I read Elliequent's blog (she is a skilled and rather lyrical writer, so I enjoy reading the blog even though she has some serious psychological issues). She is "childfree" (aka someone with no children who's self-righteous about it), which in itself doesn't bother me at all. It's great that people know what they want (no kids) and are willing to pursue it despite societal judgment and expectations. Good for them!
But her post about how she is entitled to give other people (strangers) parenting advice is truly horrible. It sort of encapsulates all the worst stereotypes about non-parents: their ignorance of children and everything pertaining to them, their self-righteous "I could do it better" attitude (thus the joke "I was a great parent before I had kids"), their idea that they are so helpful and considerate to parents (hahahahaha)...Just to complete the stereotype, she often refers to her dog as her child.
Actually, though, the post is a good learning opportunity. I tend to be judgmental and opinionated myself, with strongly held beliefs on all sorts of topics, including those about which I know almost nothing. This is a reminder of how obnoxious such an approach is, and how important it is for me to continue to strive for empathy, tolerance and understanding when making statements (or even thinking about issues). It doesn't come easily or naturally to me, but it is essential.
Speaking of which: I need to cultivate such an attitude about Ellie herself (after all, she was expressing concern about children: a nice impulse in essence even if her execution was bad). I was so irritated by the post that after I read it I wrote her a long, critical email (she doesn't allow comments). This was probably a really bad idea (certainly not falling under the category of "What Would a Loving Empathetic Person Do?") and I am now rather regretting it. So maybe the post was also a good chance for me to think about improving my impulse control and emotional reactivity. Food for thought: I guess I owe Ellie thanks after all!
Oh neat! An ad hominem attack to round out your portfolio of failed arguments re: my original post.
ReplyDeleteGood work, "Grace", or Amanda, or whatever your real name is. You sure showed me!
Ellie, you kick ass. I truly hope that one or two people's backlash against that post do not make you believe that all moms have this skewed view of those who choose to be childfree. Oh and PS, I have a daughter. I also have a lab/pitbull mix that we call "our firstborn" and our baby. He gets birthday parties. I get cards from him on Mother's Day. People need to not get their panties in a bunch over what you (we) choose to call our pets.
DeleteEllie, I think you are confused about what an ad hominem argument is (because I didn't say that your argument is invalid because of your personal characteristics, but for other, more intellectually based reasons). I listed quite a few in the two emails I sent you, which included the role of genetics in developing personality, the age segregation typical in American society, and the importance of personal freedom to most Americans.
DeleteI did assume in the first email that you don't have any close personal knowledge of small children, because of the impression your blog gives: but you corrected me on this, and I apologized. In any case, it doesn't affect the broader argument that many Americans without children, especially if they are relatively young, have very little practical experience with or knowledge of children. Occasional babysitting just does not convey the total experience. Obviously this doesn't mean everyone (as I said), but it really is not unusual either.
And Kelly, I don't have a negative view of people without children (as I was trying to convey in the post). I don't care if other people have children or not (and if they deliberately choose not to, if anything I rather admire them, because the societal expectation is to reproduce, and it takes guts to defy expectations). But it only makes sense that their knowledge of children might be less (though of course not necessarily), just like me being an atheist means I probably know less about religion than a priest or minister (who spends all day on the subject).
DeleteGrace, the only specific I gave in my post regarding parenting concerns the privacy, safety, and respect of children.
DeleteAnd the second email you sent contained a paragraph (which I published on my blog) that makes it clear how fundamentally different we view the issue of children's privacy on the internet.
As best I can tell, we have diametrically opposed perspectives.
Comparing an ability to conclude "Oh wow, that mommy blogger is inviting predators by posting naked pics of her kid online, and that's not good for anyone" to an inability to accurately explain, say, the Virgin Ascension because one hasn't been to Catholic school is like comparing apples to oranges.
Your post was about your right to have significant input into the parenting decisions of strangers. I disagree that you have such a right, for all sorts of reasons (which I am happy to list again, if you want). This is why I wrote you, and why I wrote this post.
DeleteYou gave the presentation of children on the Internet as one example of these parenting decisions (though not the only one: in your post you said that pretty much every single parenting decision was one that you ought to have input into). I don't agree with your opinions on Internet privacy/safety for children either, mostly because it's such a trivial issue compared to all the other problems children and parents face, but that is a side issue. If you had just written a post about how you don't like seeing naked babies on the Internet, I wouldn't have bothered to write you.
"significant input" is your phrase, and I feel it to be a mischaracterization of my argument.
