# Anyone bothered by latest Mothering issue?!?!?!



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

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.*







:


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## MarnieMax (Dec 24, 2004)

I'm with you.

Occasionally I'm surprised by such neutral politically correct commentary in places where you'd expect a strong opinion (in this case, anti circ).

It's similar to Dr(s). Sears, who seems anti, but smooths over the issue in his (their) books.

Has Peggy O'Mara ever stated what circ choice she made with her own son?
That's usually the ultimate test!


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Obviously, Peggy needs to spend some time here with us. She obviously doesn't understand that men have rights and circumcision of an infant just steals those rights. It's not even a 50/50 deal. Either the man's rights are 100% stolen or they are 100% preserved. There is no middle ground and there is no going back.

Is this article available on-line? Does anyone have Peggy's e-mail address?

Frank


----------



## Ione (Jul 22, 2002)

Frank,
You can read the entire article if you follow the link to mothering magazine ("motherine" under the logo in the upper left corner, to the left of "rules") and then find the article. It's this month's editorial.

The OP did not quote the full paragraph, which is:
"_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._"
(emphasis mine)

It's still not the resounding condemnation of circ. that one could hope for... but it is (very) slightly less offensive than the edited version in the OP.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Here is the link. http://www.mothering.com/guest_edito...place/130.html

This part is a bit past the middle:

Quote:

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 had to bold it again. It makes me so sad.








I own the NFL book by Peggy O'M, but I don't have it with me. If I remember correctly, the section on circ is unequivocally against it.

You can email
[email protected]


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:

You can read the entire article if you follow the link to mothering magazine ("motherine" under the logo in the upper left corner, to the left of "rules") and then find the article. It's this month's editorial.

The OP did not quote the full paragraph, which is:
"_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._"
(emphasis mine)

It's still not the resounding condemnation of circ. that one could hope for... but it is (very) slightly less offensive than the edited version in the OP
We must have posted at the same time.
The whole paragraph might go over the copyright rules at MDC anyway, but I did quote most of it in my last post, after looking it up online. And I didn't EDIT the paragraph, I hadn't yet looked it up online, so I simply TYPED UP those sentences off the magazine, not _my version_.








What you put your emphasis on _both in the inherent integrity of the child's body_ was indeed in my OP, BTW.

Either way, the message is clear and appalling IMO. These are points made:

1. circumcision is questioned (claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence)
2. circumcision is a complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer
3. Trust in the individual, in the inherent integrity of the child's body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family

What I think:

1. ok
2. it's a personal matter for the owner of the penis, but genital integrity is *not* a complex thought. There IS a single easy answer: circumcision is mutilation and a violation of human rights.
3. Trust in the inherent integrity of the child's body - YES. But not in the _inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family_ in this case. I wonder if Peggy feels the same way about girls in Africa who undergo FGM due to their parents' authority to make that decision?

How does this sound? (simply subbed circ with FGM and deleted vax), kept everything else as stated by POM (this time I did copy and paste so everyone is satisfied):

_FGM for example, is questioned because the procedure's claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. FGM is a complex, personal matter 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._


----------



## sahli29 (Jan 23, 2004)

With the NFL book,if I remember correctly while it did not advocate circ it did recommend to atleast wait till a child was 6 months old to cut him up.Somehow being older makes it better.

If you want to sell your product you are going to be neutral on matters that might cause you to lose quite a bit of money/support.

While I do suppport choice in the matter of vaccinations I see no middle ground or allowable choice(by parents) when it comes to genital cutting. It is not their place to alter a child's genitals in any way...even in cases where the sex is unknown. The matter should be left to the owner.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

it doesn't bother me. I know Mothering has a large Muslim & Jewish readership. i don't see how alienating so many people would be good for the cause of natural parenting. I think it would be wrong for Peggy to ignore the huge issue of circ in the religious community.

I know some people feel that respecting religious circ is nothing short of respecting murder, but even religious Muslims & Jews deserve a little respect. The horrible hatred and anger directed against Jews and Muslims in the world today warrents a little compassion, imo. Esp from a compassionate publication like Mothering. You don;t have to respect circ, but try and understand thousands of years of religious observance.

believe me, i know I have set myself up here for witch hunt flaming. I tried to not post. But I am going to unsub from the thread, as I have said what i think and won't argue the point. I didn't circ my own sons-- i am anti-circ.


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

I, too, disliked the comment about "parental authority." No parent has that authority.


----------



## Elphaba (Nov 19, 2001)

...


----------



## AmandaBL (Aug 3, 2004)

No parent should have that authority. When a child is old enough to make his own (even religious) decisions, that is when a choice should be made. This just is NOT a parents "right" I love mothering, but I disagree with ANY neutrality on this issue. FGM is done for "religious" reasons too. MGM is no different.


----------



## Oh the Irony (Dec 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilaria*
_FGM for example, is questioned because the procedure's claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. FGM is a complex, personal matter 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._
















keep your hands off my genitals.

