ScienceMomsDoc.com

[Rhiannon]

Then if that aren't wrong what is the issue? You mentioned glyphosate to start so and we hat you felt they were wrong on that, despite there being no mention of it in the post.

Hang on, where have I said that you should 'listen' to me on science? I question that socio-economic factors are the only reasons to doubt GM, which seems to be the basis of their argument. Maybe they do have concerns about that too.

The issue is that the way that they are presenting the message. Patronising mothers is a shit thing to do, even if it is other mothers doing it.

[Rhiannon]

Which isn't what they say.

Well that's what I hear. And Robbie is hearing it too, or similar.

[Nearly Sane]

Hang on, where have I said that you should 'listen' to me on science? I question that socio-economic factors are the only reasons to doubt GM, which seems to be the basis of their argument. Maybe they do have concerns about that too.

The issue is that the way that they are presenting the message. Patronising mothers is a shit thing to do, even if it is other mothers doing it.

So  you as a mother state they are patronisong but their take can be ignored because it's you stating it? 

[Nearly Sane]

Well that's what I hear. And Robbie is hearing it too, or similar.

Ad Populum fallacy

[Rhiannon]

Ad Populum fallacy

Hmm, let me see the opinion of other mothers on this thread... oh yeah, there aren’t any. So you think patronising people is the way to go?

[Nearly Sane]

Hmm, let me see the opinion of other mothers on this thread... oh yeah, there aren’t any. So you think patronising people is the way to go?

And again you think that  the mothers who produced the video can be ignored because you cite mothers on here. Your use of fallacy is as useless as any such use.

[Walter]

Hmm, let me see the opinion of other mothers on this thread... oh yeah, there aren’t any. So you think patronising people is the way to go?

as far as I'm aware you havnt seen the documentary yet so how do you know it's patronising
Or is it the fact they have the audacity to even propose such a thing ?

[Robbie]

Rhi: "I’ve read it again and all I’m seeing is a bunch of ‘smart women’ wanting to ‘educate’ other ‘moms’ - presumably the ‘not smart’."

That is how it comes across to me and I'm not by nature a defensive person. Undoubtedly they mean well but how things are presented and put across is very important so as not to put off their target audience.

[jeremyp]

It would help to leave Paltrow out if it. Immediately you know what you will get - a patronising explanation for the goopshitters.

Actually even just the title is patronising. Like we need other ‘moms’ to explain what’s easily found on the media, on the web, or - heavens - in books. Some of us ‘moms’ have retained the gift of literacy.

You seem to be assuming that, just because this documentary doesn't tell you anything you didn't know already, it must be patronising. Plenty of people are taken in by Paltrow's snake oil. Plenty of people are anti-vaxxers. Plenty of people have a distorted view of the dangers of GMO's. Some of them are mums. 

[jeremyp]

Because you aren’t the one being patronised. To repeat, being told ‘we were once thick moms like you’ is alienating.

I've read the article three times now, and I cannot find where anybody said that. Is it perhaps in the documentary, which I admit to not having watched.

Would it be ok from men aimed at educating the little women? No. So why is it ok that it’s other women doing it?

The people who made the film are doing it because there is a lot of anti-science propaganda aimed at mothers that they wish to counteract. I do not see anything wrong with that objective whoever it is that is doing the counteracting.

[jeremyp]

Rhi: "I’ve read it again and all I’m seeing is a bunch of ‘smart women’ wanting to ‘educate’ other ‘moms’ - presumably the ‘not smart’."

That is how it comes across to me and I'm not by nature a defensive person. Undoubtedly they mean well but how things are presented and put across is very important so as not to put off their target audience.

I really don't get this. You and Rhiannon seem to be making the claim that people shouldn't try to educate mothers that need educating because it is (in your opinion) patronising.

I've only read the article and not seen the documentary but I do not get any sense that anybody is patronising anybody else. If you have seen the documentary and you think it is patronising, fair enough, I concede the point.

[Rhiannon]

Oh ffs. I made it clear in a post that everyone has ignored that I think the concept of ‘fact based parenting’ is a good one. Nobody is objecting to that. Parenting is shared though. And delivering the message as ‘smart women’ talking to ‘moms’ who just don’t get it because they are so caught up in the celebrity culture, bless them, is patronising bullshit.

