Achievable

This is not my family dynamic.
Picture taken from mormonnewsroom

If I close my eyes and envision my family and self, I would see a well put together family sitting in a church pew ten minutes before the meeting starts.  Our bellies are full of a homemade from scratch breakfast, and we're the perfect example of conscientious, faithful church-going, earth and health conscious people.  Then I would open open my eyes and see my real family.  My real family probably still has banana and cheerios lurking about their faces.  One or more of us may be half or fully asleep, and we are generally still preparing for church whenever Sacrament Meeting begins.  This past winter, I actually kept Toddler in Pajamas to conserve time, warmth, and sleep until we got to church where I would change him into appropriate clothing.

Yeah, that's definitely more our speed.
Picture taken from crazyfamilypicture

Being a SAHM gives me a lot of room to think about how to improve myself, my life, and the life of my family.  I have so many goals.  So many things I want to be and accomplish.  So much so that anything I do in the way of working towards this person I see myself becoming seems... inadequate?  minuscule?  Well, simply not enough anyway.  I often identify my efforts as whims because even when I believe in something hardcore, fully committing seems so out of reach.

Picture taken
from cognitivedissonance

In psychology we discussed the concept of cognitive dissonance, which says that we want to keep all of our attitudes and beliefs in harmony.  Whenever they are not in harmony, we changes our opinions to create harmony.  I would like to extend this idea to our actions.  I think we cannot possibly act on behalf of all the causes we find worthwhile so we change our opinions so that we are not uncomfortable with our lack of action.  Or in the words of my psychology professor, we can only have so many priorities.

A friend and I were talking about the idea of perfection one day a few years back.  He said that in his religion, he did not believe that we were capable of being perfect ever.  He, therefore, did not understand why anyone would stress themselves out trying so hard to be just that.  I told him that I do believe that we can become perfect in the life after this one.  However, it is my belief, and the belief of my religion, that perfection is a concept we must work towards in both this life and the next to become like God.

Picture taken
from impossible

That is why my life takes a different approach.  I embrace my cognitive dissonance.  I can't outrun it or even change my opinions enough to incorporate all I believe.  I am choosing all of my causes.  It's completely overwhelming, and it quite possibly means that I will never be great at any one thing.  Most days end with me having contributed little to nothing to each cause-  sometimes (most times) it can be quite discouraging.  However, sometimes I have a day when it all comes together.  Sometimes it all makes sense.  Yesterday was one of those.  All the little changes I've made in the last year came together, and I caught a glimpse of the person I want to be.  Never quit setting goals, even when they seem impossible.  

Our Perfect Parent

I think this is what Attachment Parenting is all about.  And also, I think it is right in line with the LDS train of thought.  In our faith, we believe that in the premortal life we all lived together as brothers and sisters.  We were all on equal footing when we dwelt with God.  We have been sent to Earth at different times, but we were all the same with God.  In this life, our job as parents is to be our children's teachers and protectors.  Our job is not to be our children's tyrant.  We are supposed to consider our children on loan from God, who has trusted us to teach our friends from before how to live in this life.  How much would your interaction change if you knew these were God's children and he was watching to see how you cared for his children?  How much does your correction vary when your friends mess up and when your children mess up?  Children may need more correction over shorter periods of time, but that's what we, as parents, have signed up for.

There are three main parenting styles commonly used in two parent households.  There are others in single parent homes, but that's more specific than this post goes.   I'd like to talk about:

1. Authoritarian-  This parenting style is the "Because I said so" champion.  These households are very demanding.  Often full obedience is enforced by forceful measures.  The focus is on control for the time being rather than preparing the child to become more and more autonomous as she enters society.  (You can't have the car on Saturday because I said so.)*
2. Authoritative-  This style is also very demanding, but there is a high amount of parental support as well.  While the parent has the final say, the child's thoughts, feelings, and opinions are involved in the decision making process.  This is a flexible home.  Harsh punishments are not a part of authoritative parenting.  (You can borrow the car after you've picked up your sister from soccer practice.)*
3. Nondirective (or permissive)-  These are the parents who are very loving but set no boundaries.  It is low in expectation.  These are the children who are running a muck in the supermarket or throwing food across the restaurant.  They are the ones that make onlookers put of their hats of judgment. (You can borrow the car whenever you like)*

