Strollerderby : compassion

"Pro-Choice Women Shouldn't Cry Over Miscarriages"

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:30:00 GMT

Just in case your day is going a little too smoothly, let me share an article that will make your blood boil—particularly if you are one of the numerous women who has suffered the pain of a miscarriage and also happens to believe in a woman’s right to choose.

A guest blogger named Gina over at Mom Logic has written a gem of offensive inanity called “Pro-Choice? Quit Crying Over Your Miscarriage!” Here’s how Gina characterizes the pro-choice women who “break down in hysterics” over a miscarriage: “It's a baby when they want it to be, it's a bundle of cells when they don't.”

This is such a shameless confusion of the issue that we need to put Gina’s thinking in perspective with an extreme—but real-life—example: do I believe that a 12-year-old rape victim should be forced to keep her baby? Absolutely not. Would I be heartbroken if I lost the baby I was carrying, whom I had carefully planned my life around for years? Absolutely. These are two entirely different issues. One has to do with my belief in the universal right to reproductive freedom, which is essential to ending the oppression of women; the other has to do with my personal feelings about motherhood.

Many women who would not choose to have an abortion themselves (except perhaps in extreme cases such as rape or incest) respect other women’s right to choose—as do many men, who will never face the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. That’s why it’s called pro-choice, not pro-abortion. By Gina’s line of thinking, no one who wants kids—male or female—should support a woman’s right to choose.

Gina also writes of pro-choice women who have the gall to want kids of their own: “Suddenly the monthly visitor that they were relieved to get when they were 20, now, at 32, plunges them into the depths of depression.” Well, Gina, this is a little something called “family planning”: making life choices that give both you and your future children the best chances for happiness and success—and therefore, bettering the world. How could anyone take issue with women who were responsible enough to avoid pregnancies when they were too young to care for a child? If it weren’t for unplanned pregnancies, there would be no need for abortion in the first place.

Gina claims that she “respects women’s right to choose.” If she truly is pro-choice—which, by her own definition, means believing that all babies are nothing more than “a conglomeration of microscopic cells” until they are out of the womb—then I sincerely hope she never gets pregnant. It’d be pretty difficult to avoid things like smoking and drinking if you have zero emotional attachment to your baby.

Photo: Flickr/Steve Rhodes

Report Finds Individualistic Culture Harms Kids—Because It Leads to Working Moms

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:00:00 GMT

A three-year study by a British charity called the Children’s Group has uncovered some unsurprising problems with individualistic culture. The report, called A Good Childhood, found that children are suffering from “a belief among adults that the prime duty of the individual is to make the most of their [sic] own life, rather than contribute to the good of others."

Thanks to a me-first culture, the study contends, people are more accepting of excessive materialism and widespread economic inequality that leaves millions of children in poverty; are unfazed by harmful advertising aimed at children; and see school as a place to compete rather than make friends and have fun.

This all makes sense to me. What boggles my mind is the solution proposed by the study’s authors: keep women in the home. According to the report, “excessive individualism” has lead women to get all uppity, believing they should take on paid jobs other than child-rearing and housecleaning. This is bad for children because clearly all working moms neglect their kids. Plus, women now have the freedom to break up families with their selfish desire to end unhappy marriages.

The study’s authors write: “Women's new economic independence…has made women much less dependent on their male partners, as has the advent of the welfare state.” Hold on a second here. I thought this report signaled the need to have compassion for others, which would mean supporting welfare for needy families and other government programs that help the less fortunate succeed.

Then, of course, there’s the little problem with the assumption (which I thought died circa 1950) that women should be dependent on men for all their basic needs. This way, even if men are physically abusive or alcoholic or can’t hold down a job, women would not be able to divorce them since they would have no means of caring for themselves. This would be good for kids, because divorce is an evil that must be smote out.

Oh, did I mention that the study’s authors have ties to the Church of England?

Image: phawker.com

Babble Talk: Kids Tackling Global Poverty

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:34:00 GMT

When my niece was six, she asked me why rich people didn’t just invite homeless people to live with them. It was winter in Boston, and she simply couldn’t understand why people with homes—including her own family—didn’t allow homeless people (“only the nice ones”) to sleep on their couches or in the guest bedrooms. While commending her altruistic impulse, I gingerly explained the safety concerns of inviting strangers into your home.

Kids’ inability to grasp the entrenchment of global pandemics—poverty, homelessness, racism—is bittersweet. At first, you’re touched by their easy, natural compassion and their hope that they’ll be able to solve these problems when they get older; but then, you’re saddened when you have to explain that the world is much harder to fix than they believe.

