xtcian

Methinks those moms took Tom Perrotta's "Little Children" way too seriously....

What a bunch of b.s. Sean, you're too good for that clique.

Interesting. The question is, are you just reacting to being excluded and are politically angry (definitely warranted) or do you feel like you are missing out on something valuable by not being in this group. The answer to that question helps determine the action to take, I think.

If I were Sean or Deb I guess I'd ask myself what it is I want from this group. If the group has something valuable to offer that you can only get from them (do they have interesting speakers, a compiled babysitter list or something like that - the Chapel Hill Mother's club has these) then it's worth trying to infiltrate them in some way, perhaps without pissing them off (although I'd be tempted). If it's a large group with several different playgroups organized you might approach the leader and ask if one of the individual subgroups would include a stay at home Dad. But,if it's just a playgroup you are looking for- (which, if it's the right people can be so valuable, but if it's not, it sucks - I could tell lots of stories of playgroups gone awry here) - I'd say just try creating your own. Put up sign at the park or advertise some other way about what you want. Given info about what type of parent you are and what you are looking for. I bet you could create a group of more like-minded individuals you'd enjoy being around more anyway. The aversion to men makes me think they are either spending a lot of time bashing their husbands, discussing their cracked nipples or are afraid any man nearby might be looking at their (larger than it used to be) ass.

This comes down to a point that comes up whenever I feel excluded (and one I imagine will come up when my kid reaches teen years), usually those groups are boring anyway. Does that make it right to exclude you, no? But, creating the cooler club is always a good way to show those boring "girls" you wouldn't like anyway if you could hang with them, how it's really done.

Too right, Annie. And the most important point in Deb's deft and insightful little essay: The losers are the toddlers who are being cared for by stay at home dads. Socializing with other munchkins is a really big part of kids' development, and these organized activities of groups like ASAHMMG are a terrific way to help little kids expand their perspective, help them realize they aren't the center of the universe and teach them the rudiments of (tough concept) sharing. Keeping Barno (and others in his situation) out of that loop deliberately, based on nonsense, is... well, loopy.

When Sean was a toddler, he had siblings, so he had no choice but to become socialized. But when I took him (and his sibs) out in the stroller, or to the kids' area at the Cedar Rapids Country Club, or on field trips to Target, I never once saw a dad "in charge" of a baby or toddler. Not without a mom in tow. But that was dark-ages ago, and now when I walk the dog or take Barno to Astoria park, I always see several lone dads pushing a stroller, wearing a fully loaded Baby Bjorn, or pushing a gleeful toddler in a swing. It's a new world, ladies of the ASAHMMG .... what world are YOU living in?

As a parent of twins I am proud to say I belong to a "parents of multiples" club and, Sean, you would be welcome at any event/meeting.

a bit from our website...

"At first blush, POM looks a lot like your typical mother’s club, offering a wide variety of Programs & Services like a great newsletter, informative speaker events, fun social gatherings, and enlightening parenting forums. Although we all share the unique experience of raising multiples, diversity is a core value of POM. We reflect the vast array of cultures, occupations, and family structures. We are two-parent families—some with a mom & dad, some with two dads and others with two moms—and single-parent households."

Ugh -- how sad. Unfortunately, at least for me, this just reinforces a lot of stereotypes about SAHM. And when I say stereotypes I do mean that, though I have a full-time (outside the home) job, I have plenty of wonderful SAHM friends. I'm so sick of all the "mommy" war junk (it's like highschool cliques all over again), and to me this is just another dimension of that. I have to agree with Neva - I'd bet Sean would enjoy himself a lot more with a group of like-minded parents, rather than a group he has to fight to join. But I do see the temptation to "get in" despite them.

similar but different: a friend of mine (mom of a pre-schoolmate of my daughter) just found out that our local ballet academy, which accepts (and encourages) little boys for age 2-6 ballet classes, doesn't allow boys for their summer camp. summer camp includes older children. so the issue is something about having appropriate changing rooms, etc. ?

i am wondering if there is a legal case to be made, not that i would encourage any more litigation in this country. haha

but, i mean, come on. right here in NYC! let the little guy DANCE!

