I’ve written about documentation, tone policing, gatekeeping, gaslighting, institutional betrayal, and grievability and legitimacy separately, butsometimes it helps to see those pieces in conversation—because together, they reveal something larger. This post draws together the threads of clarity, competence, and credibility, and asks: why do systems recoil when mothers speak plainly about harm?
Why does it feel like the more clearly we speak, the less we’re heard? Why do accomplished women—consultants, strategists, health professionals, lawyers, policy advisors—so often leave IEP meetings feeling erased, doubted, or emotionally bruised? This post explores the strange and infuriating phenomenon where high competence triggers institutional defensiveness, especially in gendered and maternal contexts.
-
The threat of clarity: women who know too much
Why confident, justice-oriented women are punished in public systems The woman who knew too much She is articulate, principled, professional, and polished—measured in her cadence, practiced in her facilitation , and fully aware of the power her clarity holds. She enters each room equipped with documents, timelines, policies, and annotated proof of harm, accompanied not […]
Clarity is mistaken for aggression
In professional environments, clarity is often recognised as a sign of competence and expected as a baseline for effective communication, yet in school-based advocacy—especially when voiced by mothers—that same clarity is frequently reinterpreted as hostility, with firm boundaries mistaken for aggression, documented timelines treated as accusations, and legal references regarded as threats, revealing how the very strategies that earn respect in other domains are recoded within education systems as emotional excess or adversarial defiance.
-
The price of being the one who says the hard thing
There is a moment that plays out in a thousand variations—at school pickup, on the playground, during track and field events—when a parent turns to you, warm and casual, and says, “How are things?”, and for the briefest fraction of a second, you…
Institutions that feed on passivity
The education system remains structurally and culturally oriented around compliance. Parents—especially mothers—are expected to be deferential, grateful, and emotionally pliable. When we arrive with confidence and clarity, we disrupt that dynamic. We become too large, too sharp, too inconvenient to absorb easily into the system’s preferred narrative of parental helplessness. We are not thanked for doing our homework; we are punished for it.
-
Our goals are not the same: ableism in bc public school
I want my children supported to grow and learn; schools uphold ableism by demanding they mask compliance or feign helplessness for support.
Gender, affect, and the performance of helpworthiness
A mother who weeps quietly may be offered sympathy. A mother who speaks with strategy and precision may be accused of being difficult, manipulative, or overinvolved. There is a profound and gendered discomfort with women who are neither passive nor dependent—especially when we appear to know more about the law, the child, or the system than the professionals in the room. This discomfort translates into coldness, evasion, or even retaliation.
-
Maybe tomorrow: reflections on goal post shifting and the economics of access
There were accommodations on paper and endless lip-service meetings. But none of it happened in the classroom. And every time we did what was asked—another intake, another form, another plan—the goalpost moved again. We weren’t asking for miracles. We were asking to be…
Why this is a systemic problem, not a personal one
This is not about interpersonal conflict. It is about how systems maintain authority by undermining the legitimacy of parent voices—especially when those voices carry the cadence and content of expertise. It’s about institutions preserving their gatekeeping role by resisting co-authorship and mutual problem-solving. And it’s about a cultural narrative that rewards performance of vulnerability but punishes displays of confident agency.
-
When pain gets too close: Affective economies and the emotional cost of advocacy
I have always been someone who made people uneasy unless I carefully managed my presence—someone whose…
Toward collective clarity: What we can do
- Name the pattern. We are not alone, and this is not accidental.
- Document the erasures. When silence or dismissal follow clear advocacy, record them as you would any other refusal.
- Strategise support. Bring a witness. Share your credentials only when it serves you. Use rights-based language.
- Build networks. We need to show that knowledgeable, strategic, justice-driven mothers are everywhere—and that our competence is a public good, not a personal flaw.
-
“Urgent: Third Request” — what to do when schools ignore your emails
You write the email. You name the problem. You describe, in detail, what your child is…
We speak clearly because we honour truth. We bring competence because we carry responsibility. We set boundaries because our children deserve safety. We reference law because inclusion is a right. We document because our memories are sharp, our records are careful, and our words are worthy of the page. We gather together because this harm is structural, and our solidarity is strategic. We continue speaking because clarity is not the problem—it is the evidence of our care, the structure of our resistance, and the shape of a future where mothers are heard the first time.
