# Latest Mothering issue (GASP!)



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

I cannot believe I am posting this, but...anyone bothered by latest Mothering issue?!?!?!

I just got it today (I'm in Malaysia) and I coulnd't believe it when I read Peggy O'Mara's article: _Both medical circumcision and vaccination are complex, personal matters for which there is *no single, easy answer*....We trust both in the integrity of the child's body and the inherent *authority of the parents to make decisions for the family*._







:

I wonder how she feels about the authority of parents in Africa to make the decision to mutilate baby girls?
No single, easy answer?









[email protected]


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

Wow.....just......wow. Peggy wrote that? Doesn't sound like her.....


----------



## jakesmama (May 9, 2005)

Yeah, but the entire point of the article was about how natural family living is about trust. What is good for one family may not work for another, but we trust that parents educate themselves and trust their instincts. IMO when the comments are taken in context they fit well. Let's not alienate someone simply because she chose to vax her child. I thought that Peggy's article was well written and served a wide audience which is one of the points of the movement, right? The more families who begin to trust themselves and their children the better. If that means they still vax and circ we can't deny them mebership to our "club." I think mutilating baby girls is taking Peggy's point to the nth...not really fair.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Since this is not the place to discuss, rather a call to activism, there is a discussion thread on this matter at The Case AGAINST CIRCUMCISION forum:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...4&page=1&pp=20

Peggy O'Mara's Entire article:
http://www.mothering.com/guest_edito...place/130.html

You can write:
[email protected]


----------



## CincoDeMama (Dec 9, 2001)

unbelievable.

i'm speechless.

this is prolly a good thing.

good for peggy, that is.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:

the entire point of the article was about how natural family living is about trust. What is good for one family may not work for another,
This same argument can be used to support every mainstream and non AP practice from CIO to corporal punishment









Quote:

The erosion of the stands that Mothering (Peggy O) once championed has been all to evident by the transformation of this board.................

I did not renew my subscription, after 10 years, due to all of this. IMO, the integrity of this mag has been compromised greatly in trying to appease all the consumers.......

I cannot agree more with this! I too have my sub lapse and will not be renewing nor will I be giving it as gifts as I once did.

Quote:

Genital integrity is NOT a complex matter, and there is indeed a single, easy answer: circumcision violates a baby's human rights.
ITA, thank you for starting this thread Ilaria.


----------



## greyskye (Oct 21, 2004)

alot of the article was sound. on the issue of circums. yes it violates a baby's rights...but there is still a huge diffence between female and male circusion.
it would be like cutting off half the penis in comparison.

i have not read this mag for ten years..or any where near.

maybe peggy o tone is somewhat mild in the article...

really though why would you want to agree with everything?


----------



## intentfulady (Dec 31, 2003)

Standing in truth is not popular. It makes people uncomfortable.

i'm doing more and more of it and not making many friends...where I live anyway.


----------



## ~Jenna~ (Dec 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilaria*
I cannot believe I am posting this, but...anyone bothered by latest Mothering issue?!?!?!

Yes







Sometimes I think we are making so much progress, guess I'm wrong.


----------



## hcsl (Jan 11, 2004)

I would expect that a newly born baby, who has spent the previous nine-ish months in a warm loving womb, who craves the scent, comfort and milk of his mother would *TRUST* said mother not to welcome him into the world by stripping flesh from skin and removing a healthy, functioning part of his body.


----------



## I Believe in Fairies (Apr 17, 2002)

I'm not suprise, but it does sadden me.

Now, in defense of medically needed circ - I have a friend who has two intact sons. One had to have a circ because he kept getting infections. She cried. He was seven or eight when it was done, and they had tried everything else and none had worked.

I haven't bought Mothering in a very long time. I've found the magazine to be very negative in nature and rarely branches out to issues beyond the first year or two of life. Between that and the overmoderation on this board, I gave up on it.


----------



## intentfulady (Dec 31, 2003)

hcsl

goosebumps
thank you


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *greyskye*
alot of the article was sound. on the issue of circums. yes it violates a baby's rights...but there is still a huge diffence between female and male circusion.
it would be like cutting off half the penis in comparison.

