17

[OC] On anarchist parenting and why it needn't be a hierarchy

Submitted by ziq in Anarchism (edited )

In response to this (sarcastic) comment:

https://raddle.me/f/Anarchism/40335/comment/58711

And informed by this earlier statement by the same user:

http://archive.is/Y9CWO

A hierarchy is an artificial construct that depends on the principle of authority.

Authority is the socially-enforced rule that the ruler in a hierarchical relationship gives commands and the subordinate obeys under threat of (legitimized) violence.

Authority is a violent act. It has nothing to do with the act of rendering aid to a child; feeding them or preventing them from falling into a pool and drowning.

A parent-child relationship needn't be a hierarchy unless you construct it as such.

If I offered my boss a meal, or saved them from drowning, I wouldn't be exercising authority over them. That action doesn't create a hierarchy.

But just by being my boss, they are constantly exercising authority over me and I'm constantly their subordinate. I am ruled by them. I am constrained by the boss-worker hierarchy.

Authority is a deliberate social construct that divides people into either rulers or obeyers; using violence and the notion of "morality" to maintain this coercive system. Talking back to your boss, refusing their authority: That's a big 'moral' no no. Society uses that to uphold the oppressive dynamic and to keep you controlled and obedient.

"Voluntary" hierarchies? They're merely an excuse for perpetrating structural violence that is legitimized by appealing to authority.

That is the opposite of anarchy; it's archy.

Parenting is only hierarchical when parents choose to force their authority on their child.

An anarchist parent uses child-rearing methods that treat the child as an autonomous individual and not as a subordinate to their authoritarian demands.

Anarchist parents see themselves as caretakers, not authorities, and legitimizing parental authority with the excuse of "justifiable hierarchy" is a scapegoat. It's not justified. Using violent coercion to control children is not anarchy.

"Justifiable hierarchy" is a fundemental misunderstanding of anarchy that needs to be thrown out before it further dillutes our (really very easily defined) objectives.

We tend to overthink things and that leads to mountains of round-about revisionist theory that only detracts from anarchy and leaves people confused about what even our most basic objectives are.

Every oppressive political ideology considers the hierarchies they enable to be justifiable. Anarchists know better.

Anarchy is, was and always will be the outright rejection of hierarchy.

When you compromise and make excuses to construct hierarchies; what you're practicing is no longer anarchy.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

bloodrose wrote

I consider myself an anarchist parent. As much as possible, I behave as my child's caretaker, not her authority. I find the prevailing attitudes in our society of child ownership to be gross. The idea that I own my child and am allowed to control her is just disgusting to me. I didn't come to my ideals through reading anarchist parenting material (I did buy some zines but they weren't helpful). I came to my philosophy from a framework of empathy.

When my child was a newborn, people told me I needed to make lots of noise while she was sleeping so that she would become a heavy sleeper. My first thought was that I would hate if someone did that to me so I wouldn't want to do it to her. I then looked it up and guess what, light or heavy sleeper is not trainable. People are literally disturbing their babies' sleep to train them like they're animals.

Sometimes, though, I use the authority society has afforded me over her. I feel I don't have a better way. When we cross streets, I make her hold my hand or be held across the street. She's 4 now so I'm constantly explaining to her why; that cars can't see her. It sucks but cars exist. I have to disallow her from playing at the park near my apartment by herself. I tried to let her go by herself once and a neighbor walked off with her (!). While she can handle being alone at a park, society won't let me leave her alone.

My latest struggle is the struggle to feed her well. She desperately wants McDonald's all the time. But working from an empathy framework, I tried to figure out what she likes about McDonald's and figured out it's the toy. So, once a week, she gets a toy and a beyond meat burger. This feels like me being authoritative but at the same time, I don't know how to get her to understand health over the addictive qualities of corporate food.

5

Brick wrote (edited )

The "against all unjustified hierarchies" definition of anarchy is a fallacy. It could just as easily apply to any political group, for instance:

Monarchists: "hierarchy is justified by divine right, royal blood, hereditary titles, the size of your armies, the bounty your ships can plunder."

Republicans: "hierarchy is justified by the so-called 'consent' of the governed, borders, nationality."

