This wasn’t posed, honest! (Click on the image for a larger version).
Sydney had gathered up the bears herself (to keep Maddox from playing with them — “No, NO, Maddox, no!”) and then fell asleep like this.
By the way, I’m headed to Florida for a week to visit family (’tis the season to hold seders…). So I’m not sure how much I’ll be posting in the next week — we’ll see how it goes. And moderation may be slowed down, as well, so if you find that your comments are waiting longer than usual for approval please be patient.
Pingback: a-blog馬鹿
Off topic-
There is a great post on The Carpetbagger Report from a couple of days ago about the mainstream media’s (specifically Time magazine’s) ignoring the prosecutor purge scandal.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10367.html
What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?
It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.
Also check out a new post on my blog.
Ah, see, that’s why I’m polyfriendulous.
AAAAAND, that’s a darling picture, as always.
I can’t wait until these two are old enough to read some of the comments we’ve been making for years about how cute they are. I anticipate much embarrassment.
While I love the childhood innocence in this photo, I have to tell you that I used to lurk on a pedophile forum; and I can assure you that this photo is now in someone’s private collection. They positively love crotch shots.
Enjoy your time away!
mAndrea,
Get your mind out of the gutter. There is nothing provactive about that picture, and furthermore, we shouldn’t let pedophiles set our standards.
When you have people turning in parents, who take photos of their kids in the bath tub, then you let the pedophiles set the standard.
I’ve gotta agree with Rachel; I’m not going to base what I post on what pedophiles think. With all due respect, mAndrea, discussing pedophiles at all, on the baby blogging threads, is inappropriate. (Obviously, the subject may be on-topic in other areas of “Alas.”)
Awww.
And come to think of it, I probably spend as much or more time with Sydney as with any of my other friends….
With all due respect Amp, Sydney can’t consent to having her crotch displayed for all the world. What about her needs? How’s she going to feel when she’s 13 and sees this photo, that you and you alone, distributed for the world? Hell, what’s she going to think knowing that Uncle Amp deliberately took this shot, of all possible photos to take, and then posted it publically?
Your lack of concern and Rachel’s distortion of this being a matter of our minds being in the gutter are really irresponsible. Your job as an adult in her life is to make her life less vulnerable, not moreso.
Right, Amp! After all, if she wasn’t dressed that way, then nothing would ever have happened, and . . .
Oh wait.
Right. That’s bullshit.
Pedophiles are going to act in a predatory manner, because that’s what they do. It’s a cute picture. Relax.
I’m sure that if, when she turns 13 (or 30 or 9) she says “take that picture down”, Amp will.
“…if she wasn’t dressed that way, then nothing would ever have happened, and . . .
Oh wait.
Right. That’s bullshit.”
Yep!!!
How many parents and extended family members have nude pictures of their kids? This one isn’t even nude, and people are getting testy.
There is nothing provacative about that picture.
Rachel, being familiar with the way pedophiles think and knowing what appeals to them is not exactly the same as “having my mind in the gutter”. If it is, then I’m in hell.
\oo/ help! lol
That type of comment is only intended to silence, and nothing else.
Frankly, I always wonder at what point or age should caregivers stop posting pictures of childen without their consent, and if informed consent is really possible – especially since it’s legal to take photos in public spaces, etc etc. Nothing against Amp at all, many people do the same thing on their blogs every week. It is a cute picture though – I’d want to share it too.
Rachel dear, right now some wierdo is wacking off to that picture, or they will in the future. That’s reality. As long as they don’t abuse a real kid, I guess it’s ok.
no excuses
My son was born back when the insanity over photos of naked children in bathtubs was getting serious — I’d never heard of anyone being arrested for having a photo of a naked child in a bathtub. Compared to many of the photos I almost took (because I got smart and learned to strategically pose something over the crotch …), that photo is A++ Extra-Clean.