Actually, there is a wide variety of what passes as "female circumcision" (some of which are actually gaining popularity among adult women in the US going to cosmetic surgeons). Anywhere from taking some skin off the clitoral hood to a complete clitorectomy to sewing together part of the vaginal opening to...


----------



## mainegirl (Jul 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Actually, there is a wide variety of what passes as "female circumcision" (some of which are actually gaining popularity among adult women in the US going to cosmetic surgeons). Anywhere from taking some skin off the clitoral hood to a complete clitorectomy to sewing together part of the vaginal opening to...

I am finding it really hard to clench my legs together and run away at the same time.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mainegirl*
I am finding it really hard to clench my legs together and run away at the same time.











Sorry about that. The point I was trying to make is that in many places/cultures it is not seen as barbaric to circumcise a woman/girl any more than a man/boy. We either need to say "NO" to it all or accept that different Religion/Cultures have the right to do things w/which we do not agree. I find the entire "Well female circ is much worse" to just allow the status quo of male RIC in the US (and additionally, I find it offensive to the cultures who practice female RIC--- as if "we" are so much more enlightened & benevolent).


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *greyskye*
really though why would you want to agree with everything?

I rarely agree with everything anyone says...but when it comes to genital mutilation, I've counted on Mothering Magazine to take a stand against it.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Just here to express my support of this thread, Ilaria.

Quote:

What is good for one family may not work for another, but we trust that parents educate themselves and trust their instincts.
It is not apparent to you that parents broke this "trust"? It does not make sense to "trust" someone to educate themselves. Replace the word trust with "help" and at least we're making progress.


----------



## mariag (Feb 21, 2004)

I hope I do not offend anyone, but I was not dissappointed by her article at all. I think she is right that for many these issues are not easy or clear cut. I think the community on this board is different in that many are very well informed and researched, but that is not the general population on these issues. I think the tone of her article invites all people to learn more and think about the decisions whereas now these are both automatic things (vax and circ) I guess to me it is a positive to make the magaizine more inclusive as I think it betters the chance a larger audience will become more informed.

Maria


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

They _*are*_ easy and clear cut issues. A larger audience will become more informed about what? Informed that it is a personal decision? *Not good enough*. Why can't people call it what it is? Why do we pussyfoot around? It is a _disgusting practise that takes the personal rights from men (and women)._ One day a more enlightened planet will know this unanimously, but until that day, we need to shout it loud and clear, point blank and truthfully. My husband wants his skin back, wants his sensitivity, wants his rights and his choices. I will stand firm until no man has to go through that.


----------



## party_of_seven (May 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
They _*are*_ easy and clear cut issues. A larger audience will become more informed about what? Informed that it is a personal decision? *Not good enough*. Why can't people call it what it is? Why do we pussyfoot around? It is a _disgusting practise that takes the personal rights from men (and women)._ One day a more enlightened planet will know this unanimously, but until that day, we need to shout it loud and clear, point blank and truthfully. My husband wants his skin back, wants his sensitivity, wants his rights and his choices. I will stand firm until no man has to go through that.

Amen!


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
They _*are*_ easy and clear cut issues. A larger audience will become more informed about what? Informed that it is a personal decision? *Not good enough*. Why can't people call it what it is? Why do we pussyfoot around? It is a _disgusting practise that takes the personal rights from men (and women)._ One day a more enlightened planet will know this unanimously, but until that day, we need to shout it loud and clear, point blank and truthfully. My husband wants his skin back, wants his sensitivity, wants his rights and his choices. I will stand firm until no man has to go through that.










*Genital mutilation IS a clear cut issue.* It robs children of their genital integrity and it should not be a parent's choice. It is sickening that some think that parents have a right to do that...especially in a magazine that sells reprints of the 2 Fleiss unequivocally anti-circ articles and that supports these discussion boards, where posts that defend, condone, justify circ ARE NOT even ALLOWED. There is something very wrong with this picture.

It sounds like there are indeed some people in their readership (or maybe just at MDC) who needed this article to pacify them and to validate their 'choices'.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
And, by the way, how did this thread move from Peggy's letter about natural family living to circumcision and genitial mutilation? Peggy was not addressing either in the article.

Huh? She did address circumcision (see my quote and link to the article), that's what this thread is all about.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *greyskye*
it would be like cutting off half the penis in comparison.



It does cut off half of the skin system of the penis.