DeleteNo, we clearly do not agree on issues of child privacy on the internet. I don't think it to be a trivial concern, at all, nor one that bears diminishing because of "other problems" children and parents face.
P.S. "Childfree" is the recognized, agreed-upon term, since "childless" is reserved for someone who WANTS kids, but cannot have them. Look it up. But please, feel free to call me "childless" if it makes you feel better. I'll just call you "free time free".
ReplyDeleteI dislike the term childfree because usually that construction is used for negative things (like disease-free, or fat-free on diet foods), and I think it's insulting to imply children are a negative thing generally speaking.
DeleteI understand that people don't like "childless" because it seems negative too, but that construction is used for plenty of neutral words, like weightless and breathless. It just means you don't have something, which given that the societal standard is to have children (over 80% of women do) seems reasonable. However, feelings aren't always logical so I am happy to avoid that term and will in future.
Oh, that's neat. You casually accuse me of conforming to the "childfree stereotype", making fun of the term, provoking me to defend it (as well as my "stereotypical" way of referring to my dog) at length, effectively moving the goalpost off the field, and then you just conveniently shrug it off.
DeleteThis is why I found your EXTREMELY LONG two emails so frustrating. You casually toss out assumptions and distracting non-sequiturs, and expect me to simultaneously go scurrying off and chase the argument squirrels you've just released, while continuing the main thread of the discussion.
I would like to respond to this, but honestly I am not sure what you are talking about exactly.
DeleteThe sentence about stereotypes? There are significant stereotypes about people who choose not to have children (as I am sure you know). I don't agree with them at all (perhaps not clear from the post), but perhaps just for that reason it irritated me that you were giving them validity by seeming to fulfill them so perfectly.
Every now and then, Ellie gets on a soapbox about being childfree (or childless, or whatever word you want to use to describe those without kids). She tends to get, in my opinion, pretty self-righteous about it, as if she's fighting with an invisible person. And maybe she is, maybe those posts are actually directed at a specific someone or someones who give her sh*t all the time about not having children. But to the casual reader, they come off as very defensive and argumentative. The good news is that she usually deletes them after a couple of days, and I'm guessing this one will be no exception.
ReplyDeleteOhhhh Lana Del Ray. Nice to see you here :)
DeleteOh good grief. I write about being childfree maybe once or twice a year. I think it's vastly more telling that you seemed to have honed in on the frequency, content, and tone of those posts so closely. What's up with that? "Casual reader" indeed.
DeleteAnd the only post I've deleted in ages (literally, YEARS), was a recent one over the GOMI / SOMI brouhaha, and only because I was trying to respect the no fourth-wall-breaking platform of that website.
I actually understand the defensiveness, because most people expect others, especially women, to have children. Women are also supposed to be motherly and love children in general. If you don't fall into these categories, you will get a lot of negative judgments (obviously not true for me, but I've known a lot of women for which it is). I can imagine getting really tired of people saying, "You just haven't met the right man!" or "You'll change your mind!"
DeleteA friend of mine had to go to 5 doctors before she found one willing to sterilize her (she absolutely did not want children, and so had made this carefully thought out decision after considering all options). It wasn't an ethical issue, just that they didn't trust her to make her own decisions and thought she would get unhappy later and sue them (two of them said just this). This is insulting and totally bogus.
I prefer this blog to Ellies. I find her annoying and her response to you in her blog post was immature and borderline idiotic. At least you can be an adult about the way your approached the topic, obviously she cannot. In my opinion she disables comment because she cannot handle dissent. Which is why she has to devote an entire blog post to an obscure blogger who dared disagree. She is so full of it. Ignore her. For all of her childfreeness she doesn't have a quarter of the class, life experience or culture that you exude. You are far more interesting.
ReplyDeleteReading her response was like reading a hate letter from a petulant teen.
"In my opinion she disables comment (sic) because she cannot handle dissent." Actually, I engaged in three rounds of email with this GraceAmanda before posting a paragraph from her last email, which made it clear how fundamentally opposed are viewpoints are.
DeleteHer first email - the "dissent" to which you refer - WAS answered, point by point, despite the fact that she personally insulted me in it.
I disable comments for many reasons. But if someone wants to engage with me in any real way (you know, other than an anonymous blog comment), I'm happy to do so. See my recent Twitter exchanges and the above to paragraphs for proof of that.
Actually there were only four emails, two from me and two from Ellie (one of which was about two sentences of personal insults).