Ancaps: "hierarchy is justified by 'voluntary' (ha) choice, property ownership, ability to earn wealth."

Fascists: "hierarchy is justified by racial purity, nationality, military might."

So how are anarchists different from all these believers in 'justified hierarchy'? It's simple: We reject all attempts to justify hierarchies.

We oppose being ruled altogether, we don't simply request less rulers be placed over us.

Anarchy is a total lack of any hierarchy, rulers, or authority. We see all these things as unjustified.

If you decide some hierarchy is justified, you've stopped being an anarchist and are using the descriptor in bad faith.

1

notmy_realname wrote (edited )

This may be a dumb, or at least uniformed, question, but can you explain what you mean by hierarchy? I don't think I understand what people mean when they say they are against all hierarchy. I'm going to pose a hypothetical which may seem like a trick question, but after trying for a while to think of a hypothetical which doesn't seem like a trick question, this is the best I came up with. Hopefully it can clarify for me what people mean when they say they are against all hierarchy.

Let's say there is a group of people on an island, Group A, living together in a way they all find agreeable. Group B wants to invade the island and take all the bananas from the island, and agrees to work together to do so. Group A is against this idea, and agrees to fight against Group B. For both Groups A and B, can you explain whether they are acting in support of a hierarchy, and why or why not?

My reason for giving this hypothetical is that I think in this situation both sides would see their own interests as being "anti-hierarchy", in that they are both attempting to quash the other side's rule over the bananas, but both sides obviously can't be right, so I'd like to know how someone who has obviously thought more about what hierarchy means thinks about a situation like this.

1

ziq wrote

So group B don't live on the island and are invading it to steal group A's food (and kill them if they get in their way)?

Then group B are invaders, aggressors. Group A need the bananas to survive. Defending their home and their survival is self defense.

Group B are trying to implement a hierarchy where they can invade other people's home and take their food by force. They will colonize and kill and probably enslave the islanders. B are pro-hierarchy for sure. A are just defending themselves from invasion.

3

Freux wrote

What about temporary leadership/authority, let's say a film director, it's generally their vision that is followed. Would that make it a hierarchy or just a group of people freely associating under the vision of the director?

From what you wrote, I believe you wouldn't call it a hierarchy because it's freely associating but then what do you call the structure itself?

4

ziq wrote

The director needn't be any more of an authority than anyone else working on a film.

Ideally it would be an equal collaboration between various artists and technicians.

The idea of a director enforcing their 'vision' on everyone else involved in the production doesn't need to be taken for granted.

The others should have a voice regarding their part in the process and anyone that refuses them that voice is an authoritarian.

Directing a scene is one task among many. A director has a role to play. How the role is played isn't written in stone.

Who says there even needs to be one director? Some directors are great at giving direction to actors while others are better with the technical or visual aspects.

Why not 3 directors? 6 directors? Maybe even abandon the 'director' role altogether and try to replace it with something more equitable and collaborative.

There's no reason a film can't be created with a horizontal process.

But film is already a big collaboration between hundreds of people. If someone really wanted their singular vision to be the only thing that ended up on the screen, they'd have to be the only person involved in the production. Write it, shoot it, score it, edit it themselves and act out all the parts.

2

Freux wrote

You just open my eye to the actual question "is it NEEDED?" which as you pointed out, it isn't. You can work in a hierarchical structure but it isn't needed.

Others would use the term "horizontal hierarchy", which if it's horizontal it isn't a hierarchy, what's your opinion on that term?

And to go back on raddle, would you say it's an horizontal process even though some user as more power than others. Since we freely associate and anyone with power can lose it. Or maybe admins don't have the power but have the tool and the community as a whole decide on what can the admin do.

And since this focus thread focus more on parenting, all i can say is that I agree that there is no need for that.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Raddle is a website that, like all websites, exists on a vertical system that operates along the same lines as private property.

As long as one person is required to 'own' the domain and pay for server usage, and be held accountable legally for said ownership; it's not able to be truly horizontal.

But since we're anarchists, we still go out of our way to make raddle as flat and collaborative as technically possible; implementing moderation transparency, foss sourcecode, admin & mod accountability, elections, and even a form of direct democracy - which goes against my best instincts because it allows anonymous people to vote against anarchy.

