Thoughts On Comfort Levels

[himom]

Edited because I want to have a good talk, not a fight!

I have a few thoughts.

About these political threads. Some of this stuff has, I admit, made me uncomfortable. Yes, I know...I can skip it or read other threads. I do. But it is a little disconcerting to ask the advice or share happy news with someone who, if they knew my political views, would likely declare me to be a bigot/moron/whatever.

You can come here and post that you dropped your baby on his head or didn't change his diapers for 4 hours or let him accidentally swallow a bug and all the moms here will rally around you and encourage you and tell you you're a great mommy and everything will be ok. That's the greatest part of these boards, IMO!

And now we come to the worst part of the boards. Say we're discussing raspberry jello. I know it's a stupid example, but bear with me. Please see "raspberry jello" as a generic view...I've seen this nastiness on all sides of the arguments so no one view or party is singled out. So if raspberry jello is the argument, the following is what I find upsetting:

I've seen too many implications or outright declarations that a person who believes in raspberry jello or who doesn't believe in raspberry jello is a bad person. Sometimes people have even said a person who believes in raspberry jello is a bad parent and that they feel sorry for their child.

Anyway, these put-downs are something I don't think we need here. They need to go away.

I think these discussions can be profitable if we can just stay away from labeling and name calling. I don't mean just individuals, either. When you say something like "people that believe that" "that kind of thinking" "people who like/don't like that" are "racist/immoral/stupid/naive/bigoted/fill in the blank" etc, than you are labeling individuals as well as groups. For example: "I think it's disgusting that people like raspberry jello and even worse, they'll be passing on their like for it to their poor kids." Don't forget that with the variety of people on this board, when you make a declaration like that you are most likely including at least one person who is reading here. Can't we just say we like or dislike a policy without throwing negative labels on it?

I think I might have been guilty of doing this in the past, but I'll work on not doing it in the future.

That's all I have to say about that. Thank goodness, because I'm starting to crave raspberry jello.

Jodi
Mommy to Joshua, born February 2003

[Rachels]

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. If there's an issue afoot that I consider on par with racism, and we're having a discussion about our views about it, then saying so is part of that discussion. I don't think that since racism is a "negative label" it should never be used. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it not exist. It's every bit as offensive to me, for example, to hear someone make a racist comment as it is to you apparently to be labeled a racist in response to such a comment. (I'm just giving an example-- I haven't heard you make a racist comment and I'm certainly not calling you a racist. :) )

And I think it's impossible to express ANY opinion without running into the possibility that at least one person reading here will disagree. Disagreements happen. If we all felt the same things about every single issue, we'd have little to talk about, be it baby products or foreign policy.

But I still think any of us can come here with the stories about our children accidentally swallowing bugs, and that's great. We can't expect everyone to rally in support, but enough people will. I know that the folks who really don't like what I have to say don't tend to throw me a line when I'm having a drowning-parent moment. But I don't expect them to, either. I've never not gotten the support I needed here, because there are enough people who are okay with the way I say things to be friendly (or FRIENDS) with me. And judging from the Bush / Kerry threads, the same is true no matter what your political stance or manner of talking about it.


-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[kristine_elen]

I think we need to be respectful of other people's rights to their opinions. But if we're discussing politics and positions, I think there's going to be some negativity. To say you dislike a policy is, by definition, putting a negative label on it. To say you dislike a policy without a negative connotation is impossible. I wouldn't say, "I hate Bush and I think anyone who votes for him is an idiot" because that would just be rude. But I think I should be able to say that "I am not going to vote for Bush because I think he is an idiot." If someone says they are not voting for my candidate, I don't take it personally.

[jd11365]

>You can come here and post that you dropped your baby on his
>head or didn't change his diapers for 4 hours or let him
>accidentally swallow a bug and all the moms here will rally
>around you and encourage you and tell you you're a great mommy
>and everything will be ok. That's the greatest part of these
>boards, IMO!


ROTFL...

I'm really not into political debate on the boards, I've just been reading the threads. Personally, I'm not offended and if you vote for Bush, Kerry...or Nader, I will still support the mommies on these boards. :-)

Jamie
Mommy to Kayla
5-1-03

[papal]

> I wouldn't say, "I hate Bush and I
>think anyone who votes for him is an idiot" because that would
>just be rude. But I think I should be able to say that "I am
>not going to vote for Bush because I think he is an idiot."

I think if I understood correctly, this is precisely what Jodi is talking about.


