Helicopter parents
JT Eberhard also disagrees with Chris Stedman. Actually it’s a little more than disagreement. It’s about…what it always is about: Stedman pretending to have the moral high ground when in fact he’s just being petulant because someone disagrees with him.
There’s a parallel discussion at Facebook, including Jen McCreight and James Croft, and meanwhile back at the ranch, meaning here…Chris’s mother has explained why it’s perfectly fine for her to defend him in Facebook disagreements. This is a new move in SIWOTI disputes, at least in my experience, and it’s a tad disconcerting. I’m used to adults defending themselves, not being defended by their parents. I hadn’t really thought about it before but I now realize I have always simply assumed that parents automatically recuse themselves from public disputes involving their offspring, because they are not disinterested parties. Apparently that’s wrong, so all of you who have parents living, feel free to summon them if I disagree with you. I’m squeamish about arguing with people while their parents are watching.
I always assumed you keep your mommy out of adult fights because it makes you look like an immature asshole, your parent look like a smothering asshole, and anyone who attacks your mommy look like as asshole for picking on your mommy.
OK, can someone quote it? Thanks.
Wow.
There’s not much else to say for the moment.
Quote it; ok:
Then some hours and a bunch of comments later
Then four hours ago
Nothing especially horrifying, it’s just that…….
“it’s just that…” it is exactly the sort of passive-aggressive crap that we have been complaining about from Chris Stedman from the beginning?
Well, that too, but I meant it’s just that…they’re from his mother.
If Stedman’s mum didn’t like him, or thought him a tosser, and this was publicly known, then an against the grain comment supporting his post might be seen as neutral. Apart from that, it’s just akin to a stultifying rhetorical move. I should know, I make a few of them. :)
Apples and trees… one doesn’t fall far from the other.
Thanks.
What’s with all the quotation marks? And is she saying she’s religious again because she doesn’t like some atheists?
Anyway, the second – if she’s not actively involved in these discussions in other contexts – does sound like a mother jumping to her son’s defense by painting criticism as being “horrible” (or “”horrible””). (If she is regularly involved and saying similar things publicly, that’s different.)
While not a parent, I understand the protective impulse, but…just, no.
OB:
Heh. To spare.
My mommy is bigger than your mommy:-)
@DavidLeech (#11)
Taking that literally, your mom may need to consider going on a diet. Unless you’re simply claiming that she’s outrageously tall, in which case she could use a comfy pair of shoes, and you should get right on that…
Perhaps you would like to include the comment I was commenting on ( by Carla Reilly Bond) to provide a bit of context…
I can’t quite bring myself to speculate publicly on a man’s relationship with his mother, even if it looks uncannily like about half a dozen other adult parent-child relationships I’ve seen. I’ll just say: hey there, Future Chris? Chris circa 2020-2022 or so, idly poking through this ancient website? You’re probably looking back and wincing right now as you’re figuring some stuff out about some boundaries you wish you’d had in place. Come find me, and whether or not we’re on opposite sides of whatever ideological divide there might be then, I’ll buy you any drink you like.
Really Toni… you’re sure there’s a context where this isn’t humiliating for your adult son?
Carla wrote: Attitudes like that are a large part of why I turned away from religion in the first place. Too much rigid insistence on being ‘right.’ It’s how wars are started and how people are enabled to do horrible things to ‘others.’ and someone called Toni Stedman responded. She’s some sort of relation – apparently Chris’ mother – but people from dysfunctional families sometimes don’t realise that family members grow up and just end up being good friends.
Is the context “Chris, we have a bomb set to explode in a populated city in exactly one hour unless your mother comments on this disagreement” and you did so against your better judgement in order to save millions of innocent people?
Because, as Improbable Joe implies, I’m scratching my head to figure out a context in which your intervention is necessary and appropriate.
That must be the issue then. Next time Chris is praying to a god he doesn’t believe in in order to build bridges with those who do believe, can he ask that I be retroactively born into a functioning family so that I can better understand such a dynamic and thus avoid these sorts of embarrassing misunderstandings?\
I apologise if the abuse I suffered as a child caused an awkward moment for the Cleavers.
Thanks.
Hey Brownian… first off, I heard you were crazy sexy, but I’m just not feeling it. :)
Secondly, I wasn’t implying anything. “Implying” is way more subtle than I tend to bother with under normal conditions. I was stating outright and as strongly as is possible in a semi-anonymous Internet format that there is no context that I can imagine in which it is not humiliating for an adult to be defended from semi-anonymous Internet criticism by their mommy or daddy. At all, under any circumstance, period, full stop end of sentence.
Tsk. The internet and its rumour mill. What you heard is only 50% true.
Toni, you are not doing any favors for Chris. You’re making him look like a fool. There is no possible way Mom can intervene or “contribute” or whatever implausibly neutral term you come up with without making her child look like he’s clutching the apron strings. It’s embarrassing, and you should stop.
“awkward” – you kidding? Look at the mirror – you lot are starting to look more an more absurd. A circus. Parodies of yourselves. But nobody has been made to feel awkward, not even you.
@Browning:
I guess you’re just crazy!
