Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Fifty Plus Cohousing + ?

[Grant McCormick (grantmc]

Racheli,

The reaction some on this list had to your comments seems similar to the 
reaction in our community when needs are labeled with terms like "hostile".

What I hear in this thread is the need to have concerns heard regarding 
children in community. When a term like "hostility" is used to characterize 
someone's needs, what happens? For starters, a pattern of polarized 
discussion often sets in. Whether intended or not, such choice of words 
contributes to a challenging community dynamic. Utilizing polarizing 
language may be effective, say,  when mobilizing activists for a march, but 
it isn't effective for a community where cooperation, communication, and 
connection are important.

Rather than defending the term "hostile", could others on this list simply 
be asked if they personally harbor hostile feelings toward children?  If no 
one confirms hostility, it would be nice to see respect for their "truth" 
(regardless of how you *choose* to perceive it privately). I'm not 
presuming that hostility toward children never exists, rather, I'm 
suggesting that  expressing a concern about children does not inherently 
constitute hostility. Can you honor this notion?

Assumption of hostility seems to be a perfect example of blindly "assuming 
bad intent". If not, please correct me (and tell me what it is). I don't 
know if you lump me among the "hostile", but for the record, I'm not and I 
highly value the presence of children in our community. At the same time, I 
believe its legitimate for me or anyone else to raise concerns about 
children in our community without the fear of being labeled "hostile" or 
some such thing (which is, BTW, a fear shared by some in our community).

Grant, at Sonora

"Where after 2+ years we're about to begin a "children's forum" - a place 
expected to, among other things, allow concerns with children to find a 
safe place for expression."





At 11:52 AM 2/19/2003 -0700, racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com wrote:

> Hi Howard,
> I suppose your post is meant to exemplify/model how NOT to write an
> inflamatory email :) ...
>
> I'm not going to get into a talmudic debate with you about what I said or
> didn't say and what it meant (or didn't), since it seems  to me to be a
> waste of my time.
>
> Regarding the use of the term "hostility": Yes, I stand by it. I do think
> there are quite a few people in cohousing (as
> well as out of it) with hostile attitudes towards children.
> I used the terms because it reflects my thinking, not so as
> to offend you or anyone.  Judging from some of the responses
> I got (privately), there are others who agree with me.
> Regardless of whether we are right or wrong, the perception
> exists.  Perhaps it's even rooted in reality.
> R.
>
>
>
> >> It WOULD be stereotyping to say that "anyone who would prefer to live
> >> without something is hostile to that things".  However,  I didn't say it,
> >> You did.  and I don't think I implied it, either.   What I DID say was
> >> that it makes sense for those who are hostile to children to live in
> >> a place where there are no, or very few children.
>
> >You implied, because you were replying to someone who simply said she
> >didn't wish to live with children at this stage of her life, that such a
> >person was necessarily or likely "hostile to children".  Also, in a later
> >email, you *insisted* on the term "hostility":
>
> >> Just because you met people out of cohousing who feel
> >> that way doesn't prove that it isn't hostility
>
> >(Actually, it does.  If you make a blanket statement that purports to be
> >universally valid, then it only takes one counterexample to prove it
> >false.  He was responding to your original apparent position, but here
> >you shifted your apparent position from "must be hostility" to "might be
> >hostility sometimes".)
>
> >I felt your choice of "hostile" was inflammatory, insulting, and not
> >logically justifiable.  It's a very strong and emotionally loaded term
> >(see the definition below).  And I'm not the only one who felt that. You
> >don't seem aware that insulting people might cause a reaction. Or maybe
> >you didn't expect anyone to feel insulted?
>
> >Anyway, I was trying to point out that the (unstated) logic you appeared
> >to be following simply didn't make sense.  To do that, I had to state
> >what you left unstated, that is, explicitly state the logical premise
> >that you appeared to be using.  Since you now say that you disagree with
> >it as well, I'm puzzled about how you reached your conclusion.  You leapt
> >from "doesn't want to live with children" to "is hostile to children".
> >How did you get there?
>
> >       Howard A. Landman
> >       River Rock Commons
> >       Fort Collins CO
>
> >hostility, n:
> >  1. a feeling of enmity, ill will, unfriendliness, etc.; antagonism.
> >  2. (a) expression of enmity and ill will; active opposition;
> >     hostile act; (b) a state of war; acts of war; warfare.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Cohousing-L mailing list
> >Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
> >http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list
> Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L


_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L