So what do we think about the New Yorker article with the Cheverly moms?

[Anonymous]

PP made a great point about motherhood making one vulnerable to conservative propaganda.

Being a SAHM for 8 years in this area has definitely moved me rightward. Not enough to join this group or party (I'm also an atheist...). But Dems have been shortsighted in totally ignoring parents who want to stay home while Vance (someone I deplore!) embraces us. Found this article fascinating.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like conservatives want to stop talking about abortion and what happens when it's made illegal even when a woman might die (women die).

[Anonymous]

I am fully pro-choice. I understand the circumstances behind rare 3rd-trimester terminations. But I hate, hate the path abortion activism has taken in the past 10 years.

Pro-life young people have been savvier and more nimble. "Love the mother, love the child" / support families is the new direction they're taking, while we've got bizarre "shout your abortion" and Chelsea Handler-types making us look like heartless villains who are afraid to admit we mourn our own miscarriages. All this while viability gets earlier and earlier. Pro-choice women need to wake up and moderate their message before we lose an entire generation!

Obama was of the "safe, legal and rare" ethos that's so out of fashion now. When will progressives admit the average American woman was much safer back then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is probably not a good place to have this discussion, but this article underscores something I've been thinking about quite a bit.

Conservatives are offering community in a way that progressives have not, and that's doubly true for people with young kids.

I've never been more vulnerable to conservative "marketing" as I was as a new mother.

Come on down to Mount Rainier. We have a great sense of community and don’t want to trample on people’s rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably not a good place to have this discussion, but this article underscores something I've been thinking about quite a bit.

Conservatives are offering community in a way that progressives have not, and that's doubly true for people with young kids.

I've never been more vulnerable to conservative "marketing" as I was as a new mother.

Come on down to Mount Rainier. We have a great sense of community and don’t want to trample on people’s rights.

Cheverly has and extremely progressive town council. No ones rights are being trampled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably not a good place to have this discussion, but this article underscores something I've been thinking about quite a bit.

Conservatives are offering community in a way that progressives have not, and that's doubly true for people with young kids.

I've never been more vulnerable to conservative "marketing" as I was as a new mother.

Come on down to Mount Rainier. We have a great sense of community and don’t want to trample on people’s rights.

Cheverly has and extremely progressive town council. No ones rights are being trampled

And a fantastic sense of community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am fully pro-choice. I understand the circumstances behind rare 3rd-trimester terminations. But I hate, hate the path abortion activism has taken in the past 10 years.

Pro-life young people have been savvier and more nimble. "Love the mother, love the child" / support families is the new direction they're taking, while we've got bizarre "shout your abortion" and Chelsea Handler-types making us look like heartless villains who are afraid to admit we mourn our own miscarriages. All this while viability gets earlier and earlier. Pro-choice women need to wake up and moderate their message before we lose an entire generation!

Obama was of the "safe, legal and rare" ethos that's so out of fashion now. When will progressives admit the average American woman was much safer back then?

Can’t we just do both - promote family policies but keep abortion available as the healthcare procedure that it is. I can’t take the women in the article seriously because they’re so privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP made a great point about motherhood making one vulnerable to conservative propaganda.

Being a SAHM for 8 years in this area has definitely moved me rightward. Not enough to join this group or party (I'm also an atheist...). But Dems have been shortsighted in totally ignoring parents who want to stay home while Vance (someone I deplore!) embraces us. Found this article fascinating.

Huh, I’m a SAHM in the area and it has moved me leftward, and sort of more opposed to religion generally. I see all those St Jerome’s kids running around and I feel terrible about the ones who are inevitably gay or trans. Like even if the church doesn’t do anything “wrong” like on the level of their history of child abuse, it’s going to be awful for those kids. And their families, honestly. I just don’t see the Catholic Church as being pro-family at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont understand why the article keeps bringing up Vance and his wife, when they live in........Virginia.

Because Vance is the ideological vanguard of this new form of conservativism: opposed to hardnosed anti-family corporations, anti-monopolist, pro-family, wants to extend child tax credit, bonuses for babies, more money spent on childcare, expand Medicaid to pregnant women, paid family leave, school choice (including religious privates & home schooling)....while also stridently anti-abortion.

It has nothing to do with where Vance lives, but what they represents and believe. Let's see if honors his word by getting pro-family legislation across the finish line.