Great essay, Deb. You shd. send it to Newsweek. What's that column they print, "My Turn" or something? I'm in a Mom's Club in Kansas, and it has its pros and cons. Pros: meet other moms and kids, get referrals for child care, hand me down baby stuff, etc... Cons: Events such as "Recipe Club," "Kid's crafts", and "Mom's Night Out" are beyond lame. Plus, I pretty much alienated myself from the group upon announcing that "Goodnight Moon" is a metaphor for death (an observation I gleaned from a New Yorker article...credit must be given). I second the suggestion to start to your own club; that way YOU get to decide the membership guidelines.

There was recently a good interview on Dick Gordon's The Story here on NPR with a stay at home Dad talking about his experiences. Even here in the "liberal" triangle he had a lot of exclusionary experiences. I think they have podcasts of it - might be worth checking out.
Also, I'm thinking a SAH Dad group might be needed at this time just to support each other in breaking these barriers. Maybe you can start a Dad's Lib group Sean?

Here's the link to that story I mentioned above.
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_273_Stay_At_Home_Dad.mp3/view

Quit your bitching about not being allowed to join their club!

Man up and make a smaller, cooler club of your own. It sounds like you already have one ally in Deb. Recruit two or more other fringe ladies in the mom-only club who like you but who have no alternative to the "exclusive" club. Make yours as complete and informative as theirs, but add in other things which make it cooler.

For example, plan a kick ass children's zoo party when they're having an outing so you can make them jealous. And when the exclusive moms' kids come over to check out your kick ass petting zoo, rudely tell them to get their bitch asses back over to the boring, exclusive side of the park.

Plan your meetings around lunch and serve kick ass mojitos, margaritas and apple-tini's . . . "y'know, girl stuff".

And, while the kids are napping, make everyone play Wii boxing. Kind of like Fight Club for stay at home parents. The first rule of Sean's Stay At Home Parent Club--we DON'T TALK ABOUT SEAN'S STAY AT HOME PARENT CLUB.

Then, bribe a friend like Deb or someone else to do a puff piece in the local rag about how you started the INclusive mommy/daddy group that is the wave of the future. Of course, the article cannot mention the Wii Fight Club part of the meetings.

And then, when the organizers of the mom-only group extend an olive branch and decide to make you a full-time member, pause, lick your lips and smile maniacly while rubbing your hands together and say: "sweet, now I can get free daycare while I "cruise" the Astoria mom's group.

And then laugh like Vincent Price does in the song, THRILLER.

I'm just saying, that's what I would do.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/

Sean, I really wouldn't sweat it. I mean, I really wouldn't sweat it.

"short sighted, sexist and exclusive". I don't know about that but uptight, rich and white is sort of the same thing.

I suspect they do have a point about cruising, it is probably the most incredible collection of wealthy, privately educated, hot, yoga-pantsed women on the planet... so I take that back, hit it Sean.

Disclaimer: I am currently the president of the MOMS Club of Northwood. It's a national organization with bylaws, dues, newsletters and stuff. We don't allow men or nannies. But in my 5 years in the club, I don't think we've had either ask to join. There are stay at home Dad organizations. We have one here in Irvine.

Being a stay at home mom is a LOT like high school. Those mean bitches who made fun of your hair or clothes in the 80's grow up to be moms and teach their kids to make fun of your kid. (In elementary school - not toddlers!) It's really sad.

I've got to run, but isn't meetup a loose organization? No dues or bylaws? Can't Sean start his own Dad Meetup Group?

This doesn't address the root of the problem, I know.

sounds like a bunch of ninnies. what are they trying to emulate? a country club in the deep south in the 50's? doesn't astoria have room for a second "stay at home parents" club that doesn't differentiate between men and women? god this makes me mad.

Damn those bitches!

Thanks for the comments, guys. Sean and I have talked about the fact that we probably wouldn't want to be around these women anyway, so it's no big deal. While the organization of this group is really well-managed (and, fyi, there are $12/year dues), we've found several fun alternatives to help the kids socialize. I think the most surprising part was realizing that such antiquated attitudes were prevalent today, even in Coastopia.

i have no idea what that particular club is like.

but i do know a lot about women-only parenting groups, and in particular there is a big contingent of sahms who are heavily pro-attachment parenting and have to constantly fight the notion that they are frivolously sitting around eating bon-bons and comparing shopping bags, as compared to making an active choice to prioritize child-rearing over a career outside of the home.

so with all due respect, sean knows nothing about the feminist experience of making that sahm choice, a choice against what the pro-androgeny liberal feminists have fought for since the ERA battle.

furthermore, sean has no experience related to what attachment parenting means to a woman who didn't have that modeled for her by her own mother, didn't grow up in a community where there is extended breastfeeding, nursing in public, co-sleeping, physical demands on your body, natural childbirth, etc. it also, for many women, raises long unresolved issues of past abuse and trauma.

not every woman wants to talk about these issues in front of men, nor should they have to give up a positive and supportive women-only space which might be the only place they feel comfortable sharing their experiences.

so again, i don't know what this particular group is like, maybe they are sitting around eating bon-bons, in which case i don't know why sean would want to join. but i personally have no problem telling sean or any man to back off and get your own friggin group.