Genital mutilation is genital mutilation..........regardless of gender.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElizabethMcKeeman*
Now, in defense of medically needed circ - I have a friend who has two intact sons. One had to have a circ because he kept getting infections. She cried. He was seven or eight when it was done, and they had tried everything else and none had worked.


In a circ-happy society, doctors do not know how to properly treat the intact penis. Europeans have far lower rates of "necessary" circumcisions.


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

I agree that it is a clear cut issue- that it should not be done.

What is *not* a clear cut issue is the best way to educate and bring about a population that will not stand for it.

How do you learn best? Does being shouted at and preached to make you change your mind? Sure doesn't do crap for me. The more Republicans and Right Wing Conservatives preach, the further I run to the left. I can assure you that the same is true for many when it comes to going the other way.

It is possible to take a strong stand but also allow for dialog. My best friend did not want to circ her son. Her husband did. I think that's complex... and that's just one issue that can come up. I think it's easy when you know where your stand and your partner agrees and you have support in your community. I think it's harder when perhaps you have never questioned it before and then you begin to, but no one you're around understands or is open to it. It's not an excuse to give up (the person who is questioning), but it is a reason for activists to discover how to best reach people who might be open, but aren't sure. dialogue, compassion, and yes- being non-judgemental- are far more effective (imo and experience) than militancy. (tho militancy does have a place...I think it's inspiring to witness committed people).

Regarding Peggy's article.. well, i didn't read it. To be honest, none of Mothering magazine has been all that thrilling to me lately. i used to read it cover to cover the first day i got it but now.. i dunno. falls a bit flat.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*









And, by the way, how did this thread move from Peggy's letter about natural family living to circumcision and genitial mutilation? Peggy was not addressing either in the article.


Did you read the first post? She does talk about circumcision, which is the same as genital mutilation.

And just another thought..........if I wanted mainstream, or semi-mainstream, or anything close to semi-mainstream, I would buy Parents, or Parenting, or Child, or....... etc. I don't.

An analogy...........the Democrats keep losing presidential elections because they've tried too hard to be like Republicans (that's why so many ran to Ralph Nader). Similarly, Mothering will lose a sizeable reader base if they go too mainstream.

Circumcision isn't a "complex" decision--it shouldn't be a decision at all.


----------



## crescentaluna (Apr 15, 2005)

Not to be contrarian or ask for flames, but seriously ... what stance do y'all take on circ. for religious reasons? is a bris ONLY mutilation in your opinion? Just curious ...


----------



## hcsl (Jan 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crescentaluna*
Not to be contrarian or ask for flames, but seriously ... what stance do y'all take on circ. for religious reasons? is a bris ONLY mutilation in your opinion? Just curious ...


I'll speak for myself only. I am absolutely horrified by routine infant circumcision. I think people do it because they are uneducated about how awful and painful it is and that they don't stop to think about how they would feel if they, out of the blue, were strapped down to a table and had a portion of their genitals removed. It is a human rights violation.

On the subject of religious circs, I can only say that I am very aware of the importance of ritual in religions and how important and vital religion is to many. I am not one of these people, so it's easy for me to look at alternative ways to make a sacred covenant with ones higher power. I do not understand religious circs, but I would never tell someone what s/he should or should not do with their own personal beliefs.

Somewhat OT but something I find curious: A poster on another board once decried the practice of having young children baptised because she thought children should be allowed to make their own religious decisions. However, on a thread months later the same person said that if she ever had a son she WOULD circ, in part because of her religious beliefs (also because of medical reasons whatever).














I don't get that someone _wouldn't_ have a blesisng and some water dropped on a child's head but WOULD have a part of anatomy removed for the same reason. Some people JUST DON'T GET IT!! Boys can't get their penises back once it's taken from them! Why can't they make their own decisions regarding their bodies???

*ETA*: I don't think we're supposed to discuss religious circ.


----------



## MamaJosie (Apr 26, 2003)

all circ is mutilation and will one day be illegal and considered abuse or assualt or something of that nature. It is a Civil Rights/Human Rights issue in my view so really that trumps religion doesnt it. I really dont care what it means to anyone religiously. It is against a persons basic human rights to have a body part removed without their consent. PERIOD.