The part talking about Cheverly was pushing the thesis that real conservatives want to live in Maryland, the Hill staffers, the pro family, the big community and definitely not in Virginia while referencing Vance this and Vance that and that his wife is a working woman with a professional degree. But yet, they’re on record as saying they picked Del Ray because of the amenities and sense of community.

So you don’t get it both ways. This thread is definitely some “profamily” propaganda disguised as pro life lobbying. Even the main woman at the central part of the article, who has 4 kids and went to Harvard herself, admits she has no idea what it’s like not to be super privileged when having kids yet thinks it must be “hard” to not be so white, I’ve educated, wealthy and privileged and be faced with a pregnancy but abortion should be illegal anyway. She got hers.

The hypocrisy is gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So leaving aside the fact that I don’t buy for a minute that the GOP is going to meaningfully support families, what do we think about the depiction of Cheverly moms? Are they really raising their kids in an “alternative” way or are they just self-important?


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/11/18/the-pro-life-movements-new-playbook

I think you should stop being so cynical and judgmental.

It wasn’t that long ago that the Christian conservatives were the judgmental trying to dictate to people and the Progressive mantra was live and let live.

That article and your response confirms to me that the two groups have flipped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP made a great point about motherhood making one vulnerable to conservative propaganda.

Being a SAHM for 8 years in this area has definitely moved me rightward. Not enough to join this group or party (I'm also an atheist...). But Dems have been shortsighted in totally ignoring parents who want to stay home while Vance (someone I deplore!) embraces us. Found this article fascinating.

Huh, I’m a SAHM in the area and it has moved me leftward, and sort of more opposed to religion generally. I see all those St Jerome’s kids running around and I feel terrible about the ones who are inevitably gay or trans. Like even if the church doesn’t do anything “wrong” like on the level of their history of child abuse, it’s going to be awful for those kids. And their families, honestly. I just don’t see the Catholic Church as being pro-family at all.

Churches are pro "in-group" family. That is, they will support pro-family policies if you fit the mold of what they deem to be an "acceptable" family. Families at congregations have always turned their nose up at single mother households, families with the "sensitive" boy (aka he will be gay), families that have a problematic or disabled child, inter-racial families, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP made a great point about motherhood making one vulnerable to conservative propaganda.

Being a SAHM for 8 years in this area has definitely moved me rightward. Not enough to join this group or party (I'm also an atheist...). But Dems have been shortsighted in totally ignoring parents who want to stay home while Vance (someone I deplore!) embraces us. Found this article fascinating.

Huh, I’m a SAHM in the area and it has moved me leftward, and sort of more opposed to religion generally. I see all those St Jerome’s kids running around and I feel terrible about the ones who are inevitably gay or trans. Like even if the church doesn’t do anything “wrong” like on the level of their history of child abuse, it’s going to be awful for those kids. And their families, honestly. I just don’t see the Catholic Church as being pro-family at all.

Churches are pro "in-group" family. That is, they will support pro-family policies if you fit the mold of what they deem to be an "acceptable" family. Families at congregations have always turned their nose up at single mother households, families with the "sensitive" boy (aka he will be gay), families that have a problematic or disabled child, inter-racial families, etc.

But this is the crazy part to me is like, if you have a ton of kids running around you have to know they’re not all going to be cis and hetero. So wouldn’t you be kind of terrified the whole time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is probably not a good place to have this discussion, but this article underscores something I've been thinking about quite a bit.

Conservatives are offering community in a way that progressives have not, and that's doubly true for people with young kids.

I've never been more vulnerable to conservative "marketing" as I was as a new mother.

I'd be curious to hear you explain this further (I was so sleep deprived at that stage, I don't remember having coherent thoughts).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why anyone would want to live in Cheverly.The schools are terrible and the lots are tiny.

well, if you’re a “realignment conservative” one of your beliefs is that people should have more kids and put fewer efforts and resources into each one, so sending them to terrible schools would be on point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is probably not a good place to have this discussion, but this article underscores something I've been thinking about quite a bit.

Conservatives are offering community in a way that progressives have not, and that's doubly true for people with young kids.

I've never been more vulnerable to conservative "marketing" as I was as a new mother.

Blah. I’m OP and I posted this because I thought it was silly to claim that having friends in the neighborhood or a boss that is parent-friendly is somehow conservative. We have that in my 95% democratic DC neighborhood.