Personally, i lurk or skip through threads of a political nature...i would hate to think that my views of a certain mama (or papa) would be 'tainted' (for lack of a better word) because they do not agree with my political/religious/moral stances... it is probably the 'cowardly' way out, but i save those types of discussions for non-virtual friends and family.... it seems easier to get your point across when a person is right in front of you without sounding confrontational/mean/deragatory. Anyway, these are just my thoughts.

Ok, back to avatars. :)

[peanut4us]

Deleted by author who changed her mind about participating.

[Calmegja2]

Shocking as it may seem ;-), I am in utter agreement with Rachel on this. I can separate things quite clearly in my head, and I would hope that the rest of us on here can, as well.

I don't take things personally, on threads about politics. I can separate out that someone is speaking to an argument's validity, and not the person's validity.

We're all grownups here, and I think we should assume that we will all be able to act like them. I've seen just how amazing we all are just about every day on here. We can do that in every arena on here. I know it.

I would like to know, since it's been bandied about by several people here, where the personal attacks are. If someone could highlight for me, where people called other posters names, and other people ignorant (not the argument, the actual person), or called people names, I would really like to see them. Thanks.

[toomanystrollers]

Ditto what Jamie wrote :)

[peanut4us]

Deleted by author who changed her mind about participating.

[Kieransmom]

>That's all I have to say about that. Thank goodness, because
>I'm starting to crave raspberry jello.

Mmmmm...Raspberry Jello!!!


Michelle
Mommy to Kieran, born 5/9/03

[kristine_elen]

"In my house he's always referred to as "John F-ing Kerry" Thanks to his own quotable flub up... which I think is hysterical." -- OK, I missed this. Can someone fill me in? What did he say? (I get my news from NPR and the newspapers but it looks like I missed something.)

[Calmegja2]

>They are not explicit statements, they are things that can be
>(and want to be) inferred.

****

Then, respectfully, I have to say that's a choice you're making, to take offense in what you presume people are saying. I didn't think you could have actual examples, because I've not seen what you were referring to.You're giving more ballast to an argument and taking it personally. That's your choice, but not the speaker's intention.

I can assure you, I am quite clear in separating a person from their argument.

[muszy]

Thank you Jessica. I've been lurking here for a while and my wife is a regular poster, so I've hesitated to make my first posts on these political threads.

I agree that, if the arguments are made against your favored candidate or a favored view (for or against the war), then it is your CHOICE to take such an statement as a personal affront. Readers who CHOOSE to take these postings personally have no right to hold the poster responsible for your inferred feelings. If you are that thin-skinned, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading such heated discussions.

<SOAPBOX>
The miracle of our democratic society is that we are allowed to disagree with our leaders and to state those feelings publicly. (At least prior to the Patriot Act). If we try to silence dissenters rather than work constuctively to change that person's view, then we will be weaker as a nation for it.
</SOAPBOX>

True personal attacks have no place on a board like this, but I have yet to see any direct personal attacks against anyone on this board due to their political views.

These boards are probably the most civil discussions I've found anywhere on the 'net. I hope that they will remain so.

[peanut4us]

Deleted by author who changed her mind about participating.

[Calmegja2]

Okay. And I can assure you that sometimes a Kerry supporter might see something posted that could be seen as an indictment of all liberals, but it's a choice on your part, an absolute choice, of whether or not you want to get upset over it or not.

I choose not to get upset about it, and to maintain the distance, because I do not presume the speaker's intentions are to hurt me. I assume that they aren't, and I assume that it stops with the argument being presented.

[peanut4us]

Deleted by author who changed her mind about participating.

[kristine_elen]

Funny. I just saw the quote. Probably shouldn't have said that. Oh, well! I still think he's more articulate than Bush!

[Calmegja2]

Hmm... well, Bush called a reporter a "major league a-hole" over an open mike, so perhaps he should get that nickname, as well? ;-) And he also called WSJ columnist Al Hunt a "******* son-of-a-*****".

And other blue language gaffes, from Bush:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/082701a.html

So, does that mean we should call Bush, "George A-hole Bush"? *wink, wink, nudge,nudge* ;-)

[MartiesMom2B]

Raspberry Jello? Jeesh, everyone knows that Lime Jello is the best. ;)


Sonia
Proud Mommy to Martie 4/6/03

[Rachels]

Right. Joey, nobody said you were ignorant and stupid. Nobody said that about anyone, in fact. Try not to infer that your entire personhood and worth are being discredited if somebody disagrees strongly with your political beliefs.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Rachels]

>Shocking as it may seem ;-), I am in utter agreement with
>Rachel on this.