----------



## darsmama (Jul 23, 2004)

DH & I were discussing this; I think the biggest ? is: What are a childs rights vs a parents rights?
Who decides what?
I'm vehemently against RIC for the record..


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:

How do you learn best? Does being shouted at and preached to make you change your mind? Sure doesn't do crap for me. The more Republicans and Right Wing Conservatives preach, the further I run to the left. I can assure you that the same is true for many when it comes to going the other way.
Running the other way because one doesn't like the style of delivery of information is not a mature way to decide where one stands on issues. That is a perfect example of knee jerk rebellion not thoughtful decision making.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

Running the other way because one doesn't like the style of delivery of information is not a mature way to decide where one stands on issues. That is a perfect example of knee jerk rebellion not thoughtful decision making.
Here here!


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crescentaluna*
Not to be contrarian or ask for flames, but seriously ... what stance do y'all take on circ. for religious reasons? is a bris ONLY mutilation in your opinion? Just curious ...

I do not think religous circ can be discussed outside of spirituality.

I'm assuming, though, that a mod will clarify.


----------



## littlest birds (Jul 18, 2004)

I do not know why religion would give someone the right to take sacrificial flesh from another against their will. I think that is when religion has passed an unnacceptable line. Many times people's religious beliefs have led to violations of the rights of others. Too many times. And we have to tiptoe around anything that might be construed as discrimination. Well, I don't think it is religious discrimination at all to say circ is wrong always.


----------



## mariag (Feb 21, 2004)

_And, I have to add, that reading mothering and mdc has informed me about all sorts if issues I never even considered prior to having a baby. I never even thought twice about vax until I came here but if the tone had been it is all wrong don't do it, I would have been turned off. Because the tone was more accepting, I read on and am now reconsidering vax for my dd. Same if circ if I ever have a boy. The accepting tone helps people like me learn and get board. I was already ap but now I am more so because of mothering."_

I guess what boongirl said above is what I was trying to say. Clearly for many here, perhaps even the majority, natural family living, including circ and vax, are issues and choices that you don't question or doubt in anyway and obviously have very strong feelings about. I applaud that and think it is lucky to be in such a situation. However, I am always uneasy when feeling strong about your own beliefs begins to turn into judgement of others. I think that the accepting tone of the letter really does allow for others to perhaps think about issues as decisions when perhaps before they didn't even realize there was something to think about.
_They are easy and clear cut issues. A larger audience will become more informed about what? Informed that it is a personal decision?_ Calm, I guess my point was that while they are "easy and clear cut" for you I think the fact is that for many they are not even aware there are choices or issues to think about- they can be informed that they are even things that they should question or learn more about. Now the why and how of that can be debated, but I know just in my own experience many people have began to look at things like vax and circ differently just by being offered information and an invitation to see something in a new light.

I guess for me, the article did a good job of that, being an invitation to think, so to me it was a good, inclusive choice that didn't promote circ or vax, but challenged people to think, learn, and understand the importance of decisions that you make as parents.

Maria


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crescentaluna*
Not to be contrarian or ask for flames, but seriously ... what stance do y'all take on circ. for religious reasons? is a bris ONLY mutilation in your opinion? Just curious ...

You can visit "The Case Against Circumcision" forum for MDC's official stance on circumcision. My own is that circumcision, just like FMG, is genital mutilation and a violation of basic human rights (whatever the reason).


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Alright...the mod is gonna step in and give y'all some more of that "overmoderation" everyone seems to lurve so much.

The Activism board is NOT a debate board.

If you want to discuss circumcision - then please head on over there.

I approved this post because it is Activism and writing letters to Peggy has always been accepted as Activism.

But...debating circ here is a







. As is debating this call to action.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

boy:


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Thanks Adina, I did mention that, but I think we all got carried away.









Quote:

Since this is not the place to discuss, rather a call to activism, there is a discussion thread on this matter at The Case AGAINST CIRCUMCISION forum:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...4&page=1&pp=20

Peggy O'Mara's Entire article:
http://www.mothering.com/guest_edito...place/130.html

You can write:
[email protected]


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
Running the other way because one doesn't like the style of delivery of information is not a mature way to decide where one stands on issues. That is a perfect example of knee jerk rebellion not thoughtful decision making.