But in the end it's still a website operating on a vertical platform. It's not attempting to be some kind of model communist society and it shouldn't be expected to function as anything other than a modern zine or infoshop.

Like any zine that exists under capitalism; the publisher has to pay for licensing and rent and distribution and so on.

People that expect raddle to be some kind of utopian commune or a living mural to their ideology are misguided. It's just a discussion forum.

There's no real authority here. Sure there's a publisher, editors, writers and readers. But everyone can come and go as they please or make their own postmill instance.

As the publisher, I have no actual authority over anyone here. I'm not your boss or your ruler.

Websites are certainly hierarchies because they are owned by people who can pull the plug if they decide to, but it's not a particularly oppressive hierarchy since you're not forced to read the site the way you're forced to work or go to school.

Others would use the term "horizontal hierarchy", which if it's horizontal it isn't a hierarchy, what's your opinion on that term?

I think it's entirely useless, the same way a cherry pie with no cherries in it is.

3

Freux wrote

Just to be sure, I wasn't trying to diss on raddle. I just felt like it could be seen a justified hierarchy but as you pointed out it's only justified because the system of it all is based into a hierarchy. Basically the only justified hierarchy is when you work inside a society that isn't anarchistic.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

The hierarchy of me being able to pull the plug on the site isn't justified at all. But we exist under a capitalist system and the only anarchist way to deal with that is to create tools that can mirror all of raddle's content to other servers, or otherwise decentralize the content. Then hope the owners of those servers don't pull the plug.

Right now a few trusted people have access to the database backups, so they could restore the site in the event of my death if they chose to.

4

Freux wrote

Now I get it ! Because you are stuck with some form of hierarchy doesn't make it justified.

2

noordinaryspider wrote

Bingo.

I hope some nonexistant kid didn't have to give up his dad for you to be able to understand that but this is my point.

I'm not kissing up to ziq, I'm acknowledging his greater investment in this community than my own. His knowledge of anarchism is far greater than my own but it came at the cost of other things he could have been doing instead.

If my own perfect little angel wants to show ziq his flutterbye collection and talk about My Little Pony, he could KILL ziq jr.

If ziq has a problem with the way I'm raising my kid I don't really care unless it affects my kid's safety or ziq's safety.

If ziq has a problem with how I'm talking to new Raddlers, I'm going to shush the little guy or let him play another round of Hedge Wars instead of getting his multiplication memorizing workbook page done on time because I want to hear how I'm fucking up and learn how to do better RIGHT NOW instead of getting banned.

But I could still post on Reddit Mommywebz boards under a different username until the anti-natural childbirth and anti-breastfeeding and anti-homeschoolers recognize me AGAIN by some stupid jokes and mixed metaphors that aren't even all that funny and I'm off to the races again. Here we go round the mulberry bush gathering nuts in May.

2

Freux wrote

I don't think ziq has any problem with how you are raising your kids. Nobody is going to ban you :)

1

noordinaryspider wrote (edited )

And I don't have any problem with how ziq is running Raddle so I'm not going to get bored and go away.

The metaphor sucks. It feels so condescending to keep saying why it works so well while simultaneously laughing at how bad it sucks.

Backstory is that I was momming ziq earlier on Matrix right after telling them I had to take a sabbatical or I was going to mom them.

0

ziq wrote

I'm not actually running anything here, I'm not an admin.

What metaphor do you mean? What works well?

1

noordinaryspider wrote (edited )

Raddle isn't a child.

The metaphor works best for me when I'm laughing at myself and laughing with you while we are publicly talking about how it doesn't work.

I think that's nature's way of telling me to close my laptop and tickle annoy #OccupyBaby or something.

ttyl

2

PerfectSociety wrote

What about temporary leadership/authority,

A couple things:

leadership/authority

The slash doesn't belong there. Leadership and Authority aren't the same things. Our Pre-Neolithic Immediate-Return Hunter-Gatherers had leaders, but did not have authority/hierarchy.

let's say a film director, it's generally their vision that is followed. Would that make it a hierarchy or just a group of people freely associating under the vision of the director?