But I’m not posting to confess to being a Strategically Placed Sponge Poser. I’m posting because of this —
I have to agree with Q Grrl on this — your job is not to provide us with super-cute photos of your daughter, regardless of content and appeal to perverts. It’s to make sure that Sydney and Maddox grow up safely in those areas of their lives where “safety” matters. And being the targets of pedophiles isn’t something where risk is a valuable life lesson in decision making.
Julie: Sydney and Maddox aren’t my daughters, by the way, although the “baby blogging” threads are posted with the approval of their parents, of course.
I’m simply not convinced that I’m placing Sydney and Maddox in any realistic or significant danger by posting the “baby blogging” series. If I was convinced of such a thing, of course I wouldn’t post it at all. (And of course, if and when Sydney or Maddox asks to stop having their photos put online, I’ll go along with their wishes).
The idea of the stranger pedophile picking out victims from online photos, or family films, or watching kids swim in a public pool, or whatever, is mostly a urban myth. Sydney has probably never had even one unsupervised minute in a public place in her entire life; a stranger-pedophile would have no chance of getting alone time with Sydney or Maddox.
In real life, child sexual abusers are typically relatives or other trusted adults, known to the child and to the child’s guardians. For that reason, it’s important that Sydney be raised to be able to go to her parents or me or another trusted adult for help if someone touches her in an inappropriate way. It’s not important, or useful, to be paranoid about what the alleged pedophile readers of “Alas” are thinking.
Her crotch isn’t displayed. She’s wearing thick, opaque tights. What next – are you going to join Ann Althouse in complaining that Jessica isn’t allowed to wear a tight sweater to meet with Bill Clinton, because that’s too sexual?
Thank god you’re here to tell me to care for Sydney’s needs; I never would have cared about her needs otherwise.
It’s quite possible, when she’s 13, that she’ll be embarrassed by the whole “baby blogging” thing. It’s quite common for 13-year-olds to be embarrassed by whatever the adults in their lives have done, after all, especially by public displays of affection.
Nonetheless, I hope 13-year-old Sydney will realize that the “baby blogging” series reflects my enormous love and pride in her and her sister, and that it’s a very cute picture. I hope that she’ll know me well enough to know that I’ve always loved her and I’ve never considered her needs irrelevant.
And, finally, I hope she won’t think a perfectly ordinary and not at all sexual childhood picture is tantamount to porn. With all due respect, Q Grrl, I really think you’re overreacting.
Amp,
First, sorry about the parental mistake. I collect children who aren’t related to me by blood — I should have realized you might well not be their parent.
This is probably in need of its own thread, but here goes.
I’m not suggesting that someone is going to stumble across a photo of Sydney on the web, look you up in the phone book, move across country, then gain your trust just to molest Sydney or Maddox. I don’t think they have to stoop to that level of disgusting behavior for it to be unwise.
Back in the day, when I was first morphing into my current post-metamorphic form, I posted casual photos of myself in different fora. An on-line friend electronically took me off to the side and explained that those photos were likely being traded for other photos of other women like myself for the masturbatory antics of the people doing the trading.
I’m fairly confident that the kinds of people who prey on young children do the same thing with photos they find of children on-line. That’s my issue.
No doubt, although there’s really no reason to assume they’re reading “Alas.” But that aside, I don’t see any solution to this sort of problem, other than not posting any pictures of children at all, which I think would be an over-reaction. As Rachel said, we shouldn’t let pedophiles set our standards.
Edited to add: I’ve been reading a book written by a friend of mine, about (among other things) his transition from female to male. One of the things he discusses is how frustrating it was that, back in the day when it would have been so helpful to him and could have given him so much peace of mind, he couldn’t find a simple photo of a post-transition f2m body anywhere; this information was seemingly kept secret. My point is that keeping photos out of the hands of the general public, because the general public might include people who’d masturbate to the photos, also keeps photos out of the hands of people who could genuinely benefit from seeing them. (This example is pretty far afield from “baby blogging,” I admit.)
