« Amnesty bill is derailed | Main | Anti-death penality advocates are not going to be happy »

June 10, 2007

Cognitive disconnect

It's the only explanation for what was happening in St. Amanda's [alleged] brain when she started a Parenting Blog [w.t.f?] and wrote:

Amanda Marcotte blogs for Unsprung and Pandagon, and had a brief moment of notoriety as the blogger for the John Edwards for President campaign, before resigning under a hailstorm of right-wing abuse. Satan willing, her book on surviving while feminist will come out in spring 2008.

Unsprung is the pro-family, pro-choice, pro-gay political branch of the Offsprung family. We're here to reclaim "family values" for people who actually value families.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by Darleen at June 10, 2007 03:25 PM

Comments

I don't get it. Where's the dissonance?

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2007 05:22 PM

I said "disconnect" deliberately.

Amanda writing a "pro-family values parenting blog" is kinda like David Duke writing a pro-Israel blog.

Of course, much of what is posted on "unsprung" by Mandy is just cross posted from Pandagon and is neither about parenting nor about any values except calling everyone to the right of her Revealed Truth as bad-faith poopy heads.

Posted by: Darleen at June 10, 2007 05:27 PM

Eh. I guess it's a disconnect (sorry about misquoting you earlier) only if you take "family" to mean a nuclear, Beaver Cleaver-ish, man-woman-and-2.5-kids type of setup. Methinks Amanda's merely trying to be more inclusive of non-traditional familial arrangements, which is great.

And I can't blame her for cross-posting. Regular blogging, from what I hear tell, can be quite time-consuming and exhausting. Good on her for throwing some awesome posts toward Unsprung.

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2007 05:47 PM

Chris

"inclusive" would mean that Amanda not only approves of "non-traditional" families but also "traditional" ones.

She's quite hostile to any heteronormative family.

Part of the Patriarchy(tm), of course.

Posted by: Darleen at June 10, 2007 06:55 PM

Mandy's surreal gibberish doesn't get any better with repetition. I wonder how many mommies Heather will have in this new fever swamp.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at June 10, 2007 07:29 PM

Darleen,

I searched the "Family Matters" tag at Pandagon, and I couldn't really find any post that would indict Amanda as being "hostile to the heteronormative family". Do you have a post/link you could share, or somewhere more specific that I should look?

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2007 07:35 PM

She doesn't even have kids!

I guess she's OK with being used by Unsprung for her traffic, though. Seems like kind of a patriarchal thing, if you ask me, though.

Chris, come on, don't play dumb. Everyone knows her scorn for the prototypical husband/wife/2.5 kids setup. She had kids because he wants to control her, she's a willing or ignorant tool of the Patriarchy, etc. etc. It's been done ad nauseum over there.

And then there are others like me, single parents, who are still "Stepford Wives" because 1) I'm also a SAHM because I CAN and WANT to be (and not due to some patriarchal shit--the ex WANTED me to work, and I didn't); and 2) I'm a conservative, and 3) I think abortion is a fucking easy out for men who don't want to take responsibility for their kids. So despite my absurdly exalted status as a happily single mom with NO intention of remarrying, I don't count.

Chris, if you know Pandagon, you KNOW this. You're not fooling anyone.

Posted by: Beth at June 10, 2007 08:03 PM

Nah, that doesn't sound like Amanda. That's more second-wave, Valerie Solanas-style feminism than anything at Pandagon. I think you might be confusing her hatred of heteronormativity for hatred of people embodying that norm. If folks want the "nuclear family" arrangement, that's great, and I doubt Amanda would dissuade anyone for seeking that. But I do think she takes issue with the way that the "nuclear family" is portrayed as the familial setup; we see it reproduced in the media all the friggin' time. So I don't think she'd have a problem with you, Beth, on the basis of your marital status alone. Your perspective on other issues (abortion, etc.) is probably what gets her, although I'm just speculating.

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2007 08:24 PM

Chris

There is a long list of throw-away lines and general hostility to heteronormative families and even "parent culture", which is raison d'etre of "offsprung"

So, then, Offsprung, the perfect online antidote to a parenting culture gone mad. We feature the sharpest, funniest writers on the Internet, each one eviscerating, or at least challenging, a different excess of that culture.*
Neal's description, obviously, and parent blogging can take many forms. I do it myself. However (same link)
Amanda Marcotte, the scourge of Catholicism, brings you Unsprung, which should make Christian right “pro-family” moralists shake in their hypocrisy suits
Gotta love them scare quotes, eh? Amanda does more than bash the evil Catholics, she's decidely Christophobic ...that is what got John Edwards in trouble along with her "Duke boys are guilty of rape I don't care about no stinking evidence" posts, not "right wingers".
I don’t have kids and am known on occasion to gripe about the lunacy that is having kids? Well, you can see the general mission of the site is to create a space for parents who don’t buy into the hype. So, basically, my presence shows we’re serious about that mission.
Yep, a pro-Israel site that's serious about challenging that "Jewish hype" by hiring David Duke.