Xuxe - you are making an assumption that these are 1. SAHMs in the first place and 2. Attachment parenting types.
I have never been a full time SAHM for any real length of time but have always been in organized Mom's groups and playgroups and I suspect that not everyone in the Astoria group fits the SAHM Mom mold. and I'm sure most of them aren't necessarily attachment parenting types since that is still pretty much the minority of SAHMs. What you are saying is why you wouldn't want Sean in your playgroup but we don't really know why these folks don't want him.

I suspect if it's like most big organizations there are all "types" represented, including a subset of attachment Moms, and there is probably an interesting subgroup of people who would have no problem with a SAH Dad joining. Question is this group really worth pursuing or can you not just find this on your own?

I had a similar concern about joining a playgroup of "typical" kids with my youngest who is significantly delayed. I decided it was too awkward and hard and I didn't want to feel different or odd and decided it wasn't worth pursing just to force the issue. I can find my own supportive playgroup elsewhere we're more accepted rather than an oddity.

My opinion - people take this stuff way too seriously - it's really just about getting together with people who can understand your perspective, empathize and letting your kids play a little. There are numerous creative ways to do that.

GWFD - LOVED your post!

xuxE: I believe that the stay-at-home-dad experience is analogous to that of the feminist one, in the biases and prejudices, and identity issues he faces. This group lay no claim to being a "women's" group, it stated its purpose was to share the stay-at-home parent's experience. I maintain that they have every right to keep it women-only, that's their prerogative. But how sad for the children that are left out, and the children IN the group that aren't offered a more diverse experience. I think it's really sad that we are so often still a culture that is exclusive and "my kind-your kind" in nature. Maybe if more men were included into the inner sanctum of such a women's group, they'd be more sensitive to these issues, rather than perpetuating the "men will never understand" stereotypes. And vice versa. If I learned to love football, anything is possible.

Give them all a time out and make them read "Horace and Morris, but mostly Dolores" over and over.

There seems to be a consensus that the private group has a right to exclude whoever they want. Am I wrong to assume there was similar support for the Augusta National Golf Club?

"I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member." -- Groucho Marx

I've been biting my tongue all day and actually find xuxE's comment a welcome balance. I'm all for Sean being welcomed by whatever group he'd like to join, but was taken aback by all of the SAHM slamming in these comments. And I didn't even know we had an acronym!
My SAHM eperience is nothing like highschool or a country club. No cliques, no cyber-bullying. The closest thing to popping bonbons, I guess, is when I chug Ghirardelli semi-sweet morsels in moments of stress. I didn't even want to be in a sorority when I was too immature to quit mine. I just want to give my kids the most secure foundation I can.

ian said it was a SAHM group that was excluding him. and in progressive parenting circles, the attachment parent moms tend to be SAHM's, it goes hand-in-hand.

Deb - a support community of moms is different than a support community for kids, so i don't see why we have to lament the kid's experiences due to lack of dads at the women's meeting. i think that is extremely disrespectful to the women who want to define their own support.

the entire world is full of opportunities for other meetings and gatherings and exchanges of information.

but if you can't accept the idea that another person, especially a person of another gender or race, for that matter, has experiences and challenges which are truly fundamentally different than your own which they may prefer to talk about amongst themselves or express themselves in ways that THEY THEMSELVES AUTONOMOUSLY choose -

then really, what is the point in getting together with person because in your self-absorbed view where everyone is the same, you will never actually understand who they really are.

Joanna: I don't mean to bash SAHMs. As with any grouping, there are always a few bad apples, which is where the talk of h.s. cliques comes from. I doubt highly that most of the "lay" members of this group even know that men are being excluded, much less voted for such a measure. The stay-at-home experience is so complicated, I just take issue that a man would be excluded based solely on gender. Oh, and I go for the Nestle morsels, myself.