The idea of the stranger pedophile picking out victims from online photos, or family films, or watching kids swim in a public pool, or whatever, is mostly a urban myth
Dear god, Amp. I’ve been mad at you forever, really mad, and I’m not over it, and so I don’t post here anymore, but I don’t dislike you, and honestly, I feel protective, both of you and of the people you share your house with, including your littles. I’m posting in good faith, honestly. Please, please read the links below:
Womensspace Post on (Legal) Seattle-Tacoma-Everett “Girl Love” Website
Broken Bodies Broken Dreams on Pedophiles on the Internet
Kim at Bastante Already on a notorious pro-“girl love” internet activist
Although the blog I posted about was closed down, I saved stuff off and can send it to you if you want. There are literally hundreds of photos on that site that are very similar to the photos you post here. The guy takes pictures of little girls, posts them on his site, and tells other perps where to go to see these girls or similar little girls.
I know what you mean– none of us wants to live a bunker mentality existence. And I think Sydney is such a cutie pie and understand wanting to post her photos. But.
Heart
Here’s the thing.
There are people who are empowered to make the relevant choices about Sydney and Maddox. These people are their parents. Amp has their permission.
In nearly every single circumstance where the ‘OMG Amp is a pedophile/pedophile enabler’ bullshit comes up, the parents of Sydney and Maddox hop into the thread, and announce something along the lines of ‘stop being stupid and thinking you have the right to make these choices about our children.’
They probably say it more nicely, of course.
Once you’ve accepted that the parents are the people who have the right to make these decisions, then the only thing left to argue is whether or not they’re wise decisions. I have a hard time seeing arguments about how these are unwise decisions as anything other than victim-blaming, encouraging a bunker mentality, and holding other people responsible for the actions of the pedophiles.
In other words:
Okay, now let’s plug some words in:
Oh, or we could plug some different words in:
I wish it were more surprising to me that there are folks are endorsing shifting the blame away from perpetrators, and are trying to restrict the private lives of the people around them, but it’s really really not. It’s typical.
The fact is that, as in rape the vast majority of molestations are acquaintance molestations. As in rape, attempts to ‘minimize danger’ often boil down to ‘you had better do everything right, because if something bad happens, it’s your own damn fault.’ As in rape, this encourages a system of misplaced paranoia and fear of strangers that helps the actual perpetrators of rape and child molestation. And, as in rape, in the end, it’s not about safety, it’s about control.
If you’re not okay with one, and you are okay with the other, you need to ask yourself why that is. What ideas do you have of either Amp, Sydney, Maddox, or their parents that makes you feel as though you should constrict their actions when you absolutely wouldn’t do the same elsewhere? Examine your preconceptions.
—Myca
Lord Myca, no one’s constricting anything. Some of us voiced concerns; you know, opinions. Amp and I differ on this particular photo. I’m not going to be turning Amp (or Sydney’s parents) in teh Authorities. Nor am I going to castigate him. I voiced my concerns and I’m fine with that.
Right, and as I said, if you’re okay with one and you’re not okay with the other, you need to examine your preconceptions and figure out why that is.
Or hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you would be okay ‘expressing concern’ to women that they need to not dress a certain way or go out alone for fear of rape, but I seriously doubt it.
hey Myca, go read Heart’s links, ‘kay? Then lets talk about parenting, and wards, responsibility, and reduction of reasonable harm.
Besides, don’t bring up privacy bullshit and then try to make this look like I’m the one with the problem. This blog is *not* private. This is a brand spanking new age of all kinds of access to all kinds of information. If someone wants to blow some child’s anonymity to hell and back again, there’s really nothing I can do other then telling them I think they’re in error.
And you’re analogy is off. *if* you want to make a comparison to adult women and adult women’s choices, I think it would be more appropriate to ask me if I would criticize a young woman who wished to pose for soft core porn. And the answer to that: hell yeah I would.