DeleteGrace/Amanda, I am taken aback that your feathers got ruffled by Ellie's blog post. Seriously. What I took away from her blog post was that she really has the well-being of children (& society) at heart - even if they are not hers. In my opinion, that's saying a lot in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteFor your information, from someone who is unable to have children, childfree is the preferred term. "Childless" somehow implies a lacking, and trust me, those with fertility issues feel they are lacking enough.. self-worth, eggs... :)
Childfree puts a positive spin on things and yes, I've come to realise there are advantages to being childfree.
I love Ellie's blog. She is so free (no pun intended) - in her thinking, her openess.
As far as the term childfree, I explained my opinions just above. But I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, especially those struggling with infertility (which seems like it must be so hard), so I won't use childless anymore.
DeleteI was irritated by her post partly because I felt like she didn't have the well-being of children at heart at all (or rather, she meant to, but the execution/advice would accomplish the opposite). I tried to explain this to Ellie in the second email I sent her (though obviously that didn't work!).
Basically me getting unsolicited advice is not an issue: I'm not the kind of person who gets it anyway (middle class, educated, white, child with no special needs, etc). Instead, the disenfranchised do: single mothers, non-white people, poor people. Often it's just another way to bully or oppress people (like all the Native American children removed from their parents and sent to abusive boarding schools, because the government judged their parents to be inept).
Also, most parents truly want to do their best by their children. When they don't it's not because they have the wrong parenting philosophy or attitude towards Internet privacy. It's because bigger issues are preventing them from doing so, like poverty, mental health issues, lack of social support, etc. If Ellie really wants to help children, she needs to focus on these issues instead, and on helping parents/families in particular. Children do not, and in fact cannot, exist alone: instead, parents and children (especially small children) exist as a unit, and you can't harm one without harming the other.
"When they don't it's not because they have the wrong parenting philosophy or attitude towards Internet privacy. It's because bigger issues are preventing them from doing so, like poverty, mental health issues, lack of social support, etc."
DeleteHmm. Well what about the woman who isn't in poverty, doesn't suffer from mental health issues or a lack of social support, and is just being an inconsiderate asshole to her kid by posting embarrassing or privacy-compromising pictures of him, that can get disseminated by child pornographers...who then might decide that pictures aren't enough and he wants to FIND THAT CHILD....so he does so, using identifying information she's blasted all over the internet.
Do I get to voice an opinion about her?
Are you talking about someone in particular? I can't speak about specific individuals who I don't know, but if you know this person well then perhaps they are an exception (and if you do know her well, then probably you have a close relationship and are involved in her life already: which would certainly entitle you to an opinion).
DeleteOn the other hand, when you don't know people well/intimately, then it's easy to make all sorts of wrong assumptions about them. Like how do you know if a stranger or casual acquaintance has mental health issues? Most people do their best to keep these private. How do you know what social supports they have? Very few people are going to tell you that they have no close friends, or that their partner is completely unhelpful/emotionally abusive/a drunk. Often you don't even know the reality of someone else's financial situation (my father in law declared bankruptcy and successfully kept it from everyone, even swearing his two young children to secrecy).
You really don't know what is going on with other people. That's why it's important to err on the side of tolerance and kindness (of course I struggle with this myself).
We completely disagree. I don't believe I need a close relationship with someone to be able to identify a poor parenting decision he/she has made, that will adversely affect his/her child.
DeleteRe: assumptions - no assumptions. Actual behavior, witnessed (e.g., woman posts photo of her naked child online, or embarrases/mocks/criticizes her child on the internet). Again, though, no point in my explaining this, since you've repeatedly said you don't feel the overexposure of children on the internet to be a problem worth addressing.
I couldn't agree less with Anonymous 10:53 PM by the way. Ellie also has the guts to put a name and a face to her blog. Erm.... you don't. It's really easy to hide behind anonymity - absolutely nothing classy about that.
ReplyDeleteActually my picture is all over the blog (there are just more of my daughter because 1. she's cuter and 2. I am usually taking the photos).
DeleteI don't use my real name here because it helps me be more honest if I can pretend that I am anonymous. But honestly that is just a convenient self-delusion because the blog has all kinds of personal information (including multiple photos of my family members), so I'm sure anyone with decent Internet skills could figure out who I am. So there isn't a way really to "hide behind anonymity", which is why I don't post things I wouldn't be willing to stand behind/discuss in real life (like intimate details of my sex life, or my more hare-brained opinions).
