"Jani"  wrote in message 
news:fmjamg$h72$1@energise.enta.net
> Yowie said:
>> Jani said:

<snip>

>>> Slight tangent - I wonder if there's any correlation between the fluffy
>>> mummy-goddess as deity role model, and the apparently overwhelming tide
>>> of badly-behaved children?
>>
>> I have my own theories on that, although perhaps thats a subject for
>> another time?
>
> This is URP, m'dear. Go for it :-)

I think perhaps bratty children and mummy-goddesses have a correlation 
because they are a symptom of the same problem:

The easy way out, no responsbility. Avoidance of anything dislikable.

So have a mummy deity like a Fairy Godmother and have children that get what 
they want all the time because its just easier and makes you Feel Good, 
never mind reality or the consequences that go into having to take actual 
responsiblity for what you do. If stuff goes wrong, blame someone - 
something - else and continue in your own merry little way that is nice and 
easy and causes the self the least amount of pain - at the moment. Who cares 
anyway?

Or soemthing like that. Instant gratification etc etc.

Yowie

"Yowie"  wrote in message 
news:5v52n4F1kpt73U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jani"  wrote in message 
> news:fmjamg$h72$1@energise.enta.net
>> Yowie said:
>>> Jani said:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Slight tangent - I wonder if there's any correlation between the fluffy
>>>> mummy-goddess as deity role model, and the apparently overwhelming tide
>>>> of badly-behaved children?
>>>
>>> I have my own theories on that, although perhaps thats a subject for
>>> another time?
>>
>> This is URP, m'dear. Go for it :-)
>
> I think perhaps bratty children and mummy-goddesses have a correlation 
> because they are a symptom of the same problem:
>
> The easy way out, no responsbility. Avoidance of anything dislikable.

OK, lack of responsibility is certainly part of it, as far as the kids go.

>
> So have a mummy deity like a Fairy Godmother and have children that get 
> what they want all the time because its just easier and makes you Feel 
> Good, never mind reality or the consequences that go into having to take 
> actual responsiblity for what you do. If stuff goes wrong, blame someone - 
> something - else and continue in your own merry little way that is nice 
> and easy and causes the self the least amount of pain - at the moment. Who 
> cares anyway?

I was thinking more along the lines that if your deity is always kind, sweet 
and cuddly, and you strive to emulate the deity, you're denying yourself the 
capacity to set firm boundaries, to encourage self-discipline, and so on. If 
all the tougher female deities are reconstructed into misunderstood softies, 
that's an incredible lack of balance.

Jani

"Jani"  wrote in message 
news:fmoddm$2sv$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Yowie"  wrote in message 
> news:5v52n4F1kpt73U1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>> news:fmjamg$h72$1@energise.enta.net
>>> Yowie said:
>>>> Jani said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Slight tangent - I wonder if there's any correlation between the 
>>>>> fluffy
>>>>> mummy-goddess as deity role model, and the apparently overwhelming 
>>>>> tide
>>>>> of badly-behaved children?
>>>>
>>>> I have my own theories on that, although perhaps thats a subject for
>>>> another time?
>>>
>>> This is URP, m'dear. Go for it :-)
>>
>> I think perhaps bratty children and mummy-goddesses have a correlation 
>> because they are a symptom of the same problem:
>>
>> The easy way out, no responsbility. Avoidance of anything dislikable.
>
> OK, lack of responsibility is certainly part of it, as far as the kids go.
>
>>
>> So have a mummy deity like a Fairy Godmother and have children that get 
>> what they want all the time because its just easier and makes you Feel 
>> Good, never mind reality or the consequences that go into having to take 
>> actual responsiblity for what you do. If stuff goes wrong, blame 
>> someone - something - else and continue in your own merry little way that 
>> is nice and easy and causes the self the least amount of pain - at the 
>> moment. Who cares anyway?
>
> I was thinking more along the lines that if your deity is always kind, 
> sweet and cuddly, and you strive to emulate the deity, you're denying 
> yourself the capacity to set firm boundaries, to encourage 
> self-discipline, and so on. If all the tougher female deities are 
> reconstructed into misunderstood softies, that's an incredible lack of 
> balance.

it was probably jus tme, but as I help my newborn son in my arms for the 
first time, I was aware that I had 'gone through the veil' so to speak, that 
I had gone from maiden to mother. I becamse aware that I had both given life 
and now,for the first time, had the capacity in myself to take it away if 
pushed to the extremes of defending this new little life I held in my arms.