Depends on whether others who partake in making the film have chosen (outside of a hierarchical context) to go with the director's vision or not.

From what you wrote, I believe you wouldn't call it a hierarchy because it's freely associating but then what do you call the structure itself?

A free association.

1

Freux wrote

Thanks for your input. I was using the slash as a "or" but I get your point.

2

ergdj5 wrote

What about temporary leadership/authority, let's say a film director

Just a minor point there- some of the best scenes in movies are done by the actors outside of any script. This is another case of 'listen to the authority on the subject, but they are not an authority over you', e.g. listen to the architect but he isn't one to order you.

4

Freux wrote (edited )

True but isn't still the director that keep the scene in? What I'm trying to say isn't that people aren't free to improvise and change stuff but that the director has the last say on what's in and out which keep a form of structure. So my question is more about is this structure a hierarchy or not since it is free association (in this example).

Now that I'm thinking about it, wouldn't raddle be hierarchical, which again is free association so maybe the term hierarchy is wrong. And if it's not a hierarcy because we voluntary associate, then what is it called?

1

noordinaryspider wrote

Thank you, ziq, and I can honestly say that I have "Been there done that bought the T-shirt" because the one I got when #OccupyBaby and I went camping with the most mainstream HS group you'd ever want to find says "Educational Anarchy" on it.

I bought it in 2011, #OccupyBaby is male, his name doesn't start with a "J", and even if it did, it would be pronounced like "Hey (Dr.) Seuss!!!!!" but this time last year I had a community and now I have to explain that I'm not Michelle Duggar but I am me so something's changed very radically very quickly.

I don't think it's a "generation gap" either.

I don't want a "job" in the childcare industry and I won't hoam skull your kid to Harvard for less than you pay the people who scrub your toilets and have sex with your husbands even if you try to throw a goat in to sweeten the deal, I'm just trying to get you to see what's right in front of you.

Point taken wrt comments on Matrix, ziq, I'll be good.

1

ziq wrote

I'm sorry, I have trouble understanding you. I wasn't trying to make any point by not replying on meta matrix, I just didn't know what to say.

1

noordinaryspider wrote

No worries. I just don't do well with language is all and English is the best I can do right now.

I just meant that I admire you and have trouble not wanting to "parent" you because of life stuff.

But in the way you described it here, not a Mommywebz Babycenter Michelle Duggar sort of way.

It's been a rough few weeks and I need to spend more time on self-care but I love this place and don't want you to do anything different at all except pace yourself and smack my cub around if he shows up before he's 16. I don't think he can but I'm back to boring old Vanilla Debian for humility's sake anyway.

XY friend of mine who isn't more than a year or two younger than me is going to be a new daddy again so what do I know about XY bodies, lol.

1

Freux wrote

One more thing I was thinking about, since it's first of all about parenting. If your kid has a tantrum, for wanting a toy or whatever, wouldn't that be enforcing an authority over them to get them out of the situation to be able to go home?

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I think many here are a little confused. There is hierarchy in raising a child, but the hierarchy between child and parent is considerably different from that of the one imposed by the State.

While the adult holds a position of leadership/authority, granting him/her the ability to make many decisions regarding the upbringing of their child, it's not the same kind of hierarchy as the State or as Corporations, where you have situations like Jeff Bezos, who has enough money that he could give $50,000 dollars to every one homeless person in American (which is estimated at 553,742) give 100,000 students a full ride to Harvard, covering four years of tuition, room, board, textbooks, and everything else, buy the entire gross national product of Iceland for a year, fund every US National Park for ten years, give every Amazon worker a $20,000 bonus, end world hunger, and after doing all that, he'd be left with $3.5 billion dollars, making him not only significantly richer than most people, he's sufficiently richer than a lot of other billionaires.

Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos's workers are barely scraping by on minimum wage, with many on some form of government assistance, pooping in bags and peeing in bottles in a desperate effort to keep up with the punishing pace set by their employers, and many are virtually homeless, due to being unable to cover rent or travel. There was an article in the UK Independent talking about how many of their Scotland workers are camping in tents in the woods near the warehouses, because they don't have the money to travel to and from work.