For the record, I didn't respond to being rejected with any real measure of hostility or frustration. As I told them, I've had a lot of opportunities that many women haven't had, and that if they change their minds, then to please let me know. The anger that I've heard has been from my girl-friends who can't believe I would be excluded.

Look, I'm just not a joiner, I really suck at organized socially structured things. I was never in a frat, I was never part of a named group, and I've never felt very comfortable with the many subsets that so many people I know are attached to.

As soon as anyone says, "As a (fill-in-the-blank), I find the following offensive" I immediately disregard their ideas. There are no two people who have identical experiences, no two stay-at-home moms (regardless of their attachment, or lack of attachment, to "attachment") have the same feelings or experiences, and learning from a wider group is always better. But most people just want to sit with their own, and since I don't have an "own", I've usually just tolerated the exclusion.

Two things. One, one of the organizers told me that my wife should join and then I could just go to all the meetings in her stead. I explained that she has a full time job, and they said that was fine. So... that's confusing.

Secondly, all of the other members I've met have asked me to join, and were shocked that I had applied and been turned down.

But, honestly, I don't care nearly as much as my sisters and sisters-in-law, not to mention my sisters-in-stay-at-home-ednesss.

Oh, and... the dude who wrote the book on "attachment parenting"? Sears? Um... that dude is a dude.

Although he did write it with his wife.

But, I have a wife!

I didn't feel slammed by anyone. Being a stay-at-home parent is the greatest job ever. All the parenting magazines with articles about "Mommy Wars" are total bullshit - I have never seen an issue between working vs. non-working moms. Frankly, I am amazed by the working moms, because I don't know how the hell they get everything done. Seriously.

well i have repeatedly heard the same exact sentiment of wanting supportive women-only space expressed by many attachment parenting sahm's.

and in my experience the so-called mommy wars are totally true, but my kids are 5 and 8 now, so maybe things have calmed down since i encountered it or maybe the fact that i considered breeding and parenting to be a politically radicalizing experience put me among much more left wing type parents than the ones everyone else is talking about.

but sean, the fact that sahm's experiences are not completetly identical is beside the point. it's really not a new idea that people with *similar* struggles and issues often gather together to get support from each other, and unlike you, having a community is apparently important to their ability to keep their heads up. you seem to recognize that but maybe just can't relate to the need for community because you personally don't feel strongly compelled by it.

the thing is, attachment parenting may, to you, be just some idea a *guy* named sears thought up, but to a lot of moms it is a philosophy that named and validated a parenting style that deeply resonates with a fundamental maternal instinct to shift full focus onto their children.

i personally appreciated a lot of the philosophy and the ability to find progressive parenting community by using it as shorthand. talking to other politically progressive feminist women about postpartum depression, weaning a 2 year old, etc. is a lot different than talking to casual acquaintances about decorating with Disney Pooh vs. Classic Pooh nursery themes.

so what i'm trying to say is that learning from a wider group is absolutely not ALWAYS better. in this case it really trivializes the experiences and preferences of the SAHM's to say that this is the case. are there other self-segregating groups you would insist are better off with a broader participation? or is it just self-segregating groups of women?

i'm not saying we have to divide the country up like the michigan womyn's festival, but disrespecting the choice to self-segregate for support IS offensive to me because many many women really feel they benefit from it and are only comfortable dealing with some issues in that space - and now i'm actually more offended by those women you mentioned in the group who want to allow men into it against the wishes of the other women.

Matt:

If I hadn't shot myself in the head by Ike's pond in 1977 I would send you two badges to next year's Masters.

Love,

Cliff

Sean -- I just spent a good 20 minutes reading about Barnaby and watching his videos on your blog. Barnaby is so adorable. I love his name! I love his red hair! I love his cheeks (he has good cheeks)! I love his smile! The video of him placing peas in a bowl made my heart swell. You and Jordana have a beautiful family. Barnaby is a very happy little fellow. Good job! Keep up the good work!

Where can I find photos of Deb's little boy?

LFMD: It's very sweet of you to ask! Here's a link to the most recent photos I shot: http://www.kodakgallery.com/BrowsePhotos.jsp?UV=332404266175_526063531603&collid=84123183203.165964321603.1212462589744&page=1

Deb! He is adorable! Thanks for sharing. He and Barnaby are quite the duo!