I have to respond to this. On the internet, even with pictures and names and tons of details, a blogger can still be hiding behind anonymity. The entire blog could be a fabrication (and has happened more than once). There is very little way to prove anything. If I don't know a poster in the comments thread anyway, why do I give the comment more weight if it says "Jessica" than if it says "Anonymous"? In terms of my life, both are equally anonymous to me.
DeleteSaying someone is hiding behind anonymity, or conversely, that someone is "more brave" for putting a name and a face to their comment, is a made-up duality of good and bad.
You are absolutely right Cortney. It's hard sometimes to remember, because reading people's blogs can feel so intimate, but often it's actually a carefully selected picture that's being painted. On this blog I try to be honest and present a mostly complete picture of myself (since the point of it is to remember my past), but people blog for all kinds of reasons.
DeleteI actually made this mistake with Ellie, because I wrote her assuming she had little personal experience with small children based on her blog, which focuses on parties, music festivals, dating, friends and the carefree urban single lifestyle. But just because that's what she chooses to write about doesn't mean that is her whole life. For all I know she has part-time guardianship of a niece, or is co-raising a godchild.
You can't help but judge people based on their self-presentation (after all, they selected what to put out there, which means something): but it's also important to remember that appearances are often deceptive.
@ Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteIf you read the blog you would find numerous post that offer pictures and extreme personal details that give in depth insight into the life of this blogger. Being nameless does not automatically equate to a lack of disclosure...in this case I believe it has more to do with maintaining some level of privacy/obscurity.
Aside from that, they are both bloggers, they both have differing opinions. So what? The difference between the two however and why I am annoyed by this attack of a blog I frequent and enjoy, is that one (Opinionation) wrote a personal critique of another blogger's post and the other threw a temper tantrum. Seriously, instead of addressing valid points that were present in the critique and making an intelligent argument (which I would have enjoyed, considering I am one of the "child-free"), Elliequant spends half the post going on about how she thinks the other is "furious" because Ellie referred to her dog as a child. I still question how she came to that conclusion. Seriously, so annoying that she couldn't make an intelligent argument for her point of view.
"Seriously so annoying that she couldn't make an intelligent argument for her point of view."
DeleteSee my above comment to you. Assuming you're the same faceless, nameless anonymous critic as the faceless, nameless anonymous critic above.
I should also mention the dog thing. I don't have my own dog but my parents, sister and other close relatives do, and they all love their dogs very, very much. My parents' dog has piles of toys, multiple outfits, goes with them on vacation, and gets birthday parties. My sister and I refer to her as their third child (which is funny, and partly true). And I see nothing wrong with spending lots of money on, doting on, or making sacrifices for a being who you care about so much, even if it happens to be an animal. Others actually prefer the company of dogs to humans, for whatever reasons, and that doesn't bother me either: why not, if it makes you happy?
DeleteBut dogs aren't children, and not from a perspective of the deepness of the attachment (because who can measure someone else's feelings). They aren't children because children are much more complicated (dogs are pretty simple thinkers, that's one of their main attractions), much more work, and much more of an investment.
If people refer to their dogs as children as a jokey way to express how much they love them, fine: but when people start thinking that having a dog qualifies them to understand what it's like to have a child (in any more than a vague sense), I feel both disturbed and annoyed. It minimizes the difficulties of parenting and reflects a patronizing and simplistic view of children. It even can lead to (in my opinion) horrible parenting practices, where rather than explaining to children why things are done or not done, or what is right and wrong, parents adopt a highly behaviorist approach (cookie if you're good, punishment if you're bad): appropriate for a dog, but completely wrong for a human.
"when people start thinking that having a dog qualifies them to understand what it's like to have a child (in any more than a vague sense), I feel both disturbed and annoyed. It minimizes the difficulties of parenting and reflects a patronizing and simplistic view of children"
DeleteMy original post said nothing whatsoever about being a dog owner. You're the one that brought up the fact that I refer to my dog as my kid. And referring to my dog playfully as my kid =/= me thinking I'm qualified to speak for what kids need. That's an assumption YOU made.
Again, the only specific thing I advocated for kids needing in my post is respect and possibly more privacy than they're often afforded in social media. If you think my right to say that has anything whatsoever to do with what I call my dog, or having a dog in general, well, I just don't know what to tell you.
I brought up the dog thing because I was talking about how your post displayed (in my opinion) all the negative stereotypes of people who choose not to have children. And because one of the major ones is that they think that their pets are children (rather than just joking about it), and you do seem to, I mentioned it as kind of icing on the cake.