Offering cookbooks where recipes serve 4? Hey, that's kulturekampf! Isn't that special?

How about her schauenfreude at the demise of the nuclear family?

That anguished gasp you heard at the end was the sound of the patriarchy dying. Turns out that contrary to the hopes and dreams of anti-feminists everywhere, the modern redefinitions of family away from the nuclear family model are turning out quite well, thankyouverymuch. People can be swayed by internalized sexism, sure, and that will continue to be a massive problem for a long time, but people are figuring out that male-dominated straight marriages are simply not as great as advertised and alternatives to that generally prove to be more satisfactory.
Which kind of circles back to her "kids? eh." attitude. She can't stand marriage...but post-Edwards fiasco she always just drops a little "just joking!" figleaf in along the way
This joke is not an endorsement of the idea that all heterosexual relationships with children are evil and must be escaped. It is a mockery of the 1950s-era conformist patriarchal imagery that infatuates Lileks-type conservatives, even though life was never actually as blissful as promised.
sort of the "hey some of my best friends are black!" or "godbags" schtick.

Posted by: Darleen at June 10, 2007 08:26 PM

Chris

Is espousing an ideal or aspiring to one automatically mean everyone that doesn't reach it is a "loser"?

This is a simple question, ideally isn't the best place to raise children is by a happy, healthy married mother and father?

Posted by: Darleen at June 10, 2007 08:31 PM

Darleen,

Thanks for the links. I really hate it when folks spout some accusation and then fail to back it up with evidence, so I was pleased with your reply. I appreciate your effort in digging up those quotes.

However, like I told Beth a little earlier, I don't think Amanda's so much condemning the heterosexual family as such as she is criticizing the idealization of the heterosexual family. She never says, "You're evil for having a nuclear family"; rather, she wants to move away from the notion that the man-woman-2.5 kids setup is the one and only acceptable familial arrangement. It's okay to be a single mother, like Beth, or to be gay, or to cohabitate, or to date someone of a different race---that's Amanda's message, methinks.

And no, I think as long as you're a good parent, your child will grow up perfectly fine. I think there was a study about that, in fact. I'll try searching for it.

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2007 08:46 PM

I don't think she'd have a problem with most people based on marital status alone either (unless they're running for political office, like Fred Thompson), but when someone is a conservative, she calls everything about you into question. You aren't happily married, you're a victim and a tool. You aren't single, you're uptight and afraid of sex. You aren't a single parent, you were left because you're stupid (and again, uptight!) and he wanted someone more enlightened. You aren't married, you are enslaving a woman to be your sexbot-slash-mother. You aren't single, you're afraid of women and would rather just fuck around and objectify them. You aren't divorced, you were finally dumped because your wife finally realized what a fucking oppressive bastard you are.

What the fuck is so "family values" about her way of thinking about other human beings?
Not one goddamned thing. She's a Stalinist asshole. She only glorifies families when they consist of politically active people who share her political views. "Families" have absolutely nothing to do with it.

I find it absolutely hilarious (and quite telling) that St. Amanda Vaginitis is blogging about "family." I mean, instead of any one of ALL the other bloggers who actually DO have families (you don't even have to look outside the lefty blogosphere!), they use HER?

They couldn't get Lauren (for example) from Faux Real Yo (formerly of Feministe) or hell, anyone else? At least Lauren writes stuff about things like saving money and whatever. Amanda? It's all hate, all the time.
(Except for her shitty music posts--gawd, faux-hipsters are so nauseatingly clichéd it hurts.)

But really, I don't actually care. You asked.

Posted by: Beth at June 10, 2007 08:58 PM

It's okay to be a single mother, like Beth, or to be gay, or to cohabitate, or to date someone of a different race---that's Amanda's message, methinks.

But see, I've always been a conservative and have generally surrounded myself with the like-minded when I have the choice. I've "cohabitated" with BOTH of my ex-husbands (that's right, both) and have divorced twice. NEVER, EVER did ANYONE to the right of Amanda ever make me feel like it's not okay, not in the least. That "concern" she has for people being oppressed isn't just misguided, it's goddamned patronizing. Who the hell is she to think she needs to give her approval? Like anyone gives a fuck what some angry single girl on teh intarweb thinks of their domestic status? Oh, goody, I feel so validated because St. Amanda Vaginitus sez it's okay to be a divorced single parent! Whew! I thought I'd never overcome the stigma!

Sorry, Chris, I really don't mean to sound harsh with you; you're being perfectly fair in asking. I'm just trying to get across how the rest of us take her. It's very easy to cheer on her ugliness when you agree with her POV, but I daresay that the same rhetoric used by someone with whom you/whoever didn't agree would be held in the same scorn in which we regard Amanda. (See also: Ann Coulter--and I think Coulter's an asshat as well, but you get my point.)