I've been a mother for 3 years and 9 months. In those 3 years nad 9 months, 
I have found an increible, overwhelming *strength*, bloody mindness, 
persistance, a *whatever* that is not light and fluffy. Whislt its not 
*dark* as such, it is quite quite serious, not even a hint of fuzz let alone 
fluff. It is the force that allows me to say 'no' to my child,e ven though 
he's having a tanty at the time. it is the strength to take away his 
favourite toy because he was being naughty with it and needed to learn (and 
perhaps feelign liek a total heel whlst doign so, but doing it anyway). This 
is the strength that allows me to yell at him when he's naughty, to punish 
him. It is also the strength that gets me to stare down a big angry bloke 
who looked like he was goign to threaten my son. It has given me the ability 
to ROAR great powerful primal roars when I need to. I have turned into a 
*mother*, with all the loving and fluffy bits, but also with the strength of 
steel behind it. I have that 'mother's voice' when needed. It is quite 
frightening and rather liberating too, especailly knowing that I'd be 
perfectly preapred to sacrifice my own life for my son, and equally as 
prepared to sacrifice another's.

This strange change in me, even though I'd be the first to admit that I 
still have a very fluffy 'exterior' is absolutely not covered in 
Chrsitianity - at least, the Christianity I know. It helped immensely to 
understand - from a pagan perspective - the 'passing through' of a veil 
between life & death, to become the second aspect of the goddess, to 
welcome - to an extent - death into my being as a *healthy* thing.

Lacking that part of oneself, or not recognising that part of self as a 
mother, I think leads one to make those fuzzy cute mummy deities. Motherhood 
is *not* all happy and pretty cute babies and furry animals. It is brutal in 
a way, and the female mother deities of old are recognised for both aspects 
of motherhood.

Yowie

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:50:42 +1100, "Yowie"
 blethered:

>"Jani"  wrote in message 
>news:fmjamg$h72$1@energise.enta.net
>> Yowie said:
>>> Jani said:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Slight tangent - I wonder if there's any correlation between the fluffy
>>>> mummy-goddess as deity role model, and the apparently overwhelming tide
>>>> of badly-behaved children?
>>>
>>> I have my own theories on that, although perhaps thats a subject for
>>> another time?
>>
>> This is URP, m'dear. Go for it :-)
>
>I think perhaps bratty children and mummy-goddesses have a correlation 
>because they are a symptom of the same problem:
>
>The easy way out, no responsbility. Avoidance of anything dislikable.
>

You may have a point. Is this also why some adult women are attempting
to become the size of 6-y-os, do you think? Sorry, tangent. <g>

>So have a mummy deity like a Fairy Godmother and have children that get what 
>they want all the time because its just easier and makes you Feel Good, 

Plus of course Fluffy God will forgive.

>never mind reality or the consequences that go into having to take actual 
>responsiblity for what you do. If stuff goes wrong, blame someone - 
>something - else and continue in your own merry little way that is nice and 
>easy and causes the self the least amount of pain - at the moment. Who cares 
>anyway?
>
>Or soemthing like that. Instant gratification etc etc.

Hmm, instant gratification and no one having common sense unless it's
forced upon them by the likes of the HSE.


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:20:07 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Yowie"  wrote in message 
>news:5v52n4F1kpt73U1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>> news:fmjamg$h72$1@energise.enta.net
>>> Yowie said:
>>>> Jani said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Slight tangent - I wonder if there's any correlation between the fluffy
>>>>> mummy-goddess as deity role model, and the apparently overwhelming tide
>>>>> of badly-behaved children?
>>>>
>>>> I have my own theories on that, although perhaps thats a subject for
>>>> another time?
>>>
>>> This is URP, m'dear. Go for it :-)
>>
>> I think perhaps bratty children and mummy-goddesses have a correlation 
>> because they are a symptom of the same problem:
>>
>> The easy way out, no responsbility. Avoidance of anything dislikable.
>
>OK, lack of responsibility is certainly part of it, as far as the kids go.
>

I see a lot of parents on telly etc. who seem more concerned with
being friends with their kids than raising them right. Seems slightly
icky. It could be a symptom of the 'I'm not old enough to have kids of
$blah age!' thing too. Reckon being friends with your kids when
they're groan-ups themselves is the right result, but one can't make
all parenting decisions based on that. 