Also, I’m sincerely sorry that you suffered abuse when you were a child. I wish you’d been able to experience a fairly functional upbringing. At the end of it, I think we both wound up at more or less the same place-and you’re more impressive because you had to work harder-and we both can see that it is weird for some adult’s mom to interfere in an online dispute to protect her son from criticism.
“someone from a functioning family” is a sad sock-puppet. The question now is whether it is more embarrassing to use a sock-puppet or to have your mother defend you?
Look, you’re clearly a very smart person, and your oblique references to self-parody (wouldn’t you have to know who I am before you can detect whether or not I’m a parody of myself?) just aren’t working for me. I’m afraid you’ll have to be more specific with your criticisms.
Maybe have your Mom stop by to help out.
I think part of the problem is that having these converastions on FB sort of erases the public-private distinction. I mean, it’s not like she showed up at his book talk or a debate or something. It’s a social site where different parts of your life bleed into one another.
But then, I blame any number of problems on Facebook. Because I hate Facebook. Because it’s evil.
:)
I’m going to defend Ms Stedman.
First, it’s FB. It’s a place for social stuff.
And secondly, a mother is still a human being who is equally entitled to an opinion and a say in the conversation. If she commented on a blog with a ‘nym you wouldn’t even know it. Unless she is not actually arguing, but saying stupid shit like “how dare you hurt my baybeeeee”, then she doesn’t deserve mockery over this.
(Though she does deserve a serve for her use of the “gnus are gnasty” cliche, but that’s just as a regular human being. Nothing to do with being a “Mom” and therefore, apparently, a woman who should Just Shut Up. All of Chris’ defenders do the same thing, whether friends, relatives, Polly-O or random internet followers.)
But Cath, the reality is that no one’s mom can show up on FB —-when her son has a high public profile by virtue of getting articles published on PuffHo, in the Washington Post’s blogs, etc.—and expect to be taken as merely another disinterested commentator. I mean, it really is pretty obvious, isn’t it?
Hardly. But thanks for the kind words, IP.
The speed at which the accommodationists descend to this level of pathos would make me ashamed to call myself an atheist, were I an integrity-free, all-that-matters-is-popularity, pearl-clutching type given to such idiotic hyperbole.
Yes, and that illustrates the point. That’s what she should have done (or not commented at all). It doesn’t matter how cool/collected/neutral Toni Stedman is, she is still Chris’ mother. And we can’t expect any reasonable person to be able to wipe that from their brain when reacting to her defense of her son. It’s an unfair discursive move (even it it’s innocent, and even if she doesn’t mean to) that takes advantage of the taboo against frank criticism of a parent’s child to that parent’s face. Again, it is that even if she doesn’t consciously mean it to be.
And yes, I’d explicitly and stridently bar my family from jumping into such conversations, because I care about my credibility. I did so just last night when my brother offered to give my newly published book a review on Amazon. Absolutely not. No one takes reviews from family and friends seriously, they make the author look desperate, and there will always be the suspicion that the author wrote a shitty book and then begged his family to do free PR.
What what? What book is this, Josh?
I was using that just as an illustration for the comment, and I don’t wanna book whore on O’s site without her permission. Sorry I was cryptic! Email me at joshua (my surname)(the numeral 1) at comcast.net and I’ll be happy to link you up:)
So at what age in a child’s life do its parents lose their right to make comments in agreement with their offspring?
As Cath says above, unless she’s doing it only because he’s her son, and because ‘all the nasty people are picking on him’, why on earth should her opinions count for less than anyone else’s? Isn’t ‘Awwww did mummy have to help you’ just a little bit playground?
Stop it, Daz. It’s not about anyone “losing the right.” It’s about the atmosphere projected when one’s mother or father jumps in to defend a son (a public figure) from public criticism, and how that awkwardly inhibits conversation. As was explained so very, very clearly above.
That’s why I mentioned above that if it was shown that she’s regularly involved in public discussions on the subject I’d see it differently. Otherwise, it does look like protectiveness, especially because there doesn’t seem to be any substance beyond ‘all the nasty people are picking on him’.
It was explained above, yes. I just kinda disagree with the explanation. I can see no reason why a parent’s opinion should count for less, or why it should be assumed that she’s ‘protecting’ him. My family has always had a love of debate, and I’d think it unusual if my mother didn’t get involved.
Sorry SC, your comment appeared while I was typing the above.
Well, if it can be shown to be nothing but protectiveness, then of course I withdraw the argument.
Would you feel that way if you were running for office, and your dad campaigned for you? Would you feel that way if you were publicly criticized for your views on local taxation, and your dad wrote a letter to the editor defending your plan and your campaign? Probably not. You’d probably say to yourself, “I know my family’s smart, and I know they’d back me, but any disinterested observer is going to look at dad’s letter and say, ‘sheesh, he’s got his own dad going to bat for him’.”
This is elementary conflict of interest theory. It doesn’t matter whether you think your family is an exception (they’re not). And it doesn’t even matter if they’re actually honest enough to call you out publicly if your paper/candidacy) is full of bunk (and no, Daz, they’re not. Humans don’t do that unless they want to best you.) Reasonable people won’t believe a thing your family says.