True. But...framing an argument or making a point in a way that people will actually stick around and listen to what you are saying and give your perspective serious consideration is a critical part of activism and advocacy. If

(Not that I am defending the stance of the Mothering editorial. I don't think the magazine should in any way support RIC as a "personal choice." I was surprised to read that, too!)

But if people are too turned off by how a message is phrased that they don't actually hear it, how does that further a cause?


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Taking those comments in the context of the overall essay... I can't get all worked up about it. I am not going to withdraw my support of Peggy O or Mothering over a single issue, no matter what issue that might be. I am a little surprised by those comments, though.


----------



## mainegirl (Jul 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee*
True. But...framing an argument or making a point in a way that people will actually stick around and listen to what you are saying and give your perspective serious consideration is a critical part of activism and advocacy. If

(Not that I am defending the stance of the Mothering editorial. I don't think the magazine should in any way support RIC as a "personal choice." I was surprised to read that, too!)

But if people are too turned off by how a message is phrased that they don't actually hear it, how does that further a cause?

This is not directed at kaydee alone, her comments were just convenient to quote









I can speak from my own experience (uh oh, ancedote forthcoming...) and say that *I* was an uninformed person when I was pregnant. I believed a lot of things based on what people told me, what I believed to be true, and I honestly didn't know anything about natural childbirth or attachment parenting or ANYTHING. Seriously.

However, it only took a few shocked reactions from some friends to prompt me to seek more information. Which I did, and I changed my stance on a lot of things completely (fortunately long before my son was born).

*I* think that people stick to bad ideas and refuse to open their minds out of guilt, and in many cases no matter how you present your opinion or experience they're going to take it as a personal attack and close their minds.

I agree that while tact is sometimes needed, it's the in-your-face-we're-not-gonna-take-it-any-more mentality that gets the message out most memorably. The people who want to think, will. The people who don't, won't.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

I typed out a post to this thread and came to post it and see now that this forum is basically an announcement board for activist events. I have posted the writing at:

http://69.20.14.30/discussions/showt...=1#post3143634

Frank


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Well, I'm shocked.







Is this another one of those "Everything is AP now" things? I'm sure getting sick of hearing "...what works in your family." Some things ARE universal, you know! I can't believe a magazine like Mothering would put something like circumcision in the category of "What works for you." How about what works for the baby?

I no longer subscribe because much of the magazine is the same topics over and over again. I do buy it in the stores if there is a new, interesting article. But I hope lots of people write in and complain.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mainegirl*
I agree that while tact is sometimes needed, it's the in-your-face-we're-not-gonna-take-it-any-more mentality that gets the message out most memorably.

I see what you are saying, but don't feel it's so cut and dried ("People will either get it or not"). I don't believe that people are so "either/or." Some people respond to certain types of advocacy; others to different approaches. Research bears this out, and I think it's important not to generalize simply from our own experiences. Effective advocates, IMO, *must* analyze the tact(s) they take, the audience(s) they hope to reach, and the change(s) they wish to effect. Why not strive to be as effective as possible, and to maximize the likelihood of positive outcomes?

Unfortunately, when it comes to "in your face" or even just very pointed activism, what is sometimes memorable isn't the *message*, but the *messengers*. Just look, for example, the way LLL or animal rights activists are so often talked about, stereotyped, demonized, and lampooned, whereas their actual important issues these activists work on get lost in the fray. I've worked as both a volunteer and in a professional capacity in the AR movement for a long time, and it's a perennial subject of discussion and debate (what are the best ways to disseminate our message and change people's hearts and minds?).

Sorry, this is really getting far removed from the original topic!


----------



## orangebird (Jun 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I find the entire "Well female circ is much worse" to just allow the status quo of male RIC in the US (and additionally, I find it offensive to the cultures who practice female RIC--- as if "we" are so much more enlightened & benevolent).









ITA!! I get so sick of hearing how female GM is _different_ than male GM so we here in this country can make ourselves feel better about what we are doing to our boys. It is NO DIFFERENT! Medical circ (though in this country it is done way more in other places since most doctors here don't seem to know how to treat a normal penis) is not the issue. It is the babies who are being mutilated at birth for no actual real diagnosed medical reason at all.