Thanks Professor Cliff, for conflating the distinction between race and gender in the context of private clubs. Men-only clubs bad, Women-only clubs good. Got it.

--Groucho Matt

Matt,

I believe you can do better than this apples-to-oranges comparison. If you want to argue that the captains of industry that line Augusta’s membership roles join solely to discuss which club to hit an approach shot with, what kind of wood paneling to redecorate their office with, or to commiserate with one another on going bald or getting that next prostate exam…. well then you may have a point. However, many believe that mens–only clubs of this type are places where business deals are made/discussed and that denying women/minorities access to these opportunities limits their ability to fully and equally participate in our country’s economic and political systems. The better analogy would be your mens-only rec softball league with the keg standing at second base… but that would undercut the point you’d like to make, wouldn’t it?

Now if Sean wants to argue that membership in this mom’s group somehow provides preferential access to the best private schools in the area or the like, well then it becomes another matter.

On the contrary, that's exactly the argument Augusta has made; that it's members like to smoke cigars and be comfortable in the company of like-minded males, much like the women's club that is the topic of this post. It's apples to apples. Forcing one's way into a private group on the flimsy argument that business deals are being done in the locker rooms and women want access to those alleged "opportunities" is ludicrous. Its critics are appalled that a private club can exclude women for any reason, period. Yet it is perfectly reasonable in their minds for women to have their own exclusive clubs.

I would think you could do better.

Matt just let us know when your ED support group meets and i'll round up la leche league to head over and give y'all some advice.

Classy as ever xuxE. Don't stay away so long anymore.

“On the contrary, that's exactly the argument Augusta has made; that it's members like to smoke cigars and be comfortable in the company of like-minded males, much like the women's club that is the topic of this post. It's apples to apples. Forcing one's way into a private group on the flimsy argument that business deals are being done in the locker rooms and women want access to those alleged "opportunities" is ludicrous. Its critics are appalled that a private club can exclude women for any reason, period. Yet it is perfectly reasonable in their minds for women to have their own exclusive clubs.”

You asked why, aside from some occasional hurt feelings and a smattering of righteous indignation, does no one really get worked up about mom’s clubs and yet publicity-intensive demonstrations are held outside Augusta (although really, hasn’t this also been relegated to a non-issue for most folks since the failed efforts of some 4-5 years ago). In this context, what Augusta members say about themselves is 1) in-and-of-itself, not the last word on its veracity 2) ultimately immaterial to why a lot of people care and 3) not relevant to why the media made an issue about it. Not that it’s relevant either, but I can tell you from personal experience that in addition to cigar smoking, card playing and general ball-busting, business does get discussed occasionally at these men-only clubs/courses ;)

Back to the point, regardless of whether you think it’s fair or unfair, true or untrue, for many people Augusta is not just another run-of-the-mill social club. It’s a powerful symbol of the “good-old-boys-network” that provides a means for systematic exclusion of women and minorities, among others. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. In other words, if people really believed that the only thing women were being denied is the opportunity to smoke cigars and discuss prostate exams then yes, I believe it would have gathered about as much indignation and attention as the local men’s kegger league or this mom’s club. Sure some “critics” would still get up in arms over the principle of the thing, just as there are some critics on this board of the sahm policy, but it wouldn’t garner national interest and the Martha Burks and Jessie Jacksons of the world wouldn’t have been motivated to get in on the action and exploit it for their own agendas. Apples and oranges.

You’re right though, this is America and we cannot force Augusta to accept women members anymore than we can force this particular sahm group to accept Sean anymore than we can force the KKK to disband. But because this is America we also have the right to peacefully protest that which we oppose on ethical grounds and to legally encourage others to “vote with their pocketbooks” in an effort to effect peaceful change. We can celebrate this right too, even when our first instinct is to whine about the protests we find ludicrous.

Well, I might wonder who's really doing the whining here, but I mostly agree with you. Augusta is obviously not a run-of-the-mill social club and therefore makes a nice symbolic target for NOW. Yet my initial point was in fact limited to the apples to apples comparison of two gender-specific clubs, notwithstanding their divergent appeal. Your argument that business is being discussed in the club and women want to hear is not persuasive because a similar beef can be fashioned to bust any gender exclusive club. I'm glad we agree on the 1st Am right of association, with limitations such as those set forth in "Runyon." A little consistency was all I was going for.

Did you find any resolution to this???