DeleteOf course I don't actually know what you think. But you do write posts like this: http://www.elliequent.com/2013/03/love-and-play.html I understand it's kind of a fantastical metaphor to express your feelings about religion. But you 1. cast Chaucer as your child and 2. use the conceit of Chaucer as your child to demonstrate how parents talk to their children about morality, and how much you dislike such parenting tactics. In other words, you think that your relationship with Chaucer somehow does give you insight into parenting decisions. Which because having a dog is nothing like having a child, is totally bogus.
And my opinion on whether that was a personal critique or a temper tantrum differs to yours. So what?
ReplyDeleteExactly.
ReplyDeleteI was reading a post from someone else the other day about how children who throw tantrums just need some time to connect with their parents. and you know me. i don't usually write back when I don't agree I just let it go but this one got to me SO BAD. especially since a TRUE tantrum is about a child not being able to deal with their emotions and you can sit down and talk to them but that WONT DO ANYTHING. DROVE ME INSANE. Anywho...a little regretful...I wasn't rude or anything but I should have just let it go.
ReplyDeleteI know, it's so hard to restrain yourself sometimes (though of course just letting it go is almost always the right course, especially if we're talking about arguing strangers on the Internet). Ugh on the tantrums thing (having cheerful conversations or a nice snuggle doesn't even work with extremely angry adults, why anyone would think this would work on a person with much less self-control or emotional regulation is beyond me).
Delete"And as a thinking, feeling human being, as one of the seven billion people on this planet, I sure would like those little humans to be decent, thoughtful, and kind. And as someone who contributes to their welfare by way of public schools (among other collective services), I deserve them to be such, as well."
ReplyDeleteThis from a divorced, unemployed ex-stripper with acknowledged mental health issues ( who compared herself to Truman Capote as an example of a fellow disturbed artisan). Sorry, but you don't deserve to have input in my child. Living in a collective society doesnt entitle you to self righteously coach anyone on their children, even if you WERE someone who paid payroll taxes and espoused values consistent with ones that belong in children.
Opinionation's post is a thoughtful reflection. Elliquent's comes off as whiney and entitled.
The collective thing was one of my major problems with the post: because the US is not very collective, at all. In fact, it is remarkably stingy in supporting children in any way (why more than 20% of children are "food insecure", ie don't know where their next meal is coming from). Given this level of support, I don't think other Americans are entitled to that much of an opinion.
Delete"This from a divorced, unemployed ex-stripper with acknowledged mental health issues ( who compared herself to Truman Capote as an example of a fellow disturbed artisan)."
DeleteI actually do have employment (though admittedly I'm looking for more) - I do some freelance writing, which doesn't pay super well, but it IS work. I don't talk about work on my blog for what I'd assume are obvious reasons. I keep that part of my life wholly separate and private.
Haha, I knew someone would play the "OMG she's comparing herself to famous writers!!!" card. So ridiculous. Yes, that's right. I think I'm on par with Truman Capote. That's exactly the point I was making - our similar talents.
Well that's good. I thought you were drawing an aspirational parallel between you and Capote because of his professed hallucinations and eventual drug overdose. Glad you only think your common link is in your craft.
ReplyDeleteIt stands that being a fellow human doesn't entitle you to my audience when you want to opine about child-rearing.
Cristin, you clearly have a real hate hard-on for me. I apologize for peeing in your Cheerios, or running over your dog, or whatever it is I did to earn it. In my short tenure on the internet I've made some colossal mistakes, and believe it or not, I'm trying to do better.
DeletePart of that, to me, means no more anonymity or passive aggression. Saying Yo, I'm Ellie, and here's where you can find me, warts and all, if you want to work something out with me.
If you want to talk about whatever I did to piss you off so we can BOTH drop the negative energy and anger and move on through life feeling a little bit lighter, just let me know.
Peace.
It's not exactly a show of sincerity, is it, for me to characterize whatever it is I did as "peeing in your Cheerios"?
DeleteLook, I just get the sense from the specifics of your rather cutting and personal comments that you have some beef with me. Not surprising, I'm an opinionated loudmouth. But I also know that when I just plain dislike someone, I usually ignore them, because they don't interest me.
Speaking for myself, the only reason *I* hate-follow people is there's something in them that I either once liked, or would like STILL, if only I could resolve x issue with them, or they'd do/say/be x.
I don't know if any of that made sense, but it's my way of saying to you, as a fellow human internet user, it's cool, I know I'm not everyone's flavor, but if there's some specific issue you have with me that you want to unfold on the table, I'm interested in knowing what that is, because hell, I don't like the idea that I did something hurtful to you once that I can't now make amends for.