Vaxing is one thing, but newborn circumcision is something that we need to take a strong stand on, not just trust families to do what is the best for them or any such PC crap. I'm trying not to argue about circ itself, but it is really different than the vax issue. It isn't an issue, IMO, that each family has to decide on their own and we have to respect their decision. Um, no. I can't believe that this is the stance Mothering is now deciding to tke on the issue. It is shocking.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

This is a copy of a post of mine from the circ forum regarding this as it is relevant to the activism issue should this thread be read by VIP's:

I like having a community and at least one mag that backs up the messages I stand for. There is a boat load of the opposing messages. Parents don't need to be told they have the option to circ their child and we "trust" their decision - that is expected. Parents need to be told they _can't_ circ - which is like reversing brainwashing most of the time. It ain't easy, and we need as much back up with STRENGTH and CONVICTION in the messages as we can get.

When I hand over my pile of books, mags and articles to a pregnant friend, and _that_ is the message they receive, it will not give the impassioned enough plea it takes to sway the cultural mindset. I do a better job over a coffee with them.

Frank, I read your post over there, and it made my eyes well up. Thank you.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

I wrote a letter to the editor. Boy, am I steamed about this. "Complex, personal matter" my







. Natural family living = leave your babies' genitals the way nature made them. It's as simple as that.


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee*
I see what you are saying, but don't feel it's so cut and dried ("People will either get it or not"). I don't believe that people are so "either/or." Some people respond to certain types of advocacy; others to different approaches. Research bears this out, and I think it's important not to generalize simply from our own experiences. Effective advocates, IMO, *must* analyze the tact(s) they take, the audience(s) they hope to reach, and the change(s) they wish to effect. Why not strive to be as effective as possible, and to maximize the likelihood of positive outcomes?

Unfortunately, when it comes to "in your face" or even just very pointed activism, what is sometimes memorable isn't the *message*, but the *messengers*. Just look, for example, the way LLL or animal rights activists are so often talked about, stereotyped, demonized, and lampooned, whereas their actual important issues these activists work on get lost in the fray. I've worked as both a volunteer and in a professional capacity in the AR movement for a long time, and it's a perennial subject of discussion and debate (what are the best ways to disseminate our message and change people's hearts and minds?).

Sorry, this is really getting far removed from the original topic!









I think you are right on, kaydee.

Just because Mothering is taking this approach, doesn't mean there isn't room for lots of approaches. Like I said, if you have already made up your mind, it's a no brainer.

Dialogue does not mean wishy washy. It doesn't mean permissive. It means inviting everyone to the table.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Mothering's and MDC's stance on circumcision did not _invite everyone to the table_, it did not invite an _open dialogue_ up until now. See Dr Fleiss' articles and reprints, see the title of the circ board: The Case *AGAISNT CIRCUMCISION*. THAT is Mothering's stance!! (or _was_). Not _The Case for Parents' Authority Over Their Child's Body_. The stance has always been easy and clear, no complex situation or other stuff. When you take a stand that some things are wrong, have the ovaries to stand up for them!!

Maybe on the next issue we'll have an open dialogue about spanking or hot saucing!? About the benefits of clorox on your counters? How hospitals could really make a birth safer? Let's invite everyone to the table on CIO, after all, it does work!

The point is that Mothering has always taken a courageous and strong stance against RIC, what has changed? What I read in the editorial was exactly what you read in _Parenting_ or _Child_..._No proven medical benefits, but it's a parent's choice. Be informed!_








It seems that the mainstream mags are getting and better on this issue, and Mothering, obviously is getting worse. Now they present THE EXACT SAME info, with the same suggestion. They meet right in the middle.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

This is a big part of why I have not resub'd. Mothering used to be my rock, the only place where I felt I could be myself, and have my beliefs validated. Next thing we know, formula will be in the catagory of "trust in what works for other parents" and crying it out will be right there, because, you know, we need to trust that other parents know what is best for their babies. But circumcision? Hell no will that ever be okay. And this is coming from someone who was duped into circing my first, but stood strong for my next 2, and am glad every day that I did! (although, I will always feel shame and anger for not protecting my first). Mothering is taking big steps towards becoming mainstream.


----------



## loving-my-babies (Apr 2, 2004)

no simple answer to circumcision? um, how about "don't do it"...


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmainer*
Just because Mothering is taking this approach, doesn't mean there isn't room for lots of approaches. Like I said, if you have already made up your mind, it's a no brainer.