:) Jessica, I think we agree about a fair amount of stuff, actually. :)

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Calmegja2]

I was kidding, Rachel, I think you and I agree on quite a bit (most everything, actually), so I was trying to juice it up and be humorous so it didn't seem like just a ditto! ;-) I knew it would come as no surprise that you and I would be in concert on the topic. ;-)

[peanut4us]

Deleted by author who changed her mind about participating.

[peanut4us]

Deleted by author who changed her mind about participating.

[Calmegja2]

You can make choices about whether or not to be insulted.

If you feel that you are not a well informed person who does question what they read/see/hear about Bush, and you know you've got the complete story, then it's clearly not applying to you. D. was showing a point that was illustrated by these threads, and in her experience. She is freely willing to criticize Kerry, and yet when you read these threads, you aren't seeing Bush supporters who criticize Bush, even if there are very real things to be critical of. Even the Kerry supporters are getting tweaked for complaining about Bush. It's an observation, not an indictment.

When Flagger capitalizes liberals like it's a bad word, and then says a sweeping untrue generalization, I know that's not true, and I let it go.

[Rachels]

Joey. Come on. When you say you "doubt it," you insult ME. I don't have to agree with your politics to imagine where they come from or to respect that you hold them as dear to you as I hold mine.

Of course I can imagine why this comment is potentially insulting-- if you consider yourself someone who is blindly following. Certainly there are SOME in this country who are blindly following, just as there would be some who would be blindly following if there were a Democrat in the White House. But there are also many who aren't. On both the Bush and Kerry threads, there have been people who've said they'd vote for one or the other of them but that they disagree with certain parts of their platforms. Which parts you feel most passionate about are likely to dictate something of how you'll vote. And if someone IS following blindly, well, then the poster has called a spade a spade, no?

At any rate, unless the poster says, "Joey, you're following blindly and it's stupid," the post doesn't comprise a personal attack. If you feel offended, say so. You have absolutely as much right to do that as someone has to make the post in the first place.

I'm sorry you're feeling hurt. I really am. It makes me sad to think about it. But I think that you're probably taking more things personally than are intended as being about you. If you think that anyone is saying anything directly to you that is inappropriate, tell me. If you don't trust my judgement on it given my political stance, tell Beth, or tell Alan and Denise. But honestly, Joey, I haven't seen it happen, and I think a lot of folks would be coming to your defense if it had. And so would I.

As we've all said before, if this is crossing boundaries for you and making you feel miserable or ganged-up-on in the absence of actual direct attacks, these are the kinds of threads you should skip. Hang in there. I get that this is really hard and painful, and truly, I don't think you need to subject yourself to it if you don't want to. It is, at the end of the day, just a discussion.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[ddmarsh]

Since you quoted me I will respond.

When I said blindly following you will note that I was not directly referring to anyone. I was referring to what I see collectively in what I see, hear and read. I am a voracious reader and have read many, many quotes from people in a variety of sources who seem to have no interest in questioning many of the things that those of us on the other side take issue with. I also personally interact with a number of conservatives who IN MY EXPERIENCE possess the same attitude. And in case you are wondering yes I certainly have criticized those of my own party and quite vociferously.

I am sorry if I offended you but I can honestly say that I am quite shocked that that would somehow be interpreted as a personally directed statement.

[egoldber]

I have been silent on all the political threads up until now. And I will continue the silence politically, because frankly, I don't come to these boards to talk about politics. I know what my political beliefs are, and I don't need this board to validate or discuss them. If I were not a moderator, I would likely choose to skip them entirely. But as a moderator, I have to read them. I have not personally seen anything yet in those threads that as a moderator I felt was a personal attack or needed to be edited. (Apparently some posts were edited before I read them.) People may not like what others have to say, but they should feel free to skip those threads.

But I think that on this board we need to be able to feel free to disagree with other members. Not to abuse or other members for their beliefs but to disagree. Plenty of times we have seen "I give my baby raspberry jello, what do you do?" And people will say oh raspberry jello is great, others will say, IMO lime is better, and yet others will say, you know jello is not recommended by the AAP and they recommend chocolate pudding instead. For me that is an important part of these boards. If you choose to be offended when someone says raspberry jello is not recommmended, then that is your choice.

And honestly, if you post to an internet board, you need to be prepared for someone to not agree with what you have to say. What makes these boards so powerful, I think, is the collective power of our experiences. If you talk with your friends IRL, you may get a handful of opinions. Here there are hundreds (regular posters) and thousands (occasional and sometime posters) at your fingertips. I find that powerful and empowering, even when (perhaps especially when) those opinions are not the same as my own.