No. The null hypothesis is that it’s protectiveness. She’s his mother, for goodness’ sake. I can’t believe you’re having this much difficulty understanding this.
Stardate 21433.6: Captain Benson in command of the USS Enterprise.
Uhura: Captain, I have an incoming message from the USS Kumbaya.
Spock: Captain, let me remind you of a recent warning from Starfleet that the Kumbaya has been behaving erratically and may be under the influence of the Klingons’ rumored new Mommifier ray.
Benson: Warning noted. Onscreen.
[A friendly face appears onscreen.] Hi, this is Junior Cadet Stedman in command of the USS Kumbaya.
Benson: Uhura, break communications.
Uhura: Yes, Captain.
Benson: What in Beelzebub’s name is a Junior Cadet doing in command of a Starship?
Spock: This could be evidence that the rumors are true.
Sulu: Captain, the Kumbaya seems to have locked us in some kind of a tractor beam. We are awash in pastel colors and I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Spock: This is definitely the deadly Mommifier ray. Our shields appear useless. We must take defensive action immediately.
Benson: Mr Sulu, fire photon torpedoes.
Sulu: Firing.
Chekov: What is that, Captain? Those don’t look like torpedoes. They look like daffodils!
Benson: Scotty, fire up the warp engines. Mr Chekov, get us out of here.
Scotty: Blast it, Captain! When I fired it up, the warp core transformed into a purple dinosaur. It’s dancing and singing and it’s damned annoying! My engineers are starting to commit suicide and I canna take much more!
[Another friendly face appears onscreen.] Hi, this is Toni. Prepare to be assimilated.
[A soft gooey liquid begins to pour out of the ventilation ducts.]
Spock: What is this, Captain? It looks like melted ice cream, and it tastes … it tastes like homemade apple pie!
Benson: All hands abandon ship!
Crew [in unison]: Urgle gurgle.
[Captain and crew all drown in a delicious treacly deluge.]
Actually it’s very common when people run for office that their family campaigns for them. Families go out on the campaign trail all the time. Yes, it’s assumed they’re on-side because they’re family, but you don’t get to dis their arguments simply by noting that the relationship exists. (And sometimes there’s real disagreement – see Ron Reagan Jr.)
And it started on facebook, so not exactly an academic discussion forum, and Ms Stedman didn’t come here until after she’d been mocked and belittled for daring to join the discussion. Her point, crappy as it was, was in terms that any old Stedman defender might use. You’ve got a total and obvious ad hominem going which runs as “she’s the mom, so I can just disregard anything she says.”
Play the argument, not the person.
Josh
Except this isn’t someone running for office etc. It’s a conversation on a social networking site where, as I understand it, it’s normal for one’s friends and family to feel free to comment. It’s not like Stedman has shown any lack of willingness to defend his views countless other times, in other venues, without his mother’s back-up.
Your null hypothesis would appear to be a matter of opinion, given that at least two people obviously haven’t jumped to that conclusion. My ‘lack of understanding’ is nothing but a different opinion from your own.
Anyway, as I say above, if it does turn out to be nothing but maternal protectiveness, then I withdraw. If it doesn’t turn out to be such, then I think, given the nature of the venue, her actions would be perfectly reasonable.
But we are talking about someone who is a public figure, and who is published in national media. It’s not as if Facebook nullifies that. If you can’t see how being a public figure—and talking about your widely publicly published views—changes the dynamic, I don’t know how to talk to you. Facebook isn’t some private “family only” venue, especially when you have access to HuffPo, WAPo, etc.
Nope. It really is reasonable to assume “mom is going to be protective of her offspring, therefore her opinions shoudl be considered in that light” is the null hypothesis. That’s not controversial. Do you really think your own family would behave differently? (And if you do, you have either an extraordinary family, or you’re extraordinarily obtuse. In either case, no outside observer could be faulted for taking your own family’s evaluation of your work with a grain of salt).
I have a really hard time believing this isn’t obvious to you.
To be fair, while it would probably mortify me, my mother would probably defend me on facebook too. Of course I don’t actually log into facebook because It feels like i’m being watched when I do.
Of course. Everyone’s mother would. It’s what parents do. That’s why I can’t understand why there’s a chorus of “not fair!” going on here when people point that out. What planet are you all living on?
Now, we know the DBAD crowd love any chance to jump on the gnu-bashwagon; just step back for a bit & imagine the storms of ridicule they’d whip up were this Mrs Myers or Mrs Benson doing the same thing.
Oh, so it’s an assumption. That makes it perfectly okay to belittle her expressing an opinion, then.
If the situation were Skatje getting into an argument with faitheists on FB and PZ chiming in on her side making arguments typical of him, while it could be from a protective impulse, that wouldn’t be assumed, and for good reason. He’s been involved with these debates and regularly intervenes in them throughout the internet, and there would be no reason to dismiss his comments as merely parental or see them as, well, funny or embarrassing. That doesn’t seem to be the case here, but admittedly I’m not on FB and have no prior knowledge of Toni Stedman so I don’t have full information. I think protectiveness is the default assumption in the absence of evidence that the parent is simply acting as he or she always does with regard to the topic at hand. Therefore, in this case so far: funny and embarrassing.