You know Myca, I’m not the bad feminist here. No one’s the bad guy, so quit casting aspersions.
I would have no problem going up to an adult woman who was considering posing for soft core porn and expressing my opinions. Your analogy to rape is misleading, inflammatory, and rather pointless.
Because hey, you know what?
Molestation is rape.
That’s the thing. It’s not even separate categories, really. It’s the same thing.
If you check the third link Heart posted, there’s a passage about 2 or 3 paragraphs down:
The reason we’ve seen the same phenomena elsewhere is that it’s the same thing.
—Myca
Right, you just hold on to that, and you’ll never have to change a thing. Your hurt feelings are more important than shifting the blame away from pedophiles and rapists anyway.
Goodness knows you’ll never need to critically examine your actions, because you’re a ‘good feminist’ and not a ‘bad guy’.
—Myca
What the hell Myca? My feelings aren’t in this. My opinions are.
When I first saw this photo, I admit, my first thought was, “OMG, that’s her crotch! And she’s like 3! Eeeee.”
My second thought was, “Jesus fucking Christ, have I really been socialized to see something shocking here? Nothing’s on display, and she *is* like 3. She’s not sexual, or if she is, she certainly isn’t sexual in a way that an adult is sexual. My shock (with undertones of discomfort, almost revulsion) at seeing her in this position means that I am overlaying an inappropriate and adult sexuality onto this toddler. Let me beat myself with the ‘getting over it’ stick.”
The photo actually makes me uncomfortable. But I can’t think of any reason why it would, except for the fact that our culture has sexualized children.
My point is that your self-conception as a ‘good feminist’ isn’t useful any more than someone’s self-conception as a ‘good guy’ means that what he just said isn’t racist or sexist.
It’s the kind of thinking that says, “I’m a good person. Good people don’t say fucked up things. Therefore, what I just said wasn’t fucked up. La, la, la.”
It’s what makes people invested in denying that they’re racist or sexist instead of examining how their expressed thoughts are sexist or racist. It makes it all about you, and it’s a way of maintaining oneself as the center of the entire goddamn universe, rather than pausing and thinking about what you said.
What you said shifts the blame away from pedophiles and onto the victims or their parents. That’s fucked up.
And the fact that you think of a grown woman posing in soft core porn as roughly equivalent to fully clothed photos of children or how a woman chooses to dress says a lot.
—Myca
Right, Mandolin! Right right right right right.
Your analogy to rape is misleading, inflammatory, and rather pointless.
I think that was supposed to be “your analogy to rape is dead on”. (Or maybe, “your analogy to rape really puts my statements and opinions in a bad light, and I can’t stand that, so knock it off.”)
Sydney’s parents are declining to live in a state of fear. They are acting wisely and prudently in their actions regarding actual threats to their children, and declining to buy into emotionalized hysteria regarding the pedophile menace. (“OMG!!! Pedophiles look at pictures! There’s someone masturbating to a picture RIGHT NOW!!!!!“)
I think the “pedophile menace” is quite real. I find some creep looking at my daughters at the park or stalking us or what have you, the hammer comes down. (My son’s past the point of being endangered by pedophiles; hebephiles now, which is a different problem.) I protect my kids, as all good parents do, to the best of my ability.
Not sharing photos of my children online does nothing to protect them. Accordingly, I decline – as I hope all good parents will – to yield to the irrational fears of hypervigilance. I commend Kim and Matt for their similar good sense.
Argh, agreement with Myca and Mandolin, make it stop!
Ooh, Mandolin, the other part of your post I really wanted to highlight as insightful was :
Right, absolutely.
What struck me was, hey, who benefits from having the thought in the public consciousness that toddlers are possessed of an adult sexuality?
Pedophiles, maybe?
It’s the same way that rapists benefit from the idea that women are supposed to live in fear. It’s a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation, and the only way to win is to refuse to play that game.