This sounds very cut and dry, but it's not.  These parenting styles overlap, meaning that most households are somewhere on the continuum.  Let's step back over to God's parenting style for a moment.  He has given us the ability to choose for ourselves.  He does not force us to do anything. He has, however, given us rules to help us learn to make good choices for ourselves.  He is not a permissive Father;  your actions have consequences.  If you get drunk and get behind the wheel, God may forgive you, but you will still face the consequential accident or lives lost as a result.  It sounds to me like Heaven Father is an authoritative parent, which makes sense because it produces that most well-adjusted, successful children, sociologically speaking.

So.  What's my point?  Be nice to your kid.  Raise them in  a way that helps them make good decisions (note that good decisions are different from doing everything the way you do) as an autonomous adult.  Don't treat them like something you own.  Be a teacher, not a tyrant.  And if you don't like children, don't have them.

I think I am about to lose all of my LDS readers with that last sentence, but hear me out (Er...read me out?).  I respect the whole multiply and replenish the earth commandment, but there are exceptions.  Someone who is not mentally or emotionally competent should not have children.  Many people argue that if you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them.  Many argue that if you're not married, you shouldn't have them.  I propose that wanting children should be a prerequisite to multiplying and replenishing the Earth.  Children are not trophies to line your pew on Sunday morning.  They are little human beings who have as many feelings as you do.  I think when one raises children, she should realize that she is going to learn as much as she is going to teach and, in many cases, more.  However, the patience, understanding, empathy, and responsibility one is able to learn as a parent  doesn't just happen.  I know I surely have not been graced with an easy lesson of any of these qualities.  One has to strive for them.  A parent has to actively try to be patient, understanding, empathetic, and responsible.  It is a conscious choice.

So choose it.  No one is expecting perfection (Okay, maybe the people wearing hats of judgment, but who cares about them anyway?), but make the choice to try.  Perhaps we should try just as hard to make ourselves better parents everyday as we do to make our children better sons and daughters everyday.

And just as a fun fact, nondirective parenting is considered a better option by sociologists and parenting specialists than authoritarian.  

*Taken from Nijole V Benokraitis' Marriages and Families.  

Family Friendly Workplace Benefits Everyone

One of the arguments I hear often that does not support equal pay regardless of gender is that women are more likely to stay home with sick children, take maternity leave, work fewer hours, and not be as present because of their care taking duties.  First of all, putting that blanket scenario on all women is discrimination.  Second of all, men should be stepping up to be caretakers, too. Third, this is described as a choice, though if you're coming from many Christian backgrounds or traditional United Statian* families, it may not seem like such a choice.  In fact, in the scientific study of the life course, being a caretaker (whether for children, aging parents, and other unexpected circumstances) has several stages.  I would argue that being a caretaker is a choice just as everything in life is a choice.  Another choice to make is whether or not to wear the same underwear for a week straight.  There are consequences, but hey, it's a choice, right?

Anyway, that's not what I am here to write about (Anyone else hearing Alice's Restaurant in their head?  "And we was fined $50 and had to pick up the garbage in the snow, but that's not what I came to tell you about.  Came to talk about the draft."  If you don't get the reference, go Youtube Alice's Restaurant right now by clicking here.).