I can hear the intro music now…
Are we honestly discussing this? I just pinched myself.
Ophelia, do yourself and everyone else a favor and write something that actually contributes to dialogue. Honestly, what is the purpose of this post?
Josh Slocum (#30)
I guess I’m unreasonable then. Yes, people tend to be biased towards their relatives, but people tend to be biased towards in-groups in general. However, relatives don’t necessarily share ideologies, and people are also prone to publicly correcting their relatives when they see them acting the fool. How much of the relationship between them would anyone invoke if Stedman the Elder instead criticized her son on Facebook, I wonder?
My instinct is to assume Toni Steadman is speaking her own mind and acting supportive for the sake of a common philosophy (an entirely stupid philosophy, yes), not that she’s making a knee-jerk defense of her little boy. The latter’s always a possibility, or it could be a combination of the two, but I would prefer to be shown she has no habit of taking this particular side beyond matters involving her son.
Also, expecting silence from the lesser folk for the sake of the more prominent so-and-so’s credibility is a silly custom, and we’re not obligated to perpetuate it. We don’t have to be those disinterested observers you speak of; we can let what Toni says reflect on her, not on her son.
(#46)
Unless she had a stake in the argument itself, mine wouldn’t. Even if I was hauling in opprobrium by the bucketful, she’d keep out of it. She’s not some special breed of woman; it’s just that even on those topics where we agree, she doesn’t think I need defending, especially since I’m so often the one who instigates arguments.
Rachel Storm, given that this is Ophelia’s website and she is free to put up whatever and you are free not to look at whatever Ophelia puts on her website I don’t quite understand why you would comment on something that you think has no purpose.
Wow. I’m genuinely shocked that so many people here would find a parent’s defense of her own child to be self-interested. That they’d question the questioning of the objectivity of that person.
Have I fallen into Wonderland?
Josh, I just prefer evidence to assumption.* From what I can gather she didn’t come in saying ‘You all leave my son alone, you nasty bullies’; she came in with pertinent comments. Given that they match her son’s opinions, I very much doubt I’d agree with those comments, but I’d rather see her argument addressed than see people attacking the arguer, based on her assumed motives.
* I kinda thought this was the base definition of scepticism.
2011 at 9:45 pm
Bullshit. It’s a perfectly reasonable assumption to think, “this is a man’s mother. As such, she has an interest in protecting him. Because of that, she’s like to go to the mat to protect him even if he doesn’t ‘deserve it’ intellectually. This is what we’d expect from kin, even our own kin.”
Don’t tell me you can’t see this (so don’t lie).
If my mum thought I was in the wrong on an important issue, she’d disagree with me. In public, if necessary. I’d expect no less.
Did she, or did she not, contribute a pertinent comment to the discussion that was in hand?
Did she, or did she not, make some ‘motherly’ comment to the effect that people should stop bullying her son?
If (a), then address her argument. If (b), then tell her that her comment is out of place.
It really is that simple. If Chris Stedman is embarrassed by her intervention, then it’s up to him to tell her so, not for us to point fingers and make snickering remarks and, in effect, call him a mama’s boy.
Your implication that I’d lie to protect a position you <i>assume</i> I know is false, is noted.
Josh Slocum (#54)
I’m not questioning the questioning. I’m questioning the leaping to conclusions, is what. I’m not unquestioning, myself, and I don’t think Daz is either; we’ve both said we’re open to the possibility of Toni’s motivations being wholly mommyish. But I am not about to start there, because I don’t think people stop being people when they become parents. When it comes to internet spats (as opposed to tiger attacks, for instance), there are many, stronger influences on a mother’s objectivity than her protective instinct.
(#56)
No, I don’t think it’s reasonable. It’s a common assumption, but that doesn’t make it a reasoned one. But even if your assumption is true in Toni Stedman’s case, I think we stand to gain more from confronting her as her own person regardless of her motivations.
Well,
Again, I don’t have all of the context, but that sounds rather like ‘You all leave my son alone, you nasty bullies’, unless she was including her son in the category of those being (frowny-face) “horrible.”
What exactly was her substantive contribution beyond ‘I support my son’ and ‘Gnus are horrible’?
SC, is that from the original FB conversation or a later discussion of her part in the FB conversation?
Either way, it’s certainly arguing against tone rather than content,I’d agree. At the same time, it seems more like a statement of opinion than a maternal defence. Not that the two are necessarily incongruent, of course.
“Gnus are horrible” ;is a pertinent argument, to most accomodationsts. :-)
Seeing as I, like you, am not on FB, we await someone taking the obvious step of pasting the comments in question.
My main point is though, that the ‘Oooh you needed mama’s help did you, ickle boy?’ attack seems, well, petty.
It’s what was quoted @ #4 as her FB comments.