UUmom, peggy makes the point of saying medical circumcision in the article. she does not even address religious circumcision. so i don't see how would it be offensive? if she would come out against ALL medical circumcision she would not have to be opposed to religious circumcision....

her language is obviously very carefully crafted not to offend anyone.


----------



## Ione (Jul 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilaria*
We must have posted at the same time.
The whole paragraph might go over the copyright rules at MDC anyway, but I did quote most of it in my last post, after looking it up online. And I didn't EDIT the paragraph, I hadn't yet looked it up online, so I simply TYPED UP those sentences off the magazine, not _my version_.








What you put your emphasis on _both in the inherent integrity of the child's body_ was indeed in my OP, BTW.

Either way, the message is clear and appalling IMO. These are points made:

1. circumcision is questioned (claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence)
2. circumcision is a complex, personal matter for which there is no single, easy answer
3. Trust in the individual, in the inherent integrity of the child's body and in the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family

What I think:

1. ok
2. it's a personal matter for the owner of the penis, but genital integrity is *not* a complex thought. There IS a single easy answer: circumcision is mutilation and a violation of human rights.
3. Trust in the inherent integrity of the child's body - YES. But not in the _inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family_ in this case. I wonder if Peggy feels the same way about girls in Africa who undergo FGM due to their parents' authority to make that decision?

How does this sound? (simply subbed circ with FGM and deleted vax), kept everything else as stated by POM (this time I did copy and paste so everyone is satisfied):

_FGM for example, is questioned because the procedure's claimed benefits remain unsupported by scientific evidence. FGM is a complex, personal matter 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._

Hey, hold on before you start flaming me. Don't start jumping to conclusions as to my stance on either circ or FGM.

All I did was give Frank the full paragraph. Whether you typed out parts (as you did), or copy-pasted and then cut out parts (which you didn't), when quoting text if you do not quote the full context, it is technically an "edited" quote (as in "not exact quote", as opposed to "full, exact quote"; "edited" does not mean only "changed").

There was no judgement of *you* or your post intended.

My only comment was that the full version, *including the explicit statement that the alleged benefits are not scientifically proven*, was (to quote myself) "*(very) slightly less offensive*" than the lines you quoted in isolation.

As for the FMG analogy you put forth, my reaction is the same.

An article that states *only* that FMG is a "complex, personal matter 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" is, IMO, *more offensive* than one that *also* explicitly states that there are no scientifically proven "benefits" to the procedure.

Do you understand what I was trying to say now?

Also, have you noticed that we both quote the sentence "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" but we each seem to focalise on the implications of different parts of the sentence?

I read "the inherent integrity of the child's body" and take away from that part of the sentence a slant *against* circ., this phrase being the most striking for me in the sentence. When I add that to the second half, it leaves me with the impression of a moderately anti-circ tone with the sub-text of something along the lines of it is parents' responsibility to make that decision and as NFL parents we believe the child's body is inherently as it should be (and by implication it is not the responsiblity of ignorant doctors with a foreskin to grind).

On the other hand (and no "rightly" or "wrongly" implied or intended), you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to focus on "the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family" as a blanket authorisation for parents to decide *to* circ, canceling out as it were the first half of the sentence...

I'll just conclude this by quoting myself again (in case you missed it before reacting to my post) "*It's still not the resounding condemnation of circ. that one could hope for...*"

edited for a typo I missed


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Exactly Elphaba.
And anyway MDC has many Muslim and Jewish members as well. Yet, MDC is very clearly AGAINST CIRCUMCISION (hence the title for this forum) *no matter the reason*. Posts in support or defense of circ, even for religious reasons, are simply NOT ALLOWED here. So, why the hypocrisy?

(BTW, I live in a Muslim country and I love everything about it. I understand religious practices and traditions. I am all for cultural relativism and tolerance, but basic human rights such as genital integrity for children is where I, personally, draw the line. And I am consistently intolerant of violations thereof, whatever the religion, the tradition or the reason.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione*
Hey, hold on before you start flaming me. Don't start jumping to conclusions as to my stance on either circ or FGM.

Where did I flame you?
And I gathered you're anti-circ in your pp, so I didn't need to jump to any conclusions.

Quote:

you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to focus on "the inherent authority of the parent to make decisions for the family" as a blanket authorisation for parents to decide *to* circ, canceling out as it were the first half of the sentence...
It's a telling sentence. I think that as far as circumcision goes, parents have NO SUCH AUTHORITY, and that sentence shouldn't be there. It sounds very similar to what I hear people say (my dh too, actually) "Oh, circ is bad, evil, no reason for it. Baby is fine without it. BUT parents have a right to make that choice" I believe they DO NOT and I am sad POM disagrees. I expected more from Mothering. I really did, that's all.


----------



## Ione (Jul 22, 2002)

I misread your tone, then. No offense (taken or intended).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilaria*
I think that as far as circumcision goes, parents have NO SUCH AUTHORITY, and that sentence shouldn't be there.

I suppose this is where we differ, slightly. Ideally, the only person who should have such authority is the person seeking circ (or FGM) for themselves, I agree.

However, we are not