Just to clarify, my previous post was about advocacy in general, not about the particular issue of Mothering's view of RIC. in the case of Peggys editorial, I do think she should not have talked about RIC as if it was a matter of personal preference. (Of course, in a sense, it is a personal choice, because RIC is common and legal in the US, although it should be neither.)

I agree with many PPs that this is something that Mothering should be opposed to. But I do think intactivists should (and, for the most part, do) use a vareity of approaches in reaching out to people, educating them, and (hopefully) changing their minds. Some people will respond immediately to the comparison of MGM and FGM; others will be resistant to that approach, but would respond to the facts about how circ isn't medically beneficial.

I guess I just think that if Mothering is going to talk about circ, it should be in a way that is both firm in its principle (against it) and nuanced in its discussion of *why* it is against it. The line in Peggy's article seemed neither nuanced nor firm in its conviction.


----------



## jakesmama (May 9, 2005)

Okay, I'm coming back to this thread with my head hung pretty darn low. As far as RIC (which we are so not discussing; simply mentioning in passing







) I am now violently opposed. The majority of the PPs were absolutely correct; this harming of our babies shouldn't be a personal choice. It is WRONG! As for advocacy and activism I agree that everyone responds differently to varied approaches and this thread is my own personal proof of that. Much of what is being said here is said in a harsh, direct way. Then there are those who prefered to state things a bit more gently. I'd have to honest and say that these two approaches worked in tandem for me. I was upset over having my own views shot down with such passion, but it did get me thinking. Those who were a bit more moderate or gave a more detailed idea of why the editorial itself didn't sit well with them made me hop over to the circ forum to see for myself what the *big* deal was. I don't know that my opinions would have changed if not for both sides to the coin. So can I just thank everyone and let you know that you are all doing exactly what it is you've been called to do. Those who outcry injustice loudly; you are heard as well as those whose approach is softer. Activism needs everyone.

Oh, and I hope this all came across well...I'm so tired but had to write


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jakesmama*
Those who outcry injustice loudly; you are heard as well as those whose approach is softer. Activism needs everyone.


Well put.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee*
Just to clarify, my previous post was about advocacy in general, not about the particular issue of Mothering's view of RIC. in the case of Peggys editorial, I do think she should not have talked about RIC as if it was a matter of personal preference. (Of course, in a sense, it is a personal choice, because RIC is common and legal in the US, although it should be neither.)

I agree with many PPs that this is something that Mothering should be opposed to. But I do think intactivists should (and, for the most part, do) use a vareity of approaches in reaching out to people, educating them, and (hopefully) changing their minds. Some people will respond immediately to the comparison of MGM and FGM; others will be resistant to that approach, but would respond to the facts about how circ isn't medically beneficial.

I guess I just think that if Mothering is going to talk about circ, it should be in a way that is both firm in its principle (against it) and nuanced in its discussion of *why* it is against it. The line in Peggy's article seemed neither nuanced nor firm in its conviction.


I can definitely agree with you here. This is where I think the Fleiss articles are so good and are my first choice for giving to someone expecting a boy - they're relatively short and sweet but as with other Mothering articles are very well-referenced. They shoot down all the old myths about cleanliness, "it's just a little snip," etc.

I cannot understand why Peggy re-opened the door to "it's a parent's choice." To me, that means it's OK to circ to "look like daddy" because "that's what's right for our family."







Thats' certainly what I heard from my circing relatives....


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

I cannot understand why Peggy re-opened the door to "it's a parent's choice." To me, that means it's OK to circ to "look like daddy" because "that's what's right for our family." Thats' certainly what I heard from my circing relatives....
Look what happened to Dr. Sears...advertising formula and saying cribs are best.


----------



## mainegirl (Jul 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
Look what happened to Dr. Sears...advertising formula and saying cribs are best.









He did? Where? When? WHY?!

I'm shocked. And sad.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Do a search for Sears in the breastfeeding and family bed forums...







He really sold out.

Hey, maybe someone at Mothering is on the payroll of one of those cosmetic companies that uses foreskin in their products! :LOL


----------



## intentfulady (Dec 31, 2003)

Tell ME about Dr. Sears too
Really OMG


----------



## intentfulady (Dec 31, 2003)

your pics are lovely greaseball

Im from the west slope outa eugene.......I LOVE that area!!!