In this context, I don’t think they’re separable. Again, if she’d been expressing similar opinions publicly in contexts not involving her son that would be one thing, but in lieu of that it looks a lot like a maternal defense in the form of a statement of opinion about gnus. Even if she’s just inspired by this argument to make her previous views public, it’s a terrible time to do it as: 1) given the timing it comes across as simply maternal, so no one’s going to take it particularly seriously; 2) it’s bound to inhibit debate; and 3) it makes Chris look silly.
Is that an actual quote from someone?
All this fuss is about three comments? Sorry, I’d assumed (heh) that there was more to it than that. And what happened between the first two? Is the second a response to comments about her being Chris’s mother, or just a comment on the way the debate had progressed?
And it still looks like a statement of opinion more than a rushing to little Chris’s defence, to me. She has to be aware that he’s perfectly capable of conducting his own defence.
No it’s a paraphrase of the ‘Chris looks silly ’cause his mummy helped him out’ argument.
Italics aside, what does the number of comments matter? And why are you arguing the matter without having even read the comments on this or the other thread here? And if you didn’t know what her comments were prior to my quoting them, as it appears you didn’t, on what basis did you argue above that “From what I can gather…she came in with pertinent comments”? Sounds a little suspicious, Daz, to be honest.
Sorry, I think at this point you’re being, to be generous, a contrarian.
SC (#59)
I don’t have all the context either, but I read that bit more as the nicey-nice-all-the-time-except-to-gnasty-gnus attitude typical of accomos, myself. And, after all, since when is that lot ever fair-minded in who they hold culpable for any “horribleness”?
(#63)
But that, at least 1 and 3, says so much more about the people who feel that way than it says about either Toni or Chris Stedman.
No, it’s a misrepresentation of it.
Again, if presented with evidence that she’s been part of “that lot” publicly in the past, in contexts that didn’t involve criticism of her son, my view would change. Barring that, the identity from which I see her to be “arguing” is as a parent.
SC, I can, I admit, be a contrarian for the hell of it, around people I know who also enjoy ‘devil’s advocate’ debating. But not on this occasion, and not on a board where I’m either unknown or virtually unknown. I’m too aware of the risk of being branded a troll. (If anyone’s wondering, I’m a long-time lurker here, but I seldom comment, ’cause others generally say what I want to, and much more eloquently.)
In this case, I genuinely believe that the tactic being employed is poor. That the inference is that Chris Stedman is being made to look silly by the actions of another, over whose actions he had no control. (My opinion based on what I’ve seen isn’t that she was mothering him, just that she was stating opinions, no matter how ‘tone-troll-ish’, which reflect on her, not him. That’s secondary, though, to the idea of him being ‘tainted by association’.)
BTW, her third comment does make it appear that after the second one, if not before, people were most definitely attacking the idea of ‘the mother’ stating an opinion, not the opinion itself, no matter how lame that opinion was.
And I’m off to work now. Hate to cut and run, but not enough to lose me job. :-)
Actually, he isn’t remotely capable of it* (the link to JT Eberhard in the OP is illustrative, but not necessary for most readers of this blog). But that’s neither here nor there – parents can be protective of their children regardless of real need.
*Not really his fault – he’s arguing an indefensible position. But it’s his fault that he’s arguing it.
I would expect someone making the move from lurking to commenting would actually read at least the comments on the thread they’re going to be commenting on.
There is no tactic. You’re talking nonsense.
That appears to be correct. Not an inference – an observation. If you’d read the earlier comments you’d see that most of the comments were directed to her, and were fairly gentle, if mocking. I don’t think anyone believes he called her to his defense.
But of course you haven’t responded to my basic point about history.
See the title of this post. As you acknowledged when you mentioned that she allegedly must know that he can defend himself, a parent coming to the defense of an adult child in this context gives the impression that he can’t defend himself, and it makes things awkward, inhibiting people from criticism.
Trying to infer other comments from hers seems like not the best idea.
I’m taking off, too. ‘Night, all.
Ha, this reminds me of a slightly different experience.
Many years ago, when I was still living at my parents’, I used to write lots of letters to the local newspaper. There were often discussions and arguments at home about the issues, it was fun. One week, I opened the letters page to find three letters on the same subject given equal prominence.
There was my letter, putting forward one side of the subject, another letter taking the opposite point of view, and then in the middle a letter from my dad taking a “middle line”!
He’d started it, “you have probably received at least one other letter on this subject this week…”
I was gobsmacked, but not really in a bad way – it was very funny and really cool.
Certainly it wouldn’t have been so cool to have my dad writing in to agree and defend me!
Dan
I for one wish I didn’t have to struggle against my parentals, though. *sigh*
This is precisely why I refuse to be FB friends with my mom – there’s just no way to get it through to her that she’s doing me absolutely no favors by acting in this way, so it’s better to just not give her the platform in the first place.Ophelia, maybe you should send a screenshot of that FB conversation to this blog: http://www.stfuparentsblog.com/
My son would be really pissed if I made any comment in a situation like this. He would delete it because it came from me and could be considered bias. I don’t do facebook, but I might join just to follow some of these discussions.
Well, her main point boiled down to “Gnus are nasty & stubborn, they are horrible to others”. Others including her son. I think the impression of a parent coming to the rescue of an adult child in a “stop being mean” kinda way easily springs to mind, here. An adult should be able to cope with mean people by themselves.