I came to write about making the workplace more family friendly.  Here are four suggestions of ways our workforce could become more family friendly:

1. Paid Maternity AND Paternity Leave:  This is so important so that Dad can bond with the newborn, but also logistically at home, particularly if there is more than one child in the house.  Caring for a newborn and other children after a Cesarean Section is even harder.  It is really necessary to have help, and shouldn't that help be from Dad?  It also allows fewer unfamiliar germs into the house.  I know one thing I obsessed over when Baby was first born was Hubby washing, washing, and scrubbing his hands when he came home from work.  This paid leave should also be guilt free.  No pressure from higher ups about this being inconvenient.  
2. Childcare Provided:  Not all employees would use it because of Stay At Home Parents (SAHP), a preference of a different childcare system, or the other parent using the childcare at their work facility.  This would allow both parents to work (I know this is not an LDS principle, but many families really need both parents in the workforce), while keeping the children nearby.  If the company is too small to arrange an actual child center of their own, they could provide other options with another facility.  It could be worked out.  I really believe this would solve so many of our poverty issues.  An added bonus is job creation.  
3. A Nursing Mother's Room:  it doesn't have to be over the top luxurious, but something private and quiet where a mother can pump every four hours.  This will cut down on leave taken to care for a sick baby because breastfed babies are sick way less often than their formula fed counterparts.  Breastfeeding also significantly reduces the risk of breast cancer, so that means fewer medical bills and less time away from work.
4. Adjustable Hours:  A work day could be from 7:00 AM until 9:00 PM, and workers could do whatever eight hour shift worked best for them and their family.  That could even include taking a six hour break somewhere in the middle if she or he preferred it.  That means less time taken away from work by appointments that can only be done during the day.  It means many more parents would be able to help out with schools.  

It is my belief that if we create a more family-friendly work environment, it would be easier to get back to those good old family centered values we're always hearing about while also creating equality and opportunity in the workforce.  Can you think of more ways to make the workplace more family friendly?


*Did you know in Central and South American they call people from the USA "United Statians" because they consider themselves to be Americans as well?  I think that's awesome.  

Start August off right

...with a little Bell Hooks.

Tidbits from the week

This week has been hard for me, so there is no real put together topic for this post-  it's going to be a little of this, a little of that.  I started my week seeing another feminist secret this week on the Post Secret Blog.  It served as a reminder to me that we are all hypocrites until we're perfect (which I don't really believe to be attainable in this life), so we need to cut others and ourselves some slack.    To the author of this secret:  You are not a failure-  you need help and support.  Don't we all?

I started my book review for Cinderella Ate My Daughter, by Peggy Orenstein.  Get excited for that because it was excellent book, and I have so much to say about it that it is turning into a huge project simply organizing my thoughts about it.  I feel like I am back in college writing a paper.  Anyone with a daughter-Heck, anyone with a kid or who has been a kid- I think you should read this book.  But more on that whenever I have the time to post my book review.

Last week while shopping for some kiddo stuff, I saw this little number in the infant section.  I haven't worked out the details in my mind, but I would rather my little swim naked than swim in this.  I think it has to do with naked being chalked up to her being a baby, but this swimsuit begin sexualization in infancy.  But how?  I need help identifying what it is that makes it so, but I truly believe naked would be more appropriate.  Please leave your ideas in the comments below.  Or if you feel like being more private about it, email me.

Here's another random:  I have noticed recently that it would seem I am more drawn to music from male musicians.  It's weird.  I noticed this because in trying to update my current listening enjoyment, I was trying to balance the female/ male contributions, but overwhelmingly, my musical taste leans towards male voices, with the exception of the Broadway genre.  In Broadway, I think I like female voices because then the range is good for me to rock out along with them.  I would be really interested in finding some statistics or readings on male versus female musicians.  Is this merely my taste in music or there a reason I lean towards male musicians?

While staying at my mom's over the holiday, Baby had the chance to play with both his toys and some of my childhood toys.  I have to admit, when I saw him playing with both his toy truck and my (now his) dollhouse, it warmed my heart and made me smile.  I've seen this meme going around in which a picture showing matchbox cars tucked into doll furniture is accompanied with the caption that this is what happens when you trying to disprove gender stereotypes.  To that I respond that trying to break gender stereotypes after a child has learned them is hard.  Starting from the get-go is another thing entirely.

Lastly, I have been debating whether or not to march in the Charleston Pride Parade this Saturday.  I really want to, but I'm sure there will be repercussions associated with it.  Does anyone have any experience with this sort of thing?  I would really love ya'll's feedback this week!

Gender About Town

Out and about town, these are some things I found pertaining to gender.  Tell me your thoughts in the comments because you're about to read mine (I hope!).

 I took this picture because the piggy banks are clearly gender specific.  The female targeted piggies are princesses or shoe funds, whereas the male targeted piggies promote physical fun (sports).  I think it's interesting that no one would give (much) notice to one of the boy specific banks being in a girl's room, but many eyebrows would rise if a boy had a "shoe fund" or cupcake piggy. It makes me reminiscent of the Madonna song "What it Feels Like for a Girl."

"Girls can wear jeans 

and cut their hair short

wear shirts and boots

'cause it's okay to be a boy

But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading

'cause you think be a girl is degrading..."

These were some interesting finds!  I found these in the little girls section of Ross.  These are underwire (to hold up what exactly?) bras that having padding in them.  They are marketed to ten and under.  Really?  Hypersexualization of little girls much?  Someone call Peggy Orenstein.

This experience made me shake my head:  I was having a hard time finding the Women and Gender section at my local Barnes and Noble.  Usually, it is either in the Politics and Current Affairs section or right next to it.  I searched and searched.  I even asked an employee for help.

Then, I found it.

I had to chuckle (and then facepalm) when I realized that the women studies and feminist reading was not only not in the political section, it was a subsection of the Gay and Lesbian reading.  While I am pro both reading sections, one doesn't equate the other.  Thoughts?

Resisting the shame game

Let's talk about folkways and mores.  First off, I'm going to consult my handy dandy basic sociology text book (I like Michael Kimmel and Amy Aronson's Sociology Now, but that's probably because I love Michael Kimmel).

Folkways: relatively weak and informal norms that are the result of patterns of action, such as "manners"- infractions are noticed but seldom punished.

That's a more.... Yeah... couldn't resist

Mores: (mawr-eyz) informally enforced norms based on strong moral values, which are viewed as essential to the proper functioning of a group- but no law is enforcing them.  An example of this is a showing up to a job interview in pajamas and wet hair.  There's no law against it, but you're probably not going to get the job.

I think it is important to make these distinctions because one of my favorite anti-feminist arguments is "Show me where the law creates inequality."  While I believe that if I had a law degree I would be able to do just that, I do not, so I'll let that rest.  For now.  However, folkways and, even more importantly, mores are incredibly sexist.  

But that's not what I came here to talk to you about.  

I came to talk about how many mores are enforced in American culture with shame, and quite frankly, I've said it before and here I go again:

We need to cut that garbage out.  

boat dwellers

If it's one thing sociology has taught me it's that people go about their daily lives in very different manners.  There is usually not a better or worse, merely a difference in what makes people happy.  For example, how often do you think these boat dwelling people get asked when they want to settle down and get a home or how they won't be able to continue this life when they have children?  It's a shame mechanism.  They could just as easily turn the shame around and say, "Doesn't it bother you to be in so much debt with a mortgage, car payments, bills, and commitments that are so restraining?"  Shame goes 'round and 'round, and we need to cut that garbage out.  

Shaming other people is an act of trying to normalize or elevate another way of life (usually the shamer's preferred life).  The way I see it, no one else's happiness or choice of life style affects mine unless I allow it to, so why would I would shame anyone else?  Understanding this has been key to my letting go of what others want my life to be.

I see this a lot in child rearing, and in particular, breastfeeding.  It seems everyone has a very staunch position on breastfeeding one way or the other.  Parenting (and life) is about choices and making choices that work for you and your family.  What works for my family is breastfeeding, attachment parenting, and flexibility.  I stand by that, and I won't be shamed or corralled into schedules or early weening.  On the other hand, pro-breastfeed-ers need to understand that is not the best choice for many people.  I also believe that natural birth is the best choice for my family if it is an option.  Other women believe that planned Cesareans are the best for their family.  Word.  You do what you need to do.  That is your choice.  