This kind of hierarchy is far different from the parent-child kind. In our world, if the parent lived in absolute luxury, sleeping in a massive mansion with god-only-knows-how-many rooms and bathrooms, eating gold leaf and wagyu beef every night for dinner, while their child spends their days and nights sleeping in in an uninsulated closet and finds food by digging through garbage cans, we would call that neglect and the child would be taken away and given to parents who aren't colossal assholes.

Then again, my vision of an anarchic society, is that there isn't one massive society that's identical across the board, but many different kinds with a wide variety of beliefs and customs, or in other words, tribal-band style living. The tribes would form loose Iroquois Confederation-style alliances, but will mostly do their own thing. The children in these societies would be raised in a communal fashion where while the child knows who their mom and dad is, they are also cared for by the other adults in the tribe, because again, all evidence points towards humans being wired for tribal-band style living.

Sorry everybody. I swear I had no intention of making this post so damn long. A spigot was turned and I wound up having more to say than I thought.

2

Freux wrote

It is a different type of hierarchy but I think ziq has a good point that we need to recognize that inforcing a hierarchy isn't anarchistic. It doesn't mean that you are a bad parent, it's just that we live in a world where we have to use authority in some situation, but it's also a good idea to keep in mind that maybe there is a better way to deal with a certain situation.

Maybe we can say that a form of hierarchy between parent/child is at time justified but simply because of the world we live in. If we were living in an anarchist community this authority wouldn't be justified as it shouldn't be needed. But that's not the world we are living in.

0

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Then again, my vision of an anarchic society, is that there isn't one massive society that's identical across the board, but many different kinds with a wide variety of beliefs and customs, or in other words, tribal-band style living. The tribes would form loose Iroquois Confederation-style alliances, but will mostly do their own thing.

My thinking has been trending towards anarchist ideas. But I wonder if these individual tribal-bands will be at a higher risk than broader hierarchical corrupt society towards all forms of bigotry and related abuses?

You could have NiceLittle Village but then down the road is BurnTheGaysTown and further up is HangLatinosVille and across the river signs for "Welcome to FemaleGenitalMutilationBurg". We know there are cases of small, primitive tribal groups with surprisingly nice social structures. But savagery exists in small independent groups too.

How do you guard against that in a non-hierarchical way?

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

If you'd studied any decent anthropology, you'd know that most indigenous people managed to take care of each other and live quite comfortably without a massive state-imposed hierarchy. In fact, the State as we know it, with its size, hierarchies, and massive inequalities, didn't really come into being until about 10,000 years ago, but Homo sapiens have existed for at least 100,000 years. So somehow for 90,000 years, we managed to live relatively peaceful lives without a State.

Somehow we managed to regulate ourselves and take care of our own and we'd manage to do so again. Despite all the doom and gloom on the news, extensive evidence says that humans are inherently wired for altruism; we want to be good and take care of each other. Studies with babies and toddlers have proven that it's a trait that kicks in fairly early.

-1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

But these indigenous people often had sexist practices and other forms of intolerance. And there was tribal warfare long before modern states existed.

We didn't have mass slaughter until the State existed. So it's probably fair to argue that pre-State independent groups were better. But that doesn't take us far enough to argue that pre-State independent groups were good.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

savagery

There's so much wrong with that word.

BurnTheGaysTown

Stopping fascists from killing people doesn't create a hierarchy. They're the ones building the hierarchy (where being gay renders you subhuman), you're the one breaking the hierarchy and restoring equality and anarchy.

0

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I'm saying that without an evil hierarchy connecting communities, any individual community can be suborned by bad ideas and the other anarchist communities have voluntarily given up the right to intercede.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

And that's a bad thing how? So long as the actions of a community don't spill over and affect other communities, I fail to see how not interceding is a bad thing. Once it does spill over and affect other communities, then they have the right to deal with it, but again, any alliances will be loose ones. Most of the indigenous societies enjoyed less warfare and with women being roughly on equal footing with the men in the group.

I have a feeling you're one of those types who believe that humans are inherently brutish and cruel, but truth doesn't bear that out. Despite all the wargle-bargle about how people will riot in the face of a disaster, the truth is only a small percentage of bad seeds riot. The rest of the population band together and do what they can to help each other get through the situation. And often the population manages to organize themselves, decide who does what, and what needs to be done, without a lot of help from the State and without needing to brutally enforce their rule.