So, this at least looks weird. As others have noted, this is probably confusing for readers and might even stifle discussion.
He promotes his FB profile on his blog. So this is a (semi) public venue (2500 “friends”?). His book & interfaith stuff aspires to be professional / work-related, I guess? It’s very weird for parents to show up at an adult child’s workplace.
So, I’d do it differently: have a profile for family & close friends; have another public figure one for his fans for his promotional needs. This way there would be a clear distinction between private & public.
Despite his mom acting like an opposite version of the Monty Python Life of Brian mother (“He’s not a very naughty boy, he’s the messiah!”) I, for one, welcome her contribution.
In fact I’d like to hear more!
For a start she might explain why she brought up her son with such a terror of hell that he spent years, in his own words, praying to God “to make me straight instead of gay”. OK, she might have changed her mind about that issue by now but it might be genuinely informative to us non religious folk to communicate with the religious on this point – I say we should reach out to her and ask that she does the same with us! That is the whole point of Chris Stedman’s mission, isnt’t it?
Ophelia, do you think you could start a new project to get the Gnus working with Chris Stedman’s mom?
Quite, and he uses his FB profile to promote himself. (Understandably, and that’s one thing it’s for, etc, but…it’s a particularly self-promoty kind of self-promotion. Lots of “oh gosh I’m amazed at how many people totally adore the excerpt from my book” kind of thing.)
Having waited to reply to this topic, I wavered back and forth between supporting Toni’s right to express whatever opinion she chooses (just like anyone else), and supporting the point that parents defending their adult children in semi-public forums *does* in fact inhibit discussion, for obvious cultural/historical reasons.
I still support Toni’s speech. However, I also think that it is (in the context of a semi-public forum with many anonymous onlookers) an unfair move for a parent to make. She is free to say whatever, but we are also free to point out the unfairness of the move, and to attempt to re-establish a level playing field.
So, Toni, if you care, I don’t see what you did as ‘wrong’ or unethical, but I think you should realize that such defenses in a semi-public forum like FB will inevitably *appear* to be biased and ‘shushing’ reasonable debate, and so you should not be surprised if there is a negative backlash to it. As long as the backlash itself doesn’t cross the line of being wrong or unethical, you have nothing to complain about, and any further complaining about reasonable objections will only appear to confirm the idea that you’re just defending Chris because he is close kin.
There are two ways Toni could proceed that I would see as recovering from a minor faux pas: 1) Begin to address the actual arguments of gnus, rather than just calling them ‘horrible’. And if you choose to keep calling them ‘horrible’, you are obligated to provide evidence of this horribleness. 2) Continue saying whatever you want to say, including supporting your son, but do it pseudonymously, so that people will address your statements directly rather than dismissing them as ‘probably biased’. Nobody would have cared if you had said the exact same things under a pseudonym, because they wouldn’t have felt the cultural/historical burden of the taboo from criticizing a child (adult or young) in front of their parents. That was the essential unfairness of the move, and pseudonymity would eliminate it.
Hamilton – brilliant.
Sigmund – yes quite, and that’s another reason…
Josh feel totally free to whore your book here! I’m going to whore it myself any day now.
A treat! I’ll wait for your pimpage. Wouldn’t want to Toni Stedman my own self. . .
Right well then for the moment – the book is
Final Rights
by Joshua Slocum, Executive Director, Funeral Consumers Alliance, and Lisa Carlson, Executive Director, Funeral Ethics Organization.
More whoring later, on a new page.
And of course now Stedman and his fans have misrepresented what I said and I can’t possibly set the record straight in situ and that’s exactly why parents should not get involved in such things. Ho hum.
Hell, I am regretting getting involved with this thing, even if it was only the one comment on this post. (Though, Future Chris, I’m sincere about that drink. And not to prejudice your choice, but I make a fine margarita. One trick is to infuse the simple syrup with lime zest.) Their relationship is not my business, and I wish I’d stuck to wincing and looking away.
Quite – their relationship is not my business either, to put it mildly, which is exactly why…etc.
So I’ve read through each and every comment on this topic and pondered and formulated a thoughtful thought:
I’ve tended bar in a Mexican restaurant (TexMex, really) and would like to argue the point of using simple syrup in a margarita. For a margarita perfecto add powdered sugar to freshly squeezed limes and shake until frothy. Sweet and sour mix is cheap and easy but nasty. And simple syrup is, well, syrupy and not a good consistency for a light, refreshing drink. In a restaurant or home, the viscous goo is often pre-made days, sometimes weeks before (also, sugar water needs to be to stored at minus 20 to prevent mold, not just refrigerated, or–horrors!–left at room temp).
I am intrigued with the novel idea of lime zest. I’ll have to try it. And don’t waste the top shelf tequila on a margarita. Any reposado will do.
We are in agreement on sweet and sour mix, that is for certain. Yuk. For me, the benefits of using an infused syrup easily outweigh what is, to my own taste, an extremely minor degradation in mouth feel, but it probably helps that I do not prefer my margaritas nearly as sweet as many people do. You pretty much have to use it the same day, by the way, or you lose some of the fresh aromatics. Infuse it gently and keep a lid on; every delicious whiff of lime scent is a delicious whiff that isn’t going into your drink.