—Myca
*HUG*
You and me both, man.
Don’t touch me, you deviate. ;P
“who benefits from having the thought in the public consciousness that toddlers are possessed of an adult sexuality? ”
I guess I’m also inclined to pinpoint certain industries, which can simultaneously market childhood things to parents, and sexy things to kids, and then “OMG, kids want to be sexy!” fear to parents.
(That’s for older than 3, of course.)
Sorry for the many multiple comments in a row, I need to think harder before submitting, apparently.
Obviously, I agree with a lot of what Myca, Mandolin and Robert have written here on the substantive issues.
However, without blaming any single individual, I’m worried that the tone of this thread is beginning to feel like a pile on Q Grrl. I’m not saying that folks should stop disagreeing with Q Grrl’s opinions (and Heart’s), but please watch your tone and try to avoid being needlessly attack-y.
Let’s pile on Myca for his inappropriate hugging behavior, instead.
Chilling, per your request.
I just want to snuggle, Robert, is that so wrong?
(Chilling! Chilling . . .)
;->
—Myca
I do not wear a seatbelt. I am a good driver who has a car in excellent physical condition. I have honed my skills in driving to the point where I can avoid a collision while I am driving. Therefore, I do not need to gird myself for safety because I will not get into an accident.
—
The above statement is one most of us would consider prepostorous. Regardless of how good a driver you are, you cannot truly predict the conditions of the road, sudden mechanical malfunctions, or the actions of other drivers. Especially the last one. Do all of us dislike drunk or impaired drivers? Of course. Do all of us believe precautions should be taken to ensure those who should not be driving are kept off the road? Of course.
That does not mean I do not wince when I read about someone being thrown from a car and killed in an accident caused by a drunken driver. A seatbelt probably would have saved that person, i.e. a precaution. Or when I read about someone who speeds on a slippery road and kills himself and his passengers. Paying attention to road conditions might have saved those people, i.e. paying attention.
We allow these statements to be made about driving, but not about sexuality. Before you jump on me, I’ve had that done before. I’ve been raped by a stranger. It was a terrible, life-changing event. Do I blame my rapists? Yes. Do I blame myself? No. Does that mean that I am against policies that teach women to fight against rapists, teach children to stay away from people who could hurt them, give both safe avenues to talk about their experiences? NO. Does that mean I don’t take precautions against being alone in strange areas?
We can control ourselves. We cannot control other people. That’s the point of these programs. We can provide education and change attitudes, but we cannot force that to happen without debasing our other morals. Saying that Stranger Danger encourages pedophiles to rape or takes the burden off their self control is like saying that giving birth control to teens encourages them to have sex.
I think that the difference is that teaching women to fight against rape doesn’t restrict the rest of her life unnecessarily . . . that is, if a woman is assaulted, she can fight back. If a child is approached by a stranger, he can run away or scream . . . these are proactive solutions.
I view it as something very different to say ‘don’t wear sexy clothing, it will make you a target,” or, “don’t post pictures of your kids online, it will make them targets,” or “don’t go out alone at night. I view it as different because it restricts the life-activities of people who have not been assaulted. It imposes a curfew and a dress code. It tells you what you can and can’t do with pictures of your own kids.
I’m all about rape prevention. I’m all about teaching women to fight. What I’m not about it telling them that out of fear of rapists, they can’t have lives.
—Myca
*grin*
Or, put another way, I do not capitulate to terrorism.
“Or, put another way, I do not capitulate to terrorism.”
What an interesting way to put it…
Myca,
I go back and forth on this one myself. I grew up in NYC, where I was taught not to leave valuable possessions out in the open because nebulous bad people would get tot them. I was taught not to walk alone with my purse open, full of cash, because people might steal them. It was not, don’t have possessions, so much as it was, be wary because people near you are bad.