>>
>> So have a mummy deity like a Fairy Godmother and have children that get 
>> what they want all the time because its just easier and makes you Feel 
>> Good, never mind reality or the consequences that go into having to take 
>> actual responsiblity for what you do. If stuff goes wrong, blame someone - 
>> something - else and continue in your own merry little way that is nice 
>> and easy and causes the self the least amount of pain - at the moment. Who 
>> cares anyway?
>
>I was thinking more along the lines that if your deity is always kind, sweet 
>and cuddly, and you strive to emulate the deity, you're denying yourself the 
>capacity to set firm boundaries, to encourage self-discipline, and so on. If 
>all the tougher female deities are reconstructed into misunderstood softies, 
>that's an incredible lack of balance.

Why does 'kind sweet and cuddly' need to mean 'pushover' though?
Doesn't necessarily go together in my opinion. 


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Yowie"  wrote in message
news:5valpdF1l84nqU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jani"  wrote in message
> news:fmoddm$2sv$1@energise.enta.net...
>> "Yowie"  wrote in message
>> news:5v52n4F1kpt73U1@mid.individual.net...

[]

>>> So have a mummy deity like a Fairy Godmother and have children that get
>>> what they want all the time because its just easier and makes you Feel
>>> Good, never mind reality or the consequences that go into having to take
>>> actual responsiblity for what you do. If stuff goes wrong, blame
>>> someone - something - else and continue in your own merry little way
>>> that is nice and easy and causes the self the least amount of pain - at
>>> the moment. Who cares anyway?
>>
>> I was thinking more along the lines that if your deity is always kind,
>> sweet and cuddly, and you strive to emulate the deity, you're denying
>> yourself the capacity to set firm boundaries, to encourage
>> self-discipline, and so on. If all the tougher female deities are
>> reconstructed into misunderstood softies, that's an incredible lack of
>> balance.
>
> it was probably jus tme, but as I help my newborn son in my arms for the
> first time, I was aware that I had 'gone through the veil' so to speak,
> that I had gone from maiden to mother. I becamse aware that I had both
> given life and now,for the first time, had the capacity in myself to take
> it away if pushed to the extremes of defending this new little life I held
> in my arms.

[]

> This strange change in me, even though I'd be the first to admit that I
> still have a very fluffy 'exterior' is absolutely not covered in
> Chrsitianity - at least, the Christianity I know. It helped immensely to
> understand - from a pagan perspective - the 'passing through' of a veil
> between life & death, to become the second aspect of the goddess, to
> welcome - to an extent - death into my being as a *healthy* thing.

When you say "not covered in Christianity", do you mean that strong 
mother-figures aren't encouraged because of the patriarchal aspect? If so, 
I'd agree that's a feature of some denominations (or possibly some cultural 
variants?) but not all. Also, neopaganism doesn't tend to distinguish 
between private and public spheres, as regards gender; in other faiths the 
female social / community network,and the female "principle" as a whole, 
might have quite a lot of power, but because it's behind-the-scenes, it's 
not obvious.


> Lacking that part of oneself, or not recognising that part of self as a
> mother, I think leads one to make those fuzzy cute mummy deities.
> Motherhood is *not* all happy and pretty cute babies and furry animals. It
> is brutal in a way, and the female mother deities of old are recognised
> for both aspects of motherhood.

Since a lot of the fluffy end of neopaganism seems to have drawn heavily on 
Christianity, I wonder if traditional Christian iconography has anything to 
do with it? Even if one rejects the "virgin mother" concept as unrealistic 
and denying female sexuality, the fact remains that the major female icon is 
mother-and-baby, as opposed to mother-and-screaming-toddler, 
mother-and-bolshie-teenager, etc.

Jani

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:em14p3526g5k55liskjr53cs48rrtvdn0v@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:20:07 -0000, "Jani" 
> blethered:
>
>>
>>"Yowie"  wrote in message
>>news:5v52n4F1kpt73U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Jani"  wrote in message
>>> news:fmjamg$h72$1@energise.enta.net
>>>> Yowie said:
>>>>> Jani said:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> Slight tangent - I wonder if there's any correlation between the 
>>>>>> fluffy
>>>>>> mummy-goddess as deity role model, and the apparently overwhelming 
>>>>>> tide
>>>>>> of badly-behaved children?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have my own theories on that, although perhaps thats a subject for
>>>>> another time?
>>>>
>>>> This is URP, m'dear. Go for it :-)
>>>
>>> I think perhaps bratty children and mummy-goddesses have a correlation
>>> because they are a symptom of the same problem:
>>>
>>> The easy way out, no responsbility. Avoidance of anything dislikable.
>>
>>OK, lack of responsibility is certainly part of it, as far as the kids go.
>>
>
> I see a lot of parents on telly etc. who seem more concerned with
> being friends with their kids than raising them right. Seems slightly
> icky. It could be a symptom of the 'I'm not old enough to have kids of
> $blah age!' thing too. Reckon being friends with your kids when
> they're groan-ups themselves is the right result, but one can't make
> all parenting decisions based on that.