One facet of feminism that I really like is the openness to knowledge.  I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to gain every piece of knowledge about their bodies and life and family so that they can make informed decisions for their life, including but not limited to birth options (birthing centers, hospitals, and homebirths) and breastfeeding (breastfeeding exclusively for as long as is beneficial, breastfeeding and formula, formula only).  Gather all the knowledge, and then be comfortable in your decision. Don't shame anyone else decision, and don't let anyone else shame yours!  

I Get Angry (Part 1)

"At some point during this semester, you'll get mad." 

~Idee Winfield, my Sociology of Gender professor

This is how Dr. Winfield began my Sociology of Gender class, describing some of the topics we would be covering.  Nah, I thought, I already got mad when I started into Women and Gender Studies.  My mad phase is past.  Wrong.  It's this continuous emotional, spiritual, ideological cycle, like a twelve step program- only anger and hurt seems to be the first step.  My cycle seems to go as such:  anger, hurt and sadness, activism, satisfaction, voyeurism, anger.  What I have to remind myself is that this cycle is in constant motion, so if I just wait, one feeling while phase into another.  This too shall pass.

Anger comes from the flawed organization of our American society-  this phase is usually spurred by something discriminatory brought to my attention.  

Next, I feel hurt and sad that anyone said discrimination doesn't affect pretends like it does not exist.  Issues are dismissed as nonexistent, and I am told time and time again that I am reading too much into something.  I am not.  You wouldn't feel that way if it happened to you. To me, that is the same as telling me I am an ornament in your life rather than someone you care about.  

My turmoil then turns into something productive:  activism.  A rush of adrenalin and happiness comes now because I think I am contributing to my cause.  I have something about which to feel great.  This leads me to feel very satisfied.

This leads to complacency.  I now get to look around and watch the world for a while because I have done my bit.  That is, until I see the injustices come shining through.  Then, I get angry. 

This works for me socially and emotionally.  The problem I face now is that I feel angry in a religious setting.  I feel religiously angry.  I have to evaluate whether this is a phase or something new I have encountered that needs to be dealt with more permanently.  

I think Jonathon Swift summed it up when he said, "We have enough religion to make us hate but not enough to make us love one another."

Because, honestly, I see individuals who love, and organizations that engender hate.

Part 2 will come tonight or tomorrow.  

Debunk the Funk / 3. All Feminists are the Same

You might be a radical if...

This is a fun post (particularly after the comments on the the last post).  There are many, many, many, many types of feminists out there with the only solidifying factor being that we all believe equality should be more salient than sex or gender (sex being one's anatomy, gender being one's actions and identity).  There are so many types with one or two differences that there is hardly even space (or attention span) to type or read them all.  However, according to sociologists, most types of feminism fit into one of three categories:  Liberal, Radical, and Global (or multicultural).

Liberal feminism focuses on reform, both social and legal- basically a fix it attitude.
Radicals, on the other hand, more or less feel that the only way to achieve equality is to start fresh sans patriarchy as a whole.  This includes all institutions that are modeled after a patriarchy including but not limited to government, religion, and schooling.
Global focuses on the interaction of age, race, class, etc and gender.  I think this category is exemplified by an experience of Michael Kimmel (awesome, awesome, awesome sociologist and friend of feminists everywhere).

Michael Kimmel, author of
The Guy's Guide to Feminism

A white woman and a black woman were discussing whether all women were, by definition, "Sisters," because they all had essentially the same experiences and because all women faced a common oppression by men. The white woman asserted that the fact that they were both women bonded them, in spite of racial differences. The black woman disagreed.
"When you wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, what do you see?" she asked.
"I see a woman," replied the white woman.
"That's precisely the problem," responded the black woman. "I see a black woman. To me, race is visible every day, because race is how I am not privileged in our culture. Race is invisible to you, because it's how you are privileged. It's why there will always be differences in our experience."