This could have been the thinking of the mother of a 7-year-old boy featured on today’s Kids Say the Cutest Things. While walking to the bathroom with his mom in the middle of the night, he said, "It is sad that some people don't have homes. When I grow up and am the richest man or woman in the world, I'm going to buy all the homeless people houses."

He may not be able to carry out this exact goal, but with such a good heart, this little boy is bound to contribute to society in some meaningful ways.

Photo: friendswithoutborders.org

Eight-Year-Old Petitions Mayor Over Inane Pet Laws

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:00:00 GMT

An eight-year-old from Jacksonville, Florida is proving that activism is alive and well in the younger generation. She has taken on the cause of her neighbors who lost their cat to Animal Control officers for what seems to me like a completely inane reason. Apparently, neighbors saw the cat playing outside and complained to Animal Control because the pet was not on a leash.

News flash: cats and dogs are not the same animals. Having had outdoor cats all my life, I can tell you that trying to put a leash on a cat would be much more dangerous to humans than letting a cat roam outside by its lonesome for a few hours. Fortunately, third grader Brianna Davey understands this and she's not going to let Animal Control take away her neighbors' cat without a fight. She has written a letter to her mayor stating, among other things, that the cat was not "running wild" and the decision to take her away was "crazy and unfair."

Brianna's mother Alicia is understandably impressed with her daughter's compassion. "She's got such a big heart and I am so proud of her," Alicia said. Hopefully, the mayor's office will be equally moved by Brianna's plea.

Photo: Jezebel

Should Raising a Feminist Son be The Goal?

Amy Kuras — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:00:00 GMT

If you have a son – and aren’t a raving douchebag yourself – then thinking about how to raise a boy without him being one is something you have been thinking about since you first heard the words "it's a boy."

It seems like there is a lot of information out there about raising strong, independent, feminist girls, but very little about raising boys to respect women, discourage dehumanizing attitudes among their friends and generally be guys who see women as equal to themselves and deserving of the same rights and opportunities (including the right to not be harassed walking down the street, commented on and otherwise judged).

So this post by Annabel about raising a feminist son on Feministing was thought provoking. The comments were interesting as well, with several people saying that trying to encourage her son's sensitivity will get him chewed up and spit out as he gets older, as will allowing him to indulge his love of pink.

I agree with one commenter, though, who said the best thing she can do is talk to him about how to handle it if he does get mocked for wearing a pink sweater to school for example – to give him strategies for feeling different and encourage his self-esteem and self-acceptance.

And I think almost all of the commenters missed the role of fathers here. While I wouldn’t consider my husband a "feminist" man exactly, he respects and values my independence, plays physically with our girl as much as he does with our boy at each age, and just as importantly, shows our son as much affection. You can't raise your children (of any gender) exactly the same, of course, but he comes close.

In many ways, I think that modeling of how not to be a douche, of seeing boys get treated the same way as girls, of responding to your child as an individual versus a gender, is the most important factor in raising compassionate kids. Which I would say is art and parcel of feminism, and more important than "feminism" per se.

Child Slave Labor, or Why I'm Not Buying Gap Jeans

Karen Murphy — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:27:00 GMT

I tend to intentionally stay away from the news most of the time. I know bad stuff happens, and I figure, why wallow in it? Why subject myself and my family to all that when I can live inside my peaceful Happy Bubble? But sometimes things break through the bubble. Sometimes things break through and reach that place of deep compassion and innate sense of wrongness about the plight of people around the world, and it was the story of the children in India who are sold for slave labor to make clothing for The Gap that broke through to me this time.

I kind of like The Gap. The jeans fit me, they're easily available and easy to return, and there's an aura of eco-consciousness that pervades the place. Well, not anymore. There's nothing Madonna or Penelope Cruz or Bono or Sarah Jessica Parker can do to fix this one. Because if kids are working for nothing in sweatshops in India, their forearms tattooed with the number of the sweatshop they belong to, working 19 hours a day until 1 am in dirty, unsafe conditions, I want no part of it. I can't stomach it.

But on the other hand, if not for The Gap, then for whom will these kids work? If the sweatshops "employing" them go out of business, where do the kids go? Will they even have a place to go? I'm the first to admit that the economics of a place that perhaps sees no better option but to sell kids for about $20 into years of slavery is pretty alien to the life I live.

Poverty is the worst form of violence.

And even if this brutal system is working to some degree, it still feels wrong. It *is* wrong. I can't get over that part. And it makes me fucking angry. And horribly, gut-wrenchingly sad. And there's likely no easy solution, either. Any ideas? Meanwhile, I'm not hungry anymore and I certainly don't need any new clothes. Maybe not for years. Maybe never.