Again, for all the Survival of the Fittest talk, humans are inherently wired for altruism and empathy. And really, in the long run, altruism wins out. Yeah, looting and pillaging gets you plenty in the short-term, but the person who utilizes that strategy, pretty much can never relax their grip on power; if they show a moment of weakness, their people/enemies will take advantage of it.

Since mortality is the fact of the human condition (a person will get sick, hurt, and old, regardless of how strong they may be), eventually they will be in a position of vulnerability, needing the help of others. And there is a basic rule: piss off enough people and eventually some of them will come looking for you. Again, how many people would be willing to stick out their necks to help this asshole when things get rough for him.

If we must use the Survival of Fittest logic, if a style of living/beliefs work for a community, then the community will survive/prosper. If said beliefs are in fact terrible ones, then the community will collapse with the survivors probably opting to join other communities.

In any case, basic knowledge of nature is that diversity is strength. Having many different ways of living works better than our current One-Size-Fits-All standard which has only managed to keep going as long as it has because until recently, there were always new lands to expand to with new resources to exploit. The problem is now, Industrial Civilization has effectively expanded to every corner of the globe; there are no more new lands to exploit. It's keeping itself going by cannibalizing other Capitalist nations, but there's an obvious flaw in that strategy.

-1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

In Africa there are small, independent, communal tribal groups still performing female genital mutilation. Are you making the argument that allowing that to continue is better than intervening?

I understand that altruism is innate and many communal groups have lots of morally desirable behavior. But I strongly suspect that, for example, the patriarchy that permeates modern society didn't arise from nothing when the first hierarchies were formed. It was a continuation of patriarchy that already existed. There are plenty of well-known examples of primitive low technology communities without sexism, but there are plenty more - the majority, as far as I understand it - where it was prevalent. And it was prevalent despite countless thousands of years of freedom from large scale hierarchy like we have today.

1

BigGeorge wrote

Intervene how, out of curiosity?

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote (edited )

I'm curious as well. After all, Vietnam and the current War on Terror prove how easy it is to defeat an ideology via military violence. FGM is terrible, but I fail to see how intervention, sweeping in, guns blazing, and taking over, would solve it. I suppose he could mean nonviolent solutions like spreading education, but I doubt it. Usually when people use the word "intervention," they are almost invariably referring to military solutions.

Though the simplest and best answer is edmund has no basic knowledge of anthropology or tribal society like at all.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

As I wrote to BigGeorge, I'll repeat here. I'm not sure what kind of intervention is appropriate. But I think if non-intervention and allowing the existing society to evolve on its own was going to fix the problem, it would have happened centuries ago.

Even spreading educational material is a far cry from anarchist non-intervention. Isn't it?

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

It is a horrible practice, but at the same time, no one can police the whole world and it's a foolish thing to try; it amplifies problems, not solves them. About the only intervention I would suggest is spreading educational materials and providing a haven to anyone fleeing said abuses. Any other, like I said, would only exacerbate the problem and the people who would be in the most danger in that situation, are women and children because those are the most vulnerable populations in any conflict.

Like I said, I focused my concerns primarily on military options because most of the time, when people talk about intervention, unless they're talking about a drug-addicted relative, they mean some kind of military effort.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I'm not sure. I don't want to fall into the military-industrial trap of "invade, that will fix everything" or even just the general political trap of "just do something, the important thing is to have the appearance of trying to solve the problem".

But "ignore it, and hope the problem will resolve itself" has not worked for hundreds or maybe even thousands of years - how old is the practice? So I see no evidence that non-intervention will ever solve the problem.

2

ziq wrote

Yes.

1

Freux wrote

Does that make it a hierarchy since you are exercising authority and if so, how is that wrong? Sure you need to speak to your kids and explain stuff but sometimes you need to go away first. I'm just a bit confused on what count and doesn't count as hierarchy.

3

ziq wrote

Yes. Forcing authority on anyone is best avoided. So avoid it. Being embarassed by their tantrum isn't justification to use force.