Posted by: Beth at June 10, 2007 09:09 PM

(Correction to the mention of Lauren--obviously it's "tho," not "yo." Stupid teevee made me brain-fart.)

Posted by: Beth at June 10, 2007 09:10 PM

...Aaaaand, as soon as I mention it and go look, I see that Lauren has, in fact, started blogging at Unsprung. Well, good. Maybe they can dispense with the hate-blogger now.

Posted by: Beth at June 10, 2007 09:15 PM

Chris, you're wasting your time. Darleen can't actually back up anything she says. The only things she can do is parrot right-wing tropes and hate on Amanda Marcotte. This blog is a place for spleen venting, not thought.

Posted by: Bd at June 10, 2007 09:24 PM

I don't think she'd have a problem with most people based on marital status alone either (unless they're running for political office, like Fred Thompson), but when someone is a conservative, she calls everything about you into question.

It sounds like she's guilty of reductionism, rather than hatred of heteronormativity. And I agree, it's wrong to pigeonhole you into some predefined set of characteristics. If there's one thing I've learned from feminism, it's to always question your presumptions. In your case, it seems Amanda has unfairly thrown you into a broad category without respecting your agency or decisions. "False-consciousness" arguments have no merit. By the same token, though, calling Amanda a "Stalinist" asshole doesn't help the conversation. You risk dismissing her completely by throwing such a vulgar label onto her. Nor should you cast off her postings as "all hate, all the time"; that's just hyperbole. You wouldn't want someone to ignore the nuances of your messages with such a careless characterization, would you?

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2007 09:31 PM

That "concern" she has for people being oppressed isn't just misguided, it's goddamned patronizing. Who the hell is she to think she needs to give her approval? Like anyone gives a fuck what some angry single girl on teh intarweb thinks of their domestic status? Oh, goody, I feel so validated because St. Amanda Vaginitus sez it's okay to be a divorced single parent! Whew! I thought I'd never overcome the stigma!

That's definitely a problem that feminism has had to deal with, and continues to deal with. On the one hand, I want to support those who are marginalized/oppressed in any way I can; on the other hand, I don't want to strip anyone of their agency or come at them with a paternalistic, salvific attitude. That's too much of an echo of the "white man's burden", or the masculinist desire to "protect women". Amanda certainly shouldn't be talking down to you or judging the decisions you've made regarding your relationships.

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2007 09:42 PM

Note the difference, though--I'm criticizing her, not all feminists or all liberals. Great big huge difference.

Ignore the nuances of my messages? Actually, it happens all the time, when I get trolled by morons who assume all sorts of laughably incorrect things about me based on my being a Republican/conservative. It's the stupid blogosphere. (Really, though, I get a good laugh out of it and don't fret, because it's just teh internets.) Darleen certainly gets that crap too, even more than I do (note the presence of Bd--certainly nothing new here; the goons love to troll Darleen's blog).
But really, Darleen and I are both pretty straightforward with our speech; there's not much room for confusion due to "nuance."

Posted by: Beth at June 10, 2007 10:19 PM

Bd

Did you like, not see the links I sprinkled in?

Do you think John Edwards fired Mandy because she did NOT say the things she was accused of?

Don't you find it at least interesting how she indulges in labeling people rape apologists for questioning the Duke rape hoax, yet doesn't believe the true stories of Saddam's rape rooms are "exactly news"?

Hey, looky! Amanda's own words...not "right wing trope!"

But hey, if you want to pretend Amanda doesn't say such things, fantasize away!

Posted by: Darleen at June 10, 2007 10:20 PM

Chris

You might understand that Beth and I are feminists.

Classical feminists...ie, equity feminists.

There is a huge difference in the belief that men and women are due, legally, morally and ethically, to the full and free opportunity to pursue their dreams to the extent of their talents

compared to the belief that men and women "are the same."

The "feminism" of Amanda is subsumed by Leftism. And it demands that the apostasy exhibited by such as Beth and me be punished by stripping us of our "authenticity" as women.


Posted by: Darleen at June 10, 2007 10:26 PM

This has nothing to do with the thread, but I am the other Chris.

I find it highly entertaining that "progressives" generally seem to have such a hard time with the traditional family. My greatest regret from my divorce comes from knowing that my children will not be afforded the distinction of coming from a traditional family. I guess if everyone's dysfunctional, then you can't be bad, huh?

Who's Bd? Is that Brad without his middle letters?