Can we not apply that to women as well? Don’t walk alone because it’s harder for you to fight off a larger attacker? The one about dressing is so subjective that I cannot subscribe to it. What’s revealing for me may not be for you and vice versa.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst?
As her mother, I think the picture of Sydney is perfectly fine. I am a bit concerned about the pink bear though. Think of the Furry’s that might be having a hayday with that picture. Omg. Teh horror.
Anyways, here’s my serious take on the situation: The picture as we all are aware is perfectly fine. If some stranger were to come find it and find something provacative about it, they are a sicko. That same stranger likely would be the same guy that would see a cute little girl or boy in the grocery store/park (wherever) and create some sexual fantasy that they go home and wank off to. And chances are they might have even been able to come up and say hello to said kid (weirdo’s do on occassion come up and try to engage and are given the old stonewall from us in public). Some people are gross.
Also, out of curiousity, doesn’t it create more of a problem when people keep saying the ped words within the baby blog threads increase the odds of some asshole pulling it up on a search engine? Am I wrong in assuming that by insisting on bringing it up (beyond the obvious insult that presumes Matt and I are naive dumbasses that wouldn’t screen photo’s/have standards in place for appropriateness) it is linking these photo’s with potential search criteria that some joker might use?
I think its an issue of respecting Sydney’s body, her image of her body, and her future relationship with her own physical body and her sexuality. I feel the same way about my next door neighbor’s shot of her two toddler boys naked on the toilet, hands conveniently in place. The picture is cute as hell. But one days these boys will feel the awkwardness of body change and early puberty. The photo of them is a huge plunge into their privacy and vulnerability. It was taken, not for their benefit, but for the titillation (polite at that!) of adults.
I think parents owe the future young adult buried in their children more respect.
Q Grrl,
If it weren’t for the right of parents to embarrass our children when they are older, much of the pain and sorrow of being parents wouldn’t be worth it. Please, don’t take away our right to humiliate our children by showing their dates photos of them sitting on the toilet, in the bathtub, or caked in mud in the backyard.
I was lucky Julie. My father was an avid and talented photographer who documented my whole life up until I left for college.
There isn’t a single humilating picture among them: and my father is a sociopath.
Go figure.
I think it likely that children will be embarrassed by many of their childhood photos when they reach their teen years. My mom had a picture of me in a little sailor suit at age 5 or so that she used to show to all my girlfriends, and yes, I was mortified . . . but dude, it’s sort of a mom’s prerogative to do that, isn’t it? She used to call me by cute childhood pet names in front of my friends too, just to mess with me.
But you’re not just talking about embarrassment. You’re talking about sexuality.
To
misquoteparaphrase you from another thread, “fully clothed toddlers aren’t erotic. You have eroticized a fully clothed toddler. Lots of folks do.”This isn’t a sexual issue, because it’s not a sexual picture, because Sydney isn’t possessed of an adult sexuality. When she is possessed of an adult sexuality, as Amp has stated clearly and flatly, he’d be happy to take these pictures down.
Until that time, saying that the picture shouldn’t be here is saying that Amp and Kim and Matt ought to base their decisions on the theoretical perceptions of some nebulous third party who might perceive it as sexual.
Just like women ought to cover their hair in photos, because someone out there might be turned on by the sight of it, or might perceive it as immodest, or maybe their future self will convert to Islam and be really mortified that there are all these photographs with uncovered hair . . .
Everyone who knows them personally seems to think that the photo is fine. This is not meant as an attack, but I really wish you would try examining your preconceptions and biases to figure out why you seem to think your perspective is more accurate than those actually involved, and that they’re all being “irresponsible,” “disrespectful,” and making Sydney and Maddox “more vulnerable.”
—Myca
*grin*
I’m with Julie.
Wow, Amp can you do anything about someone trying to attribute these words to me:
That’s not just a “misquote” Myca. That’s you putting words in my mouth.