Make it parenting for both genders, with dads included - or do you think they are already ‘educated’ but that they allow their goopshitting partners to prevent their kids getting MMR anyway? Make it inclusive - not just for those that ‘don’t get it’ but those that already get the science and don’t need ‘educating’, but who just want a resource. And make it dynamic. If this was made when my kids were small ‘fact based parenting’ said don’t give your kids nuts - especially peanuts - or you risk allergies. Now the science- based advice is to give nut products early in order to prevent allergies. Science isn’t fixed and nor should a resource like this be.

As an aside, we have two women here saying this makes us feel a certain way, as women, and a bunch of men dismissing our feelings, distorting what we are saying and telling us how we should feel about it. Wonder what that reminds me of?

[jeremyp]

And delivering the message as ‘smart women’ talking to ‘moms’ who just don’t get it because they are so caught up in the celebrity culture, bless them, is patronising bullshit.

No it isn't. It happens.

As an aside, we have two women here saying this makes us feel a certain way, as women, and a bunch of men dodmissing our feelings, distorting what we are saying and telling us how we should feel about it. Wonder what that reminds me of?

Arguing against you is not dismissing your feelings. Nobody is saying how you you should feel, I just think you are wrong on this occasion.

[Rhiannon]

No it isn't. It happens.
Arguing against you is not dismissing your feelings. Nobody is saying how you you should feel, I just think you are wrong on this occasion.

It happens, but not as frequently as these people make out. Trust me, most women don’t engage with the goopshit- even those who don’t think it bollockry don’t have the time or money to think about Paltrow’s nonsense.

It could be a good resource for *all* parents. Instead it’s alienating.

And when you have two women saying ‘we feel patronised’ and a bunch of men  say ‘well you are wrong’ what is that other than dismissing us?

[Walter]

It happens, but not as frequently as these people make out. Trust me, most women don’t engage with the goopshit- even those who don’t think it bollockry don’t have the time or money to think about Paltrow’s nonsense.

It could be a good resource for *all* parents. Instead it’s alienating.

And when you have two women saying ‘we feel patronised’ and a bunch of men  say ‘well you are wrong’ what is that other than dismissing us?

did somebody say something?

[Udayana]

It happens, but not as frequently as these people make out. Trust me, most women don’t engage with the goopshit- even those who don’t think it bollockry don’t have the time or money to think about Paltrow’s nonsense.

It could be a good resource for *all* parents. Instead it’s alienating.

And when you have two women saying ‘we feel patronised’ and a bunch of men  say ‘well you are wrong’ what is that other than dismissing us?

I think this about right.

Even when everyone is fully educated and conversant on the facts and basic science of an issue there will still be disagreements about how to use any technology. It then becomes a matter of propaganda, nudging, identifying groups, applying peer pressure etc.

[Walter]

I think this about right.

Even when everyone is fully educated and conversant on the facts and basic science of an issue there will still be disagreements about how to use any technology. It then becomes a matter of propaganda, nudging, identifying groups, applying peer pressure etc.

Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?

[Udayana]

Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?

No. What I am saying is that science will give us the facts (as determined at some point in time) but it does not tell you what to do or how best to use it.

Science can give you "killer apps" - say, cars, but people still have to decide how and when to use them and the extent of pollution they are prepared to endure.

[Shaker]

Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?

How is that different from, say, smoking and drinking?

[Walter]

How is that different from, say, smoking and drinking?

eh?

[Shaker]

You said: "Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?"

What I meant was that the scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking was in long ago - likewise drinking alcohol, apparently nowadays even in modest amounts - yet people continue to do both. So the answer to your question would seem to be: yes - even when the science is known and understood, very large numbers of people will disregard it and do what they want.

Note that I'm not saying for one moment that I'm exempting myself from this.

[Walter]

You said: "Just to be clear,are you saying , even though the science is known and understood , people will then choose to disregard it and do what they want ?"

What I meant was that the scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking was in long ago - likewise drinking alcohol, apparently nowadays even in modest amounts - yet people continue to do both. So the answer to your question would seem to be: yes - even when the science is known and understood, very large numbers of people will disregard it and do what they want.

Note that I'm not saying for one moment that I'm exempting myself from this.

yes , I see what you mean but I wasn't clear what Udayana meant?