Lucky family!!! I found a little pocket in BC that reminds me of home!!! The west Kootenays.


----------



## mainegirl (Jul 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
Do a search for Sears in the breastfeeding and family bed forums...







He really sold out.

Hey, maybe someone at Mothering is on the payroll of one of those cosmetic companies that uses foreskin in their products! :LOL

Errrr...searching for "Sears" on MDC is like opening a box of cereal upside-down over my own face.

:LOL


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Oh all right here you go.









http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...s+formula+sold

http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...s+formula+sold


----------



## mainegirl (Jul 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
Oh all right here you go.









http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...s+formula+sold

http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...s+formula+sold

Thank yooooouuuuu!

*picking Cheerios out of her hair and eating them*


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

When Dr. Sears's website first went up it had banner ads for formula "enriched" with the DHA stuff....he had/has a business relationship with Martek, which manufactures the DHA stuff. Dr. Sears' point is that if parents are going to FF at least they should feed the enriched stuff, but a lot people (myself included) objected to him carrying formula ads.

As far as cribs, I haven't seen myself the Sears' advocating crib use, but they do advertise Arms' Reach co-sleepers (which to me is practically the same thing, I don't see it really as co-sleeping per se, although obviously sometimes the co-sleeper device is the best set up for all concerned). The co-sleeper advertising bugs me because the Sears books Baby on the Way and What Baby Needs both show the co-sleeper on the pages about sleeping, while talking about "sleeping next to mama and hearing her heartbeat." Unless your baby has bionic ears, no way he's hearing mama's heartbeat from the co-sleeper!


----------



## mainegirl (Jul 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
Oh all right here you go.









http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...s+formula+sold

http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...s+formula+sold

Oh, now I'm sad...and I just got The Baby Book for a friend's shower.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Well, the Baby Book was written before his sellout days, so you should be fine.

But I also know that Sears does circs...







"Parent's choice" and all that.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

when i read that in peggy's editorial i presumed she was referring to our fellow Jewish MDC mamas for whom circumcision is more than just a medical/cosmetic decision. while i dont' agree with circ'ing, I am certainly not going to start bashing other people's religious choices. honestly, some of the anger here reminds me of the 'love the sin, hate the sinner' BS that comes from the religious right. I think it was great of Peggy to include those mamas for whom circing is a religious issue, at least that is what i got out of it.

as for vaxing, i selectively vax and delayed vax. while i personally am not offended by her taking a pure anti-vax standpoint (I'm more secure in my choice than that), I thought the editorial was an acknowledgement that the issue is a sticky one.

there's being an advocate for something, and then being so "passionate" about it that you not only turn potentially interested minds away, but you risk creating an environment of "jesus save me from your followers".


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

See, I don't agree that she was making reference to religious circ at all. Peggy writes:

Quote:

In natural family living, we want to trust in the body's innate capacity to heal itself and see illness as a necessary immune stimulant, not a bothersome nuisance. Accordingly, natural family living is cautious about medical interventions. *Medical circumcision, for example, is questioned because the procedure's claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence.* Vaccinations are also questioned so that parents can exercise informed consent. Both *medical circumcision* and vaccination are complex, personal matters for which there is no single, easy answer. Here in particular we fall back on trust in the individual, which is the foundation of natural family living. We trust both in the inherent integrity of the child's body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family.
I think this language is very specifically crafted to exclude religious circumcision from the discussion. I don't see it as being "inclusive" of Jewish (and don't forget Muslim) parents. If she did mean to craft it to be inclusive, then I think she should have included those for whom female circumcision is a religious directive. Equal rights and all.


----------



## fourgrtkidos (Jan 6, 2004)

I am disappointed at how politically correct MDC and Mothering Mag have become. I too have recently let my subscription lapse after 5 years. I came here to learn to be more radical, although I understand the whole "you catch more flies with honey....." idiom.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

AdinaL clarified that debate is not appropriate for this forum but the debate posting continues. You are welcome to send your letters as the OP urges but this thread of discussion is now closed and a few inappropriate posts and posts that quoted them have been removed.

You are all invited to attend Peggy's chat on Tuesday 1 PM EST to discsus this topic with her personally.


----------