I smell a fox and a budding anti-feminist. What did happen to your desire to have egalitarian discourse Myca? Or was that a lie?
Look, I voiced an opinion. I don’t think my perspective is more accurate. I think my perspective is my perspective – which, having posted here for many years, I feel free about posting. Amp disagrees with me, so does Bean, and so do Sydney’s parents. I’m really OK with that. I’m OK with their parenting.
All together now: Q is just voicing her opinion.
Really, I do it all the time. Many times a day. I’m even wrong sometimes.
No, Qgrrl, try reading next time. In another thread you said, and I quote
I took that quote and applied it to the photo (or do you not understand the word ‘misquote’?) because in the same way that power is not inherently erotic, it just has the eroticism that people choose for it, toddlers are not sexual, but we, as adults can put a sexuality onto them. Which is what you’ve been doing.
And of course, it’s interesting (and typical of you) to toss out accusations of anti-feminism while you go about your merry way victim blaming.
—Myca
Hey Myca: how ’bout you address the issue of objectification. You know, how Sydney *is* being objectified. Too bad she’s not an ugly girl.
QGrrl: I agree with Myca that his “misquote” post made it clear that he was altering something you had written, not correctly quoting it.
I don’t think the accusation of budding anti-feminism was fair. Please avoid attacking other posters.
Myca, I don’t think the “typical of you” sentence was fair. Please avoid attacking other posters.
From Feminist Critics, Myca says:
Amp, my experience with men who use the “aren’t we all people” line are indeed anti-feminist. At the least they have no conceptual base for what feminism is or does.
What? The treacle gets sweeter?
BTW Amp, paraphrasing (which is what Myca did) is not the same as misquoting. Myca attempted to take a concept I used and put it in his words. But he didn’t want it associated with himself, obviously. So he made it look like I support his “misquote”.
Q Grrl, no intelligent person would read something labeled a “misquote” of you and think you said it. Myca’s attribution made it clear that he was not quoting your actual words.
But in the interest of laying this lame faux-issue to rest, I’ve edited his comment to change “misquote” to “paraphrase.”
The issue of if Myca is a feminist or not (and for the record, I think he is) isn’t germane; it’s just a personal attack. Please stop it.
I’ve got absolutely no problem with the word change, and I hope that my post #51 helped make my meaning more clear.
As far as posting over at FeministCritics goes, I wanted to mention in my defense that TomNolan posted something about inviting me as a blogger there, and my response was that I didn’t see much to criticize in feminism, so I didn’t see the point.
—Myca
Thanks for making that clear.
The flag, for me, in that comment was that I feel like an emphasis on civil discourse can deny people understandable anger, as Amp has discussed here. Sometimes there is a need for vitriol, I feel.
However, I suppose that’s OT.
No, I agree that that’s a danger . . . and as I’ve posted in other threads, I think that some of the difference has to do with a difference in personality and communication style between the men and women who are generally attracted to feminist thought, but yeah, it’s probably OT.
—Myca
Ya know, sometimes we simply have to make parental decisions that aren’t perfect.
Do my kids like to run around nekkid as jaybirds? Yup (that’s why summer here ROCKS)
Do I routinely change them out of swimsuits in reasonably public places? Yup.
Do i show cute baby pictures to other people, and even occasionally post one on my blog? yup (and in my first one of my baby son, I think you could even see what my 2 year old daughter calls his “neenis”. (which is not nearly as funny as when she used to call it his “tail”)
Hell, i grew up in what were (in my memory) summers full of nearly- or entirely-naked kids. there were pedophiles then, too.
Now, is it possible some asshole pedoscum is getting off somewhere on my kids’ pictures? I suppose so. But i refuse to allow his desires (theroretical or real) to shape my childrens’ world. in a perfect world, i wouldn’t have to make that choice at all. but I do, and I choose to be free.
And in that vein:
Thursday Baby Blogging
Go Amp!
(and oh yeah: cute picture of Sidney!)