! That is helpful... I know DW wasn't fertile for ~12mos after birth. We have several friends who were surprised to conceive after 9-13mos after birth with no contarception. The discussion of a child every year has always seemed unrealistic to me for anyone who breastfeeds for a "reasonable" time.

It is not surprising in my family. My grandmother had her first three children in three consecutive Aprils while exclusively breastfeeding. My mother, while not exclusively bf'ing, had her fourth child when the oldest was 3 1/2, even with contraceptive attempts with each. Some women are naturally very fertile, and has been stated, return to a fertile state while exclusively bf'ing.

[gardenmom5]

One thing that puzzles me in these cases is the breast feeding question. If your family is very "traditional" like QF, I would expect to see breast feeding. It is more natural, Godly, better for the baby, cheaper... whatever argument works. However, breast feeding also tends to delay ovulation. If you BF for the first year it is unlikely, not impossible, but unlikely to have spacing much below every 2 years. Certainly spacing under every 18 mos would be very unusual. How does that work?

 

 

I think they must do early weaning - or use bottles.   I exclusively nursed until introducing solids at six months.  (my closest spacing is 2y9m)

 

though my mother/grandmother (with us granchildren) was very "pro" bottles.  becasue modern science is better than what God gave us.  yeah. right./////

 

I've done alot of genalogy in the 19th century.  it was VERY unusual for even large families to pop them out yearly.

 

exclusive BF works for many - but you can get pregnant without having had a cycle.  'cause ovulation comes first. 

I also know women who concieved while BF (not exclusive) - and continued while pg.

[PrairieSong]

That is a liberal idea.

 

It is? Isn't it just respect for someone else that would cause us to want to not say something offensive? I don't see that as liberal vs. conservative. Do you use the N word in referring to African American people? I'm betting you don't. I can think of plenty of other similar words for various groups/ethnicities. Does it not matter to you at all if you offend others by what you say? I'm guessing it does matter to you. I don't know you but it matters to most people and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[SKL]

I would point out that one of the reasons families historically were not as big as "one per year" would indicate is that infant and child mortality was a lot higher than it is now.  I would assume that the rate of miscarriages was also higher.

 

I am sure part of it was family planning, though.

[gardenmom5]

 It boggles the mind to watch women speak out against their own best interests and I don't think they hate or devalue themselves.

 

that's very presumtuous of you to decide you know better than one woman what is best FOR HER.

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

that's very presumtuous of you to decide you know better than one woman what is best FOR HER.

When we are talking about feminism, it is mostly referring to fighting for gender equality under the law. Are you suggesting that there are women who are better served by being less equal under the law? Certainly PLENTY of women fought against the suffragists who wanted women to have the vote. You don't think they were ultimately fighting against their own best interests?

[albeto.]

that's very presumtuous of you to decide you know better than one woman what is best FOR HER.

 

Not necessarily. There are certain variables that correlate to better health and welfare. 

[Leav97]

I think I might tweak this a tiny bit only to suggest "women are not seen as authorized to make their own medical choices." I think there's a distinction there, because I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding to equate misogyny with hating or devaluing women. Lots of men are misogynist in action, but they don't hate or devalue women at all. It boggles the mind to watch women speak out against their own best interests and I don't think they hate or devalue themselves. The "benevolent tyrant" image is one who does not hate or devalue the other, they just don't share authority/power/control. 

 

[/side bar]

 

IMO that just raises the question of why aren't they authorized to make their own medical choices.