Yup, there's a difference between being "friendly" and being best mates....

[]

>>I was thinking more along the lines that if your deity is always kind, 
>>sweet
>>and cuddly, and you strive to emulate the deity, you're denying yourself 
>>the
>>capacity to set firm boundaries, to encourage self-discipline, and so on. 
>>If
>>all the tougher female deities are reconstructed into misunderstood 
>>softies,
>>that's an incredible lack of balance.
>
> Why does 'kind sweet and cuddly' need to mean 'pushover' though?
> Doesn't necessarily go together in my opinion.

Because you can't present yourself as "kind" when you're setting out 
boundaries and safety rules to someone who's not yet capable of rationality, 
and understanding long-term implications.

Jani

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:26:30 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:em14p3526g5k55liskjr53cs48rrtvdn0v@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:20:07 -0000, "Jani" 
>> blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>"Yowie"  wrote in message
>>>news:5v52n4F1kpt73U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Jani"  wrote in message
>>>> news:fmjamg$h72$1@energise.enta.net
>>>>> Yowie said:
>>>>>> Jani said:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Slight tangent - I wonder if there's any correlation between the 
>>>>>>> fluffy
>>>>>>> mummy-goddess as deity role model, and the apparently overwhelming 
>>>>>>> tide
>>>>>>> of badly-behaved children?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have my own theories on that, although perhaps thats a subject for
>>>>>> another time?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is URP, m'dear. Go for it :-)
>>>>
>>>> I think perhaps bratty children and mummy-goddesses have a correlation
>>>> because they are a symptom of the same problem:
>>>>
>>>> The easy way out, no responsbility. Avoidance of anything dislikable.
>>>
>>>OK, lack of responsibility is certainly part of it, as far as the kids go.
>>>
>>
>> I see a lot of parents on telly etc. who seem more concerned with
>> being friends with their kids than raising them right. Seems slightly
>> icky. It could be a symptom of the 'I'm not old enough to have kids of
>> $blah age!' thing too. Reckon being friends with your kids when
>> they're groan-ups themselves is the right result, but one can't make
>> all parenting decisions based on that.
>
>Yup, there's a difference between being "friendly" and being best mates....
>

And someone has to do the adult decision thing, if a child has no
accessible role model for that it's not likely to be them. For
instance, I'm currently all kinds of horrible because I confiscated
IIa and IIbs DS things due to repeated levels of provoking
naughtiness. <g> Can't do that if you're best mates with your kids,
really, but it needed done.

>[]
>
>>>I was thinking more along the lines that if your deity is always kind, 
>>>sweet
>>>and cuddly, and you strive to emulate the deity, you're denying yourself 
>>>the
>>>capacity to set firm boundaries, to encourage self-discipline, and so on. 
>>>If
>>>all the tougher female deities are reconstructed into misunderstood 
>>>softies,
>>>that's an incredible lack of balance.
>>
>> Why does 'kind sweet and cuddly' need to mean 'pushover' though?
>> Doesn't necessarily go together in my opinion.
>
>Because you can't present yourself as "kind" when you're setting out 
>boundaries and safety rules to someone who's not yet capable of rationality, 
>and understanding long-term implications.

Ah, yes. I was thinking more of later stages of development. Mind you
I still think it's not impossible to be kind when setting boundaries
etc. as you describe, it's just a bit more difficult. I've heard mums
who will say 'don't do that darling' in a sweetish voice, and the
sprog complies, with varying levels of happiness. <g>


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:2ec4p3pdluako8i11vc5v9cin2b11g931l@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:26:30 -0000, "Jani" 
> blethered:

[]

>>Because you can't present yourself as "kind" when you're setting out
>>boundaries and safety rules to someone who's not yet capable of 
>>rationality,
>>and understanding long-term implications.
>
> Ah, yes. I was thinking more of later stages of development. Mind you
> I still think it's not impossible to be kind when setting boundaries
> etc. as you describe, it's just a bit more difficult. I've heard mums
> who will say 'don't do that darling' in a sweetish voice, and the
> sprog complies, with varying levels of happiness. <g>