I also have no trouble separating those things from my feelings for people in general. My best friend IRL is not of the same politcial "persuasion" as I am. We certainly do not parent in identical ways. But we are there for each other when needed. There are many people on this board that I am truly privileged to call my friends. Friends as dear to me as those I have IRL. In some cases, there is now no difference between "IRL" and on-line friends. :) There are women here who have been the most amazing rocks of support for me when I have truly needed that support. And not all of those women agree with me and my personal beliefs. I don't expect them to, nor want them to.

Just my 2 cents,

[Saartje]

I have to say that I've seen some of the same things as the original poster -- and not just on the overtly political threads. I have seen threads turn political that didn't start that way, and have seen certain readers overtly attack one another for thinking a certain way.

Under the circumstances, no, I'm not going to say who it was or what was said. For one thing, the people involved are very vocal on these boards, and none of them are defenseless.

It all boils down to the title of the thread: Comfort levels. I don't even read the overtly political threads, because that is not what I come to these boards for. I don't feel they should be disallowed -- I'm glad to see people allowed to discuss such topics in a community they're comfortable in -- but I know that I would be upset by reading the debates (especially in this overly-emotional stage of overdue pregnancy ;) ). That's a matter of knowing not to exceed the boundaries I set for my own comfort.

In the threads that turn political after they've started, though, or in the cases of individual posters with a gripe against one another who are quick to speak up against one another in on-topic threads... Well, *that* does nothing to improve my comfort level with the community in general. If I speak up in support of one side or the other in such a topic, am I going to be opening myself up to the same treatment?

It's always hard to be a new member of a community, even a virtual one like this. I would hope that part of everyone's goal here is to help newbies feel welcome; but it's hard to become entirely comfortable in a setting like this when you see posters not only being particularly supportive of certain individuals, but particularly vociferous against others.

All right, this is threatening to become longer than the original post, so I'm going to try to sum up: try to think, before you slap a label on someone who holds a particular view, whether you really know that that label's warranted. Saying "If you'd been through [example], you wouldn't think that way" doesn't work when you don't know that that person hasn't been through that particular experience, and it amounts to name-calling even when no name has actually been called; it's possible for different people to come through the same experiences holding different views of them. (Think Victor Frankl versus Elie Wiesel.)

And remember that the person you're addressing is not the only one reading your message. It's much easier to get others involved in a conversation if everyone feels relaxed and comfortable, rather than feeling they need to protect themselves against a possible attack.

[jojo2324]

Isaac, any time now!! Your mama is waiting.

And Beth, well said.

[himom]

Speaking for myself, I've never seen individuals called names. I think the clearest examples of rather vitriolic indirect attacks were deleted in the last fracas.

I don't think anyone here intends to attack anyone when they write an opinion. (It gets a little hot when a genuine argument starts, but that's a different story.) Some of the posts I remember seem to be written by persons who just don't ever seem to consider it a possibility that anyone would ever disagree, and they therefore believe the post isn't the least bit hurtful.

I would never directly quote anyone who did this because I truly don't think they intended anything hurtful and I don't want to drag nice people into a lynching.

I agree that it's ridiculous to have to carefully regulate everything you say for fear of insulting every possible person out there. But I also think a general respect for each other is important.

Jodi
Mommy to Joshua, born February 2003

[pritchettzoo]

I think topics like politics and religion are always going to be debate-starters because people's beliefs on these subjects are so incredibly strong and the belief is so important--it ties into how you view the world and who you are as a person. Some people can debate them, some people can't. If your politics and religion are so intertwined with your sense of self that someone disagreeing with your choices cannot be separated from someone attacking your personhood, then you probably shouldn't debate them.

Debating something like favorite jello flavor isn't going to get people hot and bothered because people don't think, "I am Mary, a strawberry jello fan." People do think, "I am Bob, a devout Taoist."

I know it isn't true for all Republicans, but my poor DH is no longer invited to lunch by the other attorneys at his firm because he "came out" as a Democrat (yes, he was actually told that was the reason--to avoid conflict; and no, he wasn't debating politics in the office--he merely corrected one attorney politely in one of those mass-mailing forwards about John Kerry's houses). There were two clerks vying for one open attorney position--one, a Democrat, was a better clerk. The other, a Republican (actually has a life-sized bust of Ronald Reagan in her office), got the job because she "fit in better." These people (his affice-mates) are insane on so many levels--not because of their political beliefs, but the extent to which they are taken.