Posted by: Chris at June 11, 2007 09:51 AM

I saw them Darleen. Left unexplained is why you think her writing about the Duke rape case and Saddam Hussein supports the assertion that she's anti-family. You also fail to grasp the distinction between criticizing the traditional cultural representation of the family and being "anti-family." In short, you didn't think about what types of claims you have made and what evidence would support those claims - you just grabbed a bunch of stuff you don't like in the hope that something would stick. A middle-schooler could do a better job writing a persuasive essay.

Posted by: Bd at June 11, 2007 10:28 AM

Okay, to avoid confusion, instead of "Chris" (the first one) I'll go under the name "Claire".

I think Bd makes a valid point in distinguishing between "criticizing the traditional cultural representation of the family and being 'anti-family'". For example, I believe all familial arrangements should be socially accepted, but I don't think that the 'traditional' family is the only legitimate arrangement or the only arrangement that will ensure healthy child-rearing.

Chris, you shouldn't beat yourself up for being divorced; I'm sure your children will grow up to be perfectly healthy, happy people, despite having endured their parents' breakup. It took me and my siblings a while to get over our folks' divorce, but we did, and we're none the worse for it.

Posted by: Claire at June 11, 2007 11:08 AM

Not beating myself up at all, just voicing a regret. After all, I got a divorce because I thought that my ex-wife dating while we were married set a bad example for the children.

Posted by: Chris at June 12, 2007 06:23 AM

The 'traditional' family is the only model we have had since the beginning of recorded history. Even taking into account the extended family, the task of raising children to replenish the race has fallen to the parents of said children, with the parents forming a bond (based on mutual need, affection or pragmatism) that is/was expected to last until the end of life. I find it difficult to believe that in thousands of years, other familial arrangements have not been tried, and, in fact, have been found wanting.

If something isn't broken, then why rush to fix it? We have only a few decades, if even that, of any of these alternative arrangements functioning in modern society. I think it would be wise to view them very carefully before pronouncing them of equal efficacy. Which is the essence of conservatism.

Posted by: Chris at June 12, 2007 06:33 AM

The 'traditional' family is the only model we have had since the beginning of recorded history.

Not true. Abraham had multiple wives. Single mothers (widows or otherwise) have raised children for millenia.

At any rate, the point is not to change the traditional family. The point is to acknowledge that other family structures can and do function to raise children.

Bd is bd. Not brad.

Posted by: Bd at June 12, 2007 10:09 AM

Contrary to what you might think, my lack of devotion to male dominance in no way, shape or form means that I'm anti-family. There are a lot of families that are left out of the "family values" crap because their families are not structured around the idea that everything is about Daddy and his ego. Lauren and I are there to speak for them, politically speaking. The website is for people who abstain from the usual bullshit that gets shoved down your throat at parenting websites, which is why we were asked to blog there.

Posted by: Amanda Marcotte at June 12, 2007 11:59 AM

There are a lot of families that are left out of the "family values" crap because their families are not structured around the idea that everything is about Daddy and his ego.

Right, because nobody listens to women anymore.

Why don't you tell us what it's like to be black next, Amanda?

Posted by: Pablo at June 12, 2007 04:32 PM

Daddy and his ego? That's hilarious!

But seriously, I totally understand Lauren blogging about parenting, but why you, Amanda? Shouldn't somebody blogging about parenting be a parent? I'm not trying to be rude, just asking.

Posted by: ratan at June 12, 2007 06:27 PM

There are a lot of families that are left out of the "family values" crap because their families are not structured around the idea that everything is about Daddy and his ego.

Amanda, you move from the brass section to the wind section to the string section...but you still keep playing the one-note symphony

"It's all about the Patriarchy(tm)!!!"

It allows you to say such nonsense such as [paraphrase]'people who oppose gay marriage do so because they are afraid of an example of a relationship between equals' ... Laughable bullshitting because same-sex couples are just as likely to suffer all the pitfalls of opposite-sex couples. Ya think there's NO domestic violence in SS couples???

Claire, it is not about 'traditional' families as "the only authentic", it's about ideals.

For instance, it is "ideal" for parents to encourage their kids to be serious in school, learn the subjects well and get "A"s in class. However, as long as they've worked up to their potential, there is no shame nor anything wrong with "B"s and "C"s.

The ideal place for children is in an intact, loving family with married mom and dad. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with single parenthood or blended families or even SS couple parenthood. It is just not the ideal.

Do you think getting rid of the grade system in schools would benefit or harm students? Do you think getting rid of traditional families would benefit or harm children?

Posted by: Darleen at June 13, 2007 07:12 AM

Do you think getting rid of the grade system in schools would benefit or harm students? Do you think getting rid of traditional families would benefit or harm children?

As to your first question: benefit, because grades can't provide sufficient and informative feedback to students. Plenty of educational institutions use narrative evaluation systems rather than grades, including my own alma mater.

As to your second: neither. All familial arrangements are fine, so long as the parents themselves treat each other and their child/children with love and respect.

Posted by: Claire at June 13, 2007 05:10 PM