Comments on: Promoting positive discussion

By: Dana

Dana — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:45:51 +0000

I do not understand why people mess with kids on the internet. I’ve had to delete a few comments on my daughter’s blog. And stop publicly associating myself with it because I get just a little too much traffic.

Of course, some of it was my fault. Her first moniker happened to be the name for an international porn star. Like I would have known that. But when her neglected blog started getting more traffic than mine (this was a long time ago), I had to figure out where they were coming from.

Yuck!

By: JJ Ross

JJ Ross — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:44:59 +0000

I just read Dana’s new post about the exploitative magazine photos, wondering if the same reasoning should apply to the issue of “published” hostility and verbal abuse aimed at girls and young women:

This disturbs me deeply. . . They are testing the limits of the law, generating publicity and ultimately dollars through the exploitation of young people.

But it is perhaps only the natural “next step” . . . Why are we allowing our children to be socialized into that? Is this the “real world” we homeschoolers are accused of isolating our children from? Or is this yet another artificial one, being marketed to us by the “merchants of cool?”

By: JJ Ross

JJ Ross — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:26:07 +0000

But at some level this is dead serious and about our kids, not who’s “keeping” us but who’s keeping them and their youthful freedom and optimism and civic space — safe.

My own amusement or outrage or indifference isn’t what I think of when the trolls slither by. I think about my beautiful always-unschooled daughter, now 18, who has her own blog and has attracted a truly creepy troll or two, not just a clueless public school mom shooting her mouth off in a snit but dark, purposely menacing, persistent whack-jobs. Tormented souls and criminally ill minds are just as likely to be online as anywhere else, maybe more likely.

By: Life On The Planet

Life On The Planet — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:38:03 +0000

Oooo! A kept woman!
Question – Would I get a maid?

Second Question – Could he keep me in Paris every now and then? Rome? London? In a large country house with a chef and a personal trainer?

Just asking.

By: Dana Hanley

Dana Hanley — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:28:30 +0000

Oh, none of it bothers me all that much. But when every sentence is filled with that kind of nonsense, it is impossible to have a discussion. There isn’t a point because the other person is only trying to get a rise out of you, not discuss anything with you.

By: Kristina

Kristina — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:11:33 +0000

“Subsidizing your maternity” is better than saying a SAHM is a kept woman. It’s a little more ‘polite’ anyway.

I like that graphic as well. It drives me nuts when someone refuses to argue the point. I have no problem with disagreement. It is one of the reasons I blog. But, when they stop making sense and just throw out insults, it has to be moderated.

By: Renae

Renae — Wed, 14 May 2008 02:26:42 +0000

Maybe I need to get out more, but I still avoid such confrontations. I’m glad that you are taking them on though. I learn from your criticisms.

By: Dana

Dana — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:29:16 +0000

Thanks, Loudacris! I like that one and it is probably more visually accurate. But I really like your “Maslowian” one. I’ll add that link, too, though.

By: Crimson Wife

Crimson Wife — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:53:10 +0000

I wonder if your commenter would criticize my cousin who is a SAHD for his wife “subsidizing his paternity”? Somehow, I doubt it…

By: Life On The Planet

Life On The Planet — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:23:02 +0000

“your husband subsidizes your maternity”

Well, really! Whether you homeschool, are a SAHM or have a job for pay outside of the home he darn well better! If he didn’t, wouldn’t that be called child neglect? Or was he supposed to abandon his responsibilities to the ‘government’ (i.e. let the rest of us subsidize your maternity)?