Anna
Mama to Gracie (9/16/03)

[jasabo]

.....and yet when you read these threads, you aren't seeing Bush supporters who criticize Bush, even if there are very real things to be critical of. Even the Kerry supporters are getting tweaked for complaining about Bush. It's an observation, not an indictment.


Jessica,
I, for one, criticized some of Bush's policies in my post, even though I support him overall. I recall reading criticisms from other Bush supporters too. I am the first one to admit that W's made mistakes, as has Kerry and every other politician out there. And in the same way that Kerry supporters are being "tweaked" for complaining about Bush, Bush supporters are being "tweaked" for complaining about Kerry. It goes on in both parties and it never ceases to amaze me how people aren't willing to acknowledge that.

Just wanted to point out that you must not have observed all the posts before you made your comment.

Lisa - mom to 11 month old twin boys

[Calmegja2]

Lisa...

I should have said "as many Bush supporters criticizing Bush". I apologize.

I do not see, however, as many Bush supporters being tweaked for complaining about Kerry on their support thread. There was a question asked in reference to someone who said Democratic candidates don't help the military, asking for a reference or a source on that, but past that, until it was derailed by telling Dems to leave the country, I don't see it....

Some of the complaints were edited out on the Kerry thread, which I do appreciate, but they were there at one point.

Trust me, I read all the posts with great interest. ;-)

[firstbaby]

I myself have been rather uncomfortable with the boards the last few days as well. I agree that we can skip the threads that make us uncomfortable but sometimes we view a thread not realizing it may go in a direction we did not anticipate. One example (and I'm not trying to single this person out but its the most recent that comes to mind) is Rachels post about viewing the Nick Berg video. I felt sympathy for her that she had to view something unexpected but she went on to discuss her personal view on the war. Had I known that thread / post would take that direction, I would have skipped it altogether.

Another example (but slightly different) would be the "Why do you support GB / JK" posts. The intent of the posts are very clear - it is a forum for folks who truly support those candidates to express themselves. Instead the thread gets "crashed" by either non-supporters or moved in another direction / scope outside of the intent or people begin to banter back and forth about the content of each others posts.

Thankfully, this is America with freedom of speech and obviously this board is included in that. But I needed to chime in my POV and growing feelings of hestitancy in "visiting" the lounge.

[christic]

First of all, just to be politically controversial, Watergate Salad is the best jello/pudding concoction of all time ;). yum

Personally I find the intersection of political beliefs and parenting styles to be FASCINATING, mainly because one is impossible to predict from the other. Take breastfeeding for example--I was a hardcore lurker on the breastfeeding.com boards after going back to work and remember being struck by the political vibes coming from some of the postings. You had very liberal crunchy/environmental types on one side and very conservative Christian types on the other--but both in complete agreement about how they chose to raise their babies. A political force to be reckoned with if they could get past who they wanted to vote for for president, I think.

Chris

(a McCain Republican-Dean Democrat-two time Nader voting-ebf/cio mommy who hates labels of all kinds :))

[Rachels]

I can appreciate your take on the Nick Berg thread. I was so upset and traumatized over what I had just witnessed that I didn't take a long time thinking about how to title the post. But I don't think it's a far stretch from talking about the murder of Nick Berg at the hands of militant extremists to talking about feelings about the war. That would have been a wise thread to skip if you didn't want to run into any war discussion.

I hope you won't feel the need to skip the Lounge entirely just due to these three threads! There are many others here as well. But if your main needs are discussions about baby products, there's obviously lots of room for that in the other forums. :) And these threads won't last forever.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Sarah1]

My thoughts exactly, Sonia! :)

[sntm]

and then you have the crunchy/environmental conservative Christians like me, just to keep everyone off kilter!

Inwardly smiling over the looks DH gets with his Ford Explorer with the Episcopalian crest, Access Fund sticker, Bush-Cheney bumper sticker, and LLL Human Milk for Human Babies magnet. :+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
shannon
not-even-pregnant-yet-overachiever
trying-to-conceive :)
PREGNANT! EDD 6/9/03
mama to Jack 6/6/03

[MartiesMom2B]

I too like Watergate Salad, even though I think pistacio pudding is gross.

Sonia
Proud Mommy to Martie 4/6/03

[himom]

Shannon,

It's possible we were separated at birth. If you're ever in Hawaii we MUST do lunch.

:)

Jodi
Mommy to Joshua, born February 2003