But if you just plain don't like me or my personality or what I stand for, and would rather just sling the occasional arrow - have at it. You're the one that'll have to carry the quiver, though.
Ellie, since you are asking for feedback on your behavior...I have to say that while your post annoyed me (and made me embarrassed for you, because I felt like it reflected badly on your critical thinking skills and on the childfree in general), I wasn't personally attacking you when I responded. I was attacking your arguments. In fact, the only personal thing I said about you was that you seemed to be ignorant of small children.
ReplyDeleteI emailed you again because you had several questions in your response email (and also seemed not to understand some of the points I was making). Plus, as I told you, I really do like debating with people who have different opinions from me (it helps me clarify my own thoughts, and maybe I will even learn something). You responded with numerous personal insults (completely ignoring my arguments) and a really angry blog post.
If you think I'm "daft, ignorant, presumptive, and just plain rude" and a lunatic, you are completely entitled to your feelings and we can just agree to disagree. But adopting such an angry and defensive attitude to someone who simply has different opinions from yours is not compatible with learning from others, working out disagreements, or being open to feedback.
With that said, I really don't have hateful or negative feelings towards you personally. I still think you're a good writer, enjoy your blog, and if you want to continue discussing this or any other topic I am happy to do so.
I don't hate you, Grace. We're just on completely different pages, that's all. I also feel you have consistently mischaracterized my argument and intent, as well as the actual events of this whole exchange (including in this last comment of yours).
DeleteI agree that I was angry and defensive, and have had a hard time communicating with you - and probably understanding you - because of it. But when someone calls my writing "an embarrassment" - which is the term you used in your first email to me - it's (I hope understandably) difficult for me react and respond positively.
I do very much appreciate your subsequent comment just now, about enjoying my blog and my writing. Thank you.
Grace,
ReplyDeleteI can't believe you don't see ANY validity in the argument that children deserve as much privacy on the internet as adults. You yourself wrote, in a post from earlier this year:
R makes constant appearances on the blog, but B is more of a lurking presence. Partly this is intentional (because I choose not to put his picture online, and otherwise maintain his privacy), and partly because I find it easier to talk about motherhood than marriage.
So it's important to respect B's privacy, but not R's? Why? Just because it's easier for you to write about motherhood as a blog topic?
I personally thought Ellie's arguments made a lot of sense. I HOPE that if I was unthinkingly doing something that would negatively impact my child, that people like Ellie, with children of their or without, would call me on my bullshit. Which is what she did with respect to the overexposure of kids on the internet. Because she's right.
I'm not suggesting that you yourself post inappropriate content of your child. I'm saying that there are people who do, and it's dangerous.
Sorry for the late response (I don't know if you will see it but I will reply anyway): I have been busy being depressed. :)
DeleteIt's important to respect B's privacy because he has a rather public job (in which a certain standard of behaviour is required). Obviously R does not have that concern (and neither do I, thus the photos etc of me).
Privacy is also more complicated for adults. There are many things that I do, that while I am not ashamed of them, I don't want everyone to know about (for example, my parents to know about my sex life). The point of keeping such things private isn't because it would have negative repercussions (my sexual tastes just aren't that exciting/bizarre!), but out of respect for my feelings.
But children don't have the same feelings, because they don't have a concept of "private" and "public": for them the two are the same. In fact, not only children feel that "privacy" doesn't exist for them, but so does everyone else: parents are legally entitled and even expected to know about every intimate detail of their children's lives.
And these details aren't just for parents: total strangers will happily discuss them too. An adult would feel humiliated to hear a lively discussion about their bowel movements or that time they attacked a good friend for no good reason, and others might very well make judgments on them based on such discussions: but for children this is just not the case. Since everyone having close contact with small children has such discussions every day, having such discussions on the Internet seems completely appropriate and unremarkable to me.
This isn't to say that everything on the Internet is appropriate. I think I said above that the guideline should be what is public knowledge: if you wouldn't share such things about your child with casual acquaintances at the park, then you shouldn't share it with the Internet either. (So your toddlers' potty training progress yes, your ten-year-old's constant constipation probably not.)
To be honest though, I just don't think privacy is such a big deal. Humans used to live in small bands or villages, where such a concept existed for no one regardless of age (and many people live the same way today, and are perfectly happy). While occasionally stifling, this way of life has many upsides too. Our fetish of privacy is more of a cultural construct than a natural right or an essential for a successful and functional life.
Great and I have a dandy offer: Where To Remodel House home remodel designers
ReplyDelete