That story in and of itself shows just how diverse feminists can be simply because of other life factors.  However,  even more than these separate categories, here are some other factors that vary from feminist to feminist:

1. Pro Life or Pro Choice.  Don't be fooled- some feminists would have you believe that in order to be a TRUE feminist you must be Pro Choice, but that is simply NOT the case.
2. Some feminists believe that men and women are actually incredibly different by nature, meant for different roles in life, yet are of equal importance.
3. Some feminist are loud, noisy activists.  Some are quiet, subtle activists.  I tried subtle for a while.  Apparently not my strong suit.  
4. Some feminists are angry.  Some are hopeful.  Some are both.
5. Some feminists are conservatives, some are liberals.  
6. Some feminists are religious, some are not.
7. Some are young, some are old.
8. Some are men!
9. Some oppose gay marriage, some do not.
10. Some don't realize they are feminists.

Being a feminist has one requirement:  believing in equality regardless of gender.  Everything else is an individual quality of a particular feminist.  What makes you unique?

Thou Shalt Not Wear Pants

The first time I wore pants to an LDS church was about three months ago.  It. Was. Fabulous.

For those unfamiliar with the culture standards within an LDS Sacrament Meeting, it is generally a dress shoe, dress (or skirt), hosiery kind of event for women;  a white shirt, tie, and dress shoes kind of event for men.  It is my belief that one reason for this huge push towards skirts for women, ties for men is to emphasize even further gender differences and segregation.  I find generally that when it comes to female and male, Mormons like very clear, bold, etched in stone lines that are not to be crossed.  I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is, but this seems to be the way of it.

The first time I wore pants to my home ward, which I have attended for two and half years now, I was greeted as an investigator.  This cracks me up just a little.  What is it about pants that says, "I am an investigator"?  Is it that I am obviously oblivious to the "right" way of dressing?

if you wear denim, good for you,
but do not criticize my pants.

We are advised to wear Sunday best.  Everyone's is different.  Many times, my dress pants are way more dressy than the skirts and dresses I see (I'm not judging, merely setting up the comparison.  I think you should worship in whatever works for you).  If you wear denim to church, you forgo your right to criticize my dress pants.  Sorry.  Hubby gave me the advice to look up General Conference talks on skirts on LDS.org last night.  Here are the results:  13 talks total include the word "skirt."  Four discuss the length of skirts.  Another four use the word "skirt" in a context besides an article of clothing.  The last five describe what someone in a story is wearing.  You know what "skirt" was not used for?  To describe what you should or shouldn't wear to the church or the Temple.   Although I did find a message from the First Presidency (The Prophet and his counselors) that reported that they intentionally did not dictate what Sunday Best is.  So...quit being a hater.

I think this is a case of Crime as Normal.  What is Crime as Normal?  Gather round, children;  it's Sociology time!  The concept of Crime as Normal was created by Emile Durkheim.  Oversimplified it means that crime is crime because it is different/ offensive to the society.  The example that was used to first explain this to me was this:  If there was a Utopian society in which everyone was the same and no one ever had a cold- no one ever coughed or sneezed- and one person sneezed regularly, that behavior would start off as strange, move towards inappropriate, inch towards offensive, and finally graduate to crime.  So dear ones, my point is this:  My wearing pants is not a bad thing unless it is simply because it makes others uncomfortable.

Another reaction I get quite often is discomfort or hostility.  Many people chitter-chatter to others about the pants and their inappropriate appearance at church. About this I have several thoughts:

1. Way to discuss how I am not being a very good Latter-day Saint via GOSSIP.  That's pretty bold.  Good job.  As a side note, know that in most life scenarios, and in an LDS ward in particular, nothing you say will remain private, and inevitably, what you say will get back to the person who is the subject of your conversation.  
2. I'm curious as to what makes me unapproachable to ask about the pants.  Is it me personally?  Or the actual pants?  Very few (as in one) people have outright asked about my reasons for wearing pants.  

doesn't she look nice?

So let's get it out in the open; Why do I wear pants?

1. I have a young son who constant wiggles and pulls on my clothing- would you rather see my underwear or my pants?
2. I have a young son who needs chasing after at a moments notice- there is no time to make sure everything is in a modest place.  
3. I prefer to sit cross legged (Indian style).  Pants provide that ability.
4. Skirts are so complicated.  If the material pulls, I have to wear a slip.  Not just any old slip, but a slip that won't slide down to be below the hem of my skirt or ride up to just below my breasts.  UGH.  This usually results in several trips to the bathroom to adjust and readjust all of my clothing.
5. I don't have to shave my legs to wear pants in order to not get grossed out looks.  Deal.
6. Pants are warmer.  I was in Ohio in January, and holy moley, I don't know why anyone there would even keep a skirt in their closet in the winter time.  

My thoughts are that we pants wearers need to band together because there is strength in numbers.  Check out Miri's blog about pants to church here.  Also, if you think you'd be more comfortable in pants, do it!  It is not a sin.  If you feel the need to dress it up further than just dress pants, sport some high heels or pearls or fancy accessories.  Break out of the box of social inertia.

A Bell Hooks Approach to Feminist Parenting

My son is four months old, but since that won't last forever, I have been researching how to raise a feminist child.  Some people will tell you that raising a feminist boy is different from raising a feminist girl.  I haven't made up my mind on the subject just yet.  This is the first of many posts that I will write giving varied perspectives of feminist parenting.  I do not necessarily hold the same opinions.  I am simply sharing what I find. 

One thing that did jump out at me in my reading for the evening was a piece on feminist parenting by Bell Hooks, a personal hero of mine.  She was describing how the physical discipline of children can influence their ideas of battered women.  This may seem like a stretch-  it seemed that way to me at first.  In her book Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics, Bell Hooks writes,

I often tell the story of being at a fancy dinner party where a woman is describing the way she disciplines her young son by pinching him hard, clamping down on his little flesh for as long as it takes to control him.  And how everyone applauded her willingness to be a disciplinarian.  I shared the awareness that her behavior was abusive, that she was potentially planting the seed for this male child to grow up and be abusive to women.  Significantly, I told the audience of listeners that if we had heard a man telling us how he just clamps down on a woman's flesh, pinching her hard to control her behavior it would have been immediately acknowledge as abusive.  Yet when a child is being hurt this form of negative domination is condoned.  

 She goes on to say that children have no civil liberties and are often viewed as property of the parent.  This physical power that a parent can exert over a child translates into a person who can physically dominate another will/should do so to maintain control.  Honestly, the two were apples and oranges to me until reading this book, and perhaps they still are.  It's an interesting perspective.

Hubby and I were discussing this in the car.  He's my skeptic on all things that go against cultural inertia, so I like to get his opinion on such things.  He said he understood what Bell Hooks was saying, but it is a parent's job to teach a child how to behave whereas that is not the case of a spouse.

I would have to say my current thoughts are that discipline is a not multiple choice where all answers are mutually exclusive, but rather a continuum where generally the parent knows the child best.  I was a recipient of the occassional spanking and I will absolutely, 100% not stand for violence against women. 

But then I look again, and maybe there is something to what Bell Hooks has to offer....

How does this sit with you?

**On a side note, this is not to say that either of us agree with the idea of using physical punishment to correct behavior but rather for argument's sake.  We have yet to get to a place in our parenting where discipline plays a role at all, but we had discussed the need for a pop on the bum to get a clear understanding to a child who isn't listening and the consequence could be dangerous (such as touching a hot stove).  However, I will not assume a position on that or presume anyone else has it right or wrong until I have hit that place in my parenting. **