That said, your comments have made me wonder about taking a second approach to the margarita. The thing is, the powdered sugar I’ve gotten here has always come with an unfortunate dose of anti-caking agent that I swear I can taste. Yuk again. But if I could grind pure sugar finely enough… or maybe there’s something by mail order… and here I start thinking that if I’m futzing around with the sugar anyway, why not try the old vanilla-sugar trick but with lime zest? (The trick also works well with rose petals, if you happen to have access to good fragrant unsprayed roses.) Leave plenty of curls of zest packed in sugar for a couple of weeks and I bet you wind up with sugar with a hit of lime.
Margaritas are serious business. Clearly, more research is indicated.
Not to change the subject from booze… but the more I think about it, the more I’m in favor of helicopter parents. But you know what I’m in favor of even more? Missile launcher parents… think about it.
I am thinking about it. And I’m thinking about my own mother. And it’s funny how my thoughts go right back to booze from there.
(I just can’t resist a cheap shot, can I? No, I cannot.)
I wish I had that problem. My mother insists on publicly disagreeing with me on Facebook (and in everyday life) frequently.
“…parents automatically recuse themselves from public disputes involving their offspring, because they are not disinterested parties…”
Come to think of it, I’ve never seen this done (thought I suppose one wouldn’t see it done, considering it’s something that’s not done). I can think of several public figures whose parents were interviewed or otherwise made statements on the character of their offspring. As a mother, I’m not really sure where I’d fall on the spectrum. I’ll let you know in twenty years when she becomes a public figure.
I saw Laura Caton(sp) on French Cooking at Home on the Cooking Channel use zest to make an infused simple syrup for quick limeade. It would probably work as well for Margaritas. I think she kept the syrup in her freezer. Don’t know how cold it was though…
I had a housemate from El Valle (Edinburgh I think) who used to make pitchers of Margaritas with the juice from 1 lime, 1 lemon, and one orange over ice with some sugar added in to adjust the sweetness. I think experimentation is in order to establish the exact amount of tequila and sugar. I feel obligated to find out in the interest of science.
Ha!
The stalkers have handed down a ruling – oh yes I am too so sexist.
http://kazez.blogspot.com/2011/06/nomama-rule.html
“amos” [s. wallerstein]:
Kazez:
Honestly – those two spend way too much time monitoring me, sucking up to anyone I disagree with, and doing creepy “oooooooh look what she’s said now” posts/comments about me. Stalk stalk stalky stalk.
I was going to write “Honestly. Honestly,” but then you did. Oh – I guess I did just write it! I mean, really. Amos is a fool, but Kazez (despite her faults) is not. I simply do not believe, no matter what she thinks of you on other counts, that she actually thinks you’re sexist.
Ah neither do I. The point, my dear Brutus, is not to believe it, but to say it.
She and amos and a few stalkers whom I won’t name ought to set up a group blog to do nothing but obsess about me (and Jerry Coyne). Oh come to think of it it’s been done; that was YNH.
OK, I’m confused now. How is it sexist to point out that it feels weird when a parent shows up in support of an adult child in a semi-public work-related setting?
I mean, I would lose all credibility at work when a relative showed up and interfered during a meeting (i.e. criticism by PZ et. al). Granted, it’s his FB profile with a select audience; he can do whatever the fuck he wants there, and I feel no one thought Toni should absolutely stop commenting. It was just awkward. It was my impression that some thought her comment was severely lacking substance, though.
But I don’t get it. If he wants to respond to public criticism, he could have done so publicly at Pharyngula (or even here). If he’s bothered by some colorful expressions he could have responded on his own public blog to run by his own commenting policy. If he just wants to vent, he should probably unfriend critics on his FB so he won’t get further reactions. Oh well, I guess I’d do it in somehow like that.
Let’s wait and see. I don’t expect anything though as I’m not impressed with him so far.
What can I say? I have a vocal and contentious daughter who has a blog; she often publicly disagrees with me, and people argue with her. She’s a big girl now, though, and I resist the temptation to blast in and try to take over her arguments for her, because she’s able to take care of herself. I trust her to speak for herself, without me holding her hand for her. The thing about Chris Stedman’s mother galloping in to the rescue isn’t that she doesn’t have the right to speak about her son’s views, but that they reveal that she doesn’t have a lot of confidence in her son’s ability to fend for himself. And that makes him look weak.
Bit busy here, but I feel the need to take time to make it clear that, although I argued against the idea that Toni shouldn’t show support for her son, I most certainly do not wish to be associated with these accusations of sexism. I never even thought it. Most of the comments of the subject that I’ve seen have used the words ‘parents’ and ‘mother’ pretty well interchangeably, anyway, so I can’t even see where they got the idea from. Ludicrous.