I usually just say "Oy!" That seems to work :)

Jani

"Jani"  wrote in message 
news:fmt4jb$279j$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Yowie"  wrote in message
> news:5valpdF1l84nqU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Jani"  wrote in message
>> news:fmoddm$2sv$1@energise.enta.net...
>>> "Yowie"  wrote in message
>>> news:5v52n4F1kpt73U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> []
>
>>>> So have a mummy deity like a Fairy Godmother and have children that get
>>>> what they want all the time because its just easier and makes you Feel
>>>> Good, never mind reality or the consequences that go into having to 
>>>> take
>>>> actual responsiblity for what you do. If stuff goes wrong, blame
>>>> someone - something - else and continue in your own merry little way
>>>> that is nice and easy and causes the self the least amount of pain - at
>>>> the moment. Who cares anyway?
>>>
>>> I was thinking more along the lines that if your deity is always kind,
>>> sweet and cuddly, and you strive to emulate the deity, you're denying
>>> yourself the capacity to set firm boundaries, to encourage
>>> self-discipline, and so on. If all the tougher female deities are
>>> reconstructed into misunderstood softies, that's an incredible lack of
>>> balance.
>>
>> it was probably jus tme, but as I help my newborn son in my arms for the
>> first time, I was aware that I had 'gone through the veil' so to speak,
>> that I had gone from maiden to mother. I becamse aware that I had both
>> given life and now,for the first time, had the capacity in myself to take
>> it away if pushed to the extremes of defending this new little life I 
>> held
>> in my arms.
>
> []
>
>> This strange change in me, even though I'd be the first to admit that I
>> still have a very fluffy 'exterior' is absolutely not covered in
>> Chrsitianity - at least, the Christianity I know. It helped immensely to
>> understand - from a pagan perspective - the 'passing through' of a veil
>> between life & death, to become the second aspect of the goddess, to
>> welcome - to an extent - death into my being as a *healthy* thing.
>
> When you say "not covered in Christianity", do you mean that strong 
> mother-figures aren't encouraged because of the patriarchal aspect?

No. I meant the change from maiden to mother wasn't recognised. The birth of 
the child, yes, but its their *birth* that is celebrated, but the transition 
the was-maiden-now-mother person is ignored (as is the was 
warrior-now-father transition). And its a humping great change that brings 
with it huge huge differences in outlook, lifestyle, realtionships etc etc. 
Totally ignored. In the hospital (there was no choice in the matter of where 
the baby was going to be born if I wanted any sort of help, I wanted a home 
birth or at least a 'birthing centre' birth with midwife present but no 
doctors with 'procedures') it felt i was merely the growing medium for the 
baby and my role was simply to act as a vessel for 'something important', my 
own needs (emotional, phsyical & spiritual) only taken into the equation 
when they impacted on the birth process itself.

At least in Paganism, there is a recognsied change, the difference between 
maiden & mother. I don't think any branch of Christianity acknowledges that 
deep and profound change that happens in people when they become parents.

> Since a lot of the fluffy end of neopaganism seems to have drawn heavily 
> on Christianity, I wonder if traditional Christian iconography has 
> anything to do with it? Even if one rejects the "virgin mother" concept as 
> unrealistic and denying female sexuality, the fact remains that the major 
> female icon is mother-and-baby, as opposed to 
> mother-and-screaming-toddler, mother-and-bolshie-teenager, etc.

You may have a point. Contented (and well slept) Mary with done hair and 
clean, good clothes, smiling lovingly at a happy very young baby Jesus, also 
clean and showing no signs of diaper rash (or even a diaper) is really the 
only mother figure around.

Those with 'energetic' children are just naturally considered bad mothers.

Yowie

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:27:40 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:2ec4p3pdluako8i11vc5v9cin2b11g931l@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:26:30 -0000, "Jani" 
>> blethered:
>
>[]
>
>>>Because you can't present yourself as "kind" when you're setting out
>>>boundaries and safety rules to someone who's not yet capable of 
>>>rationality,
>>>and understanding long-term implications.
>>
>> Ah, yes. I was thinking more of later stages of development. Mind you
>> I still think it's not impossible to be kind when setting boundaries
>> etc. as you describe, it's just a bit more difficult. I've heard mums
>> who will say 'don't do that darling' in a sweetish voice, and the
>> sprog complies, with varying levels of happiness. <g>
>
>I usually just say "Oy!" That seems to work :)

Oh, me too. I find that easier than being sweet, to be honest. <g>


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin