in which p is a kid-hating bitch!

[pocochina]

You all know what I love?  An exhortion by a non-feminist for feminists to be nicer young ladies,* and just remember how much we love babies.

It’s really telling to me that this person specifically chose a feminist blog on which to lecture people about the appropriate feelings to have towards children.  Because remember, this person has

Comments

[jadeserenity]

I dunno, it seems to me like you have completely missed the point on this one. :(

Like, this:
“ladies, I exhort you to do your duty, be nice and coo over babies”
Not even close to what is being said. At allThe information is there to be understood and I really don't feel like I could explain it better than mai'a and others already did so I'm just going to note a couple things with regards to "why would a feminist site want this not feminist posting there anyway, she's so awful

[pocochina]

I'm a little concerned that you're coming into my space, questioning my reading comprehension, and then having a straw-argument with things I deliberately didn't say. In fact, with things I took care not to say, because I do not think they are true. I know that thread got heated and dissolved into us-and-them camps really quickly, and I think you're attributing an entire set of the "them" opinions to me based on that and not based on my actual words. So in the interests of clearing the air, I'll break it down.

“ladies, I exhort you to do your duty, be nice and coo over babies”
Not even close to what is being said. At all.

Quote from the OP: much more helpful is to take a deep breath, send warm energy toward the mama and kid, give a sympathetic smile, and maybe even start talking with the kid to distract her from whatever has her upset at the moment.I didn't say it was the sum total of the post, and I understand there was other stuff to it. But it is there. And, as folks in the comments pointed out and as I reiterated above,

part 1

[jadeserenity]

Yes, I'm disagreeing with what you're taking from her post. I think you're extrapolating stuff from it that wasn't there and yes, I think you're missing the underlying reasons why she is talking about what she is talking about (and this impression is utterly reinforced by the fact that you think the discussion of kids and power is "off point;" it's not, it's absolutely central to what/why mai'a is talking about here).

But I also think there are perfectly legitimate reasons for all of these things (as outlined well by Sady), that have nothing to do with your reading comprehension, and much more to do with culturally entrenched ways of thinking about children reinforced by struggles in recognition of validity of being child free and feminist concerns about motherhood (coupled with the fact that for many women, feminists have not done shit for them, which is especially important for feminists to talk about/deal with). All things that mai'a (and the other post I linked by Arwyn) were trying to challenge and get us to think about

Re: part 1

[pocochina]

Yes, I'm disagreeing with what you're taking from her post

That is fine, but that is not what you did. You put words - words that demonstrably not what I said into my mouth in order to have the argument you wanted to have. Which is pretty questionable, because I am guessing your own journal works, so you did not have to have it here. And I do dismiss heated arguments directed at me at things I deliberately did not say as flaming, because it is.

Not because I think your reading comprehension isn't good

Except, funny story. The information is there to be understood and I really don't feel like I could explain it better than mai'a and others already did That is exactly what you did say. So, I said what's convenient for you even if I didn't say it, you said what's convenient for you even if you didn't, I get how this game works!

I think this is the first time that our invisible culturally disseminated ideas about the privileged position of adults is being challenged for youOh, please, presume what I do and do not know; that

Re: part 1

[pocochina]

I'm laughing out loud right now. The ONE TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE INTERNET* where "what about the MENZ?!?!" is totally appropriate! And nowhere to be found! Funny, that.

*approx. value; some snark applies

part 2 because lj doesn't like long comments

[jadeserenity]

Lastly, I have to comment on the fact that you reiterated this point: Not everyone who took issue with it did so because they were not nice people; some of them just wanted to gently point out that they'd rather not have their PTSD triggered and that's why they sometimes don't react in the way mai'a thinks is helpful and could she maybe please not presume everyone is TAB. And, unfortunately, those concerns were not really addressed.You are erasing numerous PWD who posted in that thread in this quote; I saw a lot of P/FWD's totally disagreeing with what you're saying here. Yes, quite a few also said that children are difficult for them to be around. Yes, that is important and needs to be acknowledged and worked with in our public spaces, the needs of children and the needs of PWD are both things that are not valued in our culture and that needs to change

Re: part 2 because lj doesn't like long comments

[pocochina]

So....PWD are a monolith with exactly the same disabilities and tolerances for external influences on those disabilities, and pointing out the concerns of "some" (which is the word I used) is exactly the same as speaking definitively for "all," which is why there should be a "united front" when discussing a particular concern. When some people with some disabilities say they are able to do something, that means all PWD can and should, or should at least suck it up and stay silent when they're being lectured because they can't. That is a logic train that never runs anyone over. In related news, I'm so glad you're here to teach me about privilege.

Re: part 2 because lj doesn't like long comments

[jadeserenity]

They were people with the EXACT SAME disabilities, i.e. ones that are triggered by loud, sudden noises, or high pitched noises, or sudden and unpredictable movements and behavior (these are examples I got from the people commenting themselves)... That's the only reason why my comment makes any sense.

Also, your "some" was in the context of dividing off people who "were not nice people" from people who "don't want to have their ptsd triggered". Apparently what you meant was "some people with ptsd..." but that's not how it read. I misunderstood your meaning, my mistake.

Re: part 2 because lj doesn't like long comments

[pocochina]

That's not helpful. For starters, people have different triggers, different severity and predictability of triggers, and really, if people could control their triggers and make them go away, they'd already be doing it. You're implying with this comment that (a) all folks have the same presentations of a particular physical condition, (b) everyone has the same life circumstances which allow them to prioritize one symptom of one condition in treatment, and (c) that people live with unpleasant symptoms which could be ameliorated because they can't be bothered to do anything about them. That set of assumptions is not okay. It's used against PWD in order to deny accommodations or just outright erase.

And, well, I highly doubt there was a one-to-one debate on every particular disability. I'm not going to set out (another) list of examples, but it's not really relevant anyway. The point is that PWD should not be expected to do even more work than we already do on our conditions in order to be less of a burden for other people. mai'