..Or don't avoid it but be aware that you're manifesting archy; not anarchy.

1

Freux wrote

It's not about being embarassed, sometimes you just need to take them away to talk with them than trying to have a discussion with a kid in a tantrum.

4

ziq wrote

We don't live in a perfect world.

Anarchists living in industrial capitalist nation states are forced to make decisions like that everyday. Every time we go to work or walk down a street we're subjecting ourselves to archy.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need to deny a child anything. In a perfect world a child wouldn't feel the need to manipulate you into buying a lump of plastic.

We don't live in a perfect world.

Just strive to do your best to avoid creating more archy.

3

noordinaryspider wrote

Exactly.

noordinaryspider wrote at August 18, 2018 at 7:13 PM

I tried to do this:

[quote]One more thing I was thinking about, since it's first of all about parenting. If your kid has a tantrum, for wanting a toy or whatever, wouldn't that be enforcing an authority over them to get them out of the situation to be able to go home?[quote]

with my 29 year old but she just wasn't making any sense. She kept wanting me to apologize for things that weren't reasonable and saying that I ruined her life when we had to move "for Colfax reasons".

I would love to take her away into the woods and find out what the bleep she's on and what monster is doing what to my baby, but she's a grown woman and kidnapping is a felony, capiche?

So I can hate my kid or buy a shrink. I bought a shrink. I'm not going to tell you her name but I am going to tell my kid's shrink my shrink's name so they can talk shrink stuff.

To make a short story long, I hired a licensed psychologist for myself for the EXACT SAME REASON you bought your kid that candy bar in the checkout line.

1

Freux wrote

This is going back to the "it's not justified but you do what you can in the circumstance". I read it all as you were saying "if you do this, then you aren't agreeing with anarchism". But I should have read it as "doing this is not an anarchist praxis".

1

ziq wrote

I still see no reason you need to force the kid to come with you. Just say you're not buying it, walk away and they'll follow. If they cry, they cry. No law against crying.

2

ergdj5 wrote

If they don't follow, I get arrested. That's the issue. I do have to force them to come with me.

3

ziq wrote

I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time the state forced you to obey its commands that day.

1

ergdj5 wrote

It isn't, but I'd rather not go to jail and leave the kid in the hands of the state.

1

noordinaryspider wrote (edited )

I'm sorry, but there is in the United States. Child Protective Services is beyond the scope of Raddle and completely inappropriate to discuss here in the context of a metaphor but I need to correct some potentially life-destroying misinformation.

Anyone can report a United Statesian parent for child abuse/neglect by calling an anonymous tip line and can and is done for the same reasons all the downvotes and "ziq iz a bad despot" posts keep appearing here but with afk consequences that can cost more than money.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

I wasn't trying to suggest leaving the building without the child. In my experience (with nephews tho and not living in a police state like the US) if you say you're leaving, they follow. But this post was never meant to be parenting advice and I kinda wish I had never got into this pointless rhetorical question comment chain.

All I wanted to do was talk about the definition of anarchy. In practice, living anarchy isn't always doable because of personal danger. Anarchy is the ideal but compromises always happen when we try to survive in a screwed up world.

2

noordinaryspider wrote

Exactly. Just like parenting. And it's a sucky metaphor because it's painful for both of us right now but also a very apt one and probably healthy for the community for us to just deal and publicly pm, but I'm just not sure my language skills are up for it.

There's a lot more to anarchist parenting than cute little black onesies and finding a lonely little old lady to work 24/7/365 for free.

Sorry. My baby wants a candy bar too. My baby's candy bar costs 140GBP an hour, my self respect, and hopefully not my own mind and #OccupyBaby's teens or (perhaps, since some foster homes are good and #OccupyBaby looks like Antwon Rose with waist length cornrows) his life.

The more experienced anarchist on Raddle who is also a less experienced parent has taught me to just shrug, remind you never to get between a mother bear and her cubs, and I'll match your "vagina is not a clown car" by raising you a "that may be true, but your clown car is not a vagina either so I'm not gonna hump it."

1

Freux wrote

But again this is if they follow, there is no point in bringing them out if they simply follow you. It's good to keep in mind the walking off before forcing them out.