I don’t even know what to think about what they actually believe at this point. They’re so warped by their dislike of gnus and so wedded to accommodationism come hell or high water that they seem to be beyond reason. In an exasperated moment, I asked Ramsey at EvolutionBlog recently why on earth they would devote so much time to us (vs. religion? seriously?),and align themselves with such noxious agents, and didn’t receive an answer. You’d think after YNH they would at least step away from their obsessive focus on you/JC/PZ, but they don’t even seem to get that. Beyond reason and shame.
SC said “I don’t even know what to think about what they actually believe at this point.”
Josh Rosenau has described it in his own case as similar to choosing a political party allegiance. That is how I’ve viewed them in the past too. The specific points are not important to them – the major issue is that they position themselves as the correct choice for the public. In terms of this public position I think it is fair to say that they frame the choice as one of extremes – the extreme fundamentalist religious position versus the extreme anti-religious position – with themselves taking up the moderate middle ground. This ‘middle ground’ is also also inhabited by moderate religious types – the sort that are particularly into ecumenical reach-arounds.
I think the consequence of choosing this particular niche is a necessity to emphasize your difference with the ‘extremes’ and so those in this camp are heavily into othering religious fundamentalists and non faitheist atheists. To have a middle ground you need a ‘middle’ rather than just one side or the other. This means that the moderates can argue against the extreme fundamentalist atheists who are just as bad as the extreme religious fundamentalists. Now maybe there have been individuals who were atheists who were as bad as religious fundamentalists (Joe Stalin jumps to mind) but
Ooops, damn jumpy computer.
To continue…there might have been some atheists who have deserved the title fundamentalists but it is really dishonest to link this description to the gnus. Dishonest but necessary if you want to draw a line between yourself and others who, despite the fact that you share 99% of the same beliefs about nature and reality, are inconvenient to ally with – since the politically powerful religious moderates are made to feel uncomfortable by their arguments.
Sigmund, I would say that you are probably correct, but that most of this goes on at the subconscious level. This is not a coldly calculated political decision, but something that just feels obviously right. It’s so obvious that it’s silly to expect anyone to defend it by rational arguments.
(BTW, “ecumenical reach-arounds” caused me to launch an uncomfortably large banana fragment from my left nostril deep into the inner recesses of my keyboard. Where shall I send the repair bill?)
This whole thing reminds me of two specific situations.
One of them was way back in my Marine Corps days, where one of the guys in my unit had an interfering wife. She would call and complain about her husband working late, and then jumped about 10 levels of the chain of command to complain when her husband got in trouble. It made him look stupid and unprofessional, made her look immature as well, and eventually he wound up on restriction to quarters and his wife banned from the base.
The other one was something that happened to my wife. One of her employees was promoted beyond her real capability (Peter Principle!) and kept screwing up. After the third or fourth time the employee was called on the carpet, her husband came to the job to start shouting at my wife to stop picking on his wife. It made the woman look like some sort of moron, her husband look like a thug, and she wound up quitting to avoid getting fired.
Sigmund @ #103 and 104,
That’s very well said, and I think you’re right. That was part of what amazed me when I was reviewing the Scheitle paper for my blog: in talking about students’ views of the relationship between science and religion, he grouped together independence and collaboration on one hand and also to a large extent conflict-religion and conflict-science, and even talked about the conflict-science view as though it were a problem, without saying how other than that it encourages debate [!]. It was just assumed that because it’s “extreme” it’s bad, with no attention to its truth. Their whole position is the false compromise fallacy.
Hamilton, it’s your own fault for putting chunks of banana up your nose. I keep telling you…
Heh – PZ isn’t kidding – Skatje has a recent post titled “In which I disagree with my father”.
http://lacrimae-rerum.org/?p=68
Kids today, eh.
Hey now that I’ve pissed off the Mommy-lobby maybe I should piss off the offspring-lobby too. Then I could wait a couple of days and then start Reaching Out and Building Bridges. Rinse, repeat.
Fun, right?
The only problem with that is that when she got trounced by the people supporting reproductive rights (a position she appallingly dismisses in her post as “Y U HATE WOMEN?”) on a thread at Pharyngula, he did step in rather protectively, and it did inhibit discussion, as several of us noted at the time. Really, it was kind of uncomfortable having the argument with her on her father’s blog at all. Much better for all for her to disagree at her own place.
Ah; well there you go then.
Oh yeah, I remember that. It’s just as SC said. Perfect demonstration of why mommy and daddy chiming in is a bad idea. No one – no one – is above the normal reactions of a parent or child.
What are you doing not defending PZ, Ophelia? This whole thread is supposed to demonstrate how sexist you are, remember?
Heh! Yup, I remember, and I considered pretending to fall into the trap and then going aha. Snicker.
Didn’t someone’s daughter show up on Pharyngula to yell at us for making her daddy cry or summat?
That sounds vaguely familiar. Christie Wilcox’s mother also did, a few months after the Pharyngula commenters had basically won her a scholarship. She even singled out Caine, who had posted that she had voted for her.
Actually, I think it was that her mother said some critical things and people responded angrily and then Christie Wilcox came over to yell at people for being mean to her mother.
[…] was June last year. The title was Helicopter parents. It was not my finest hour. I hadn’t even remembered it when I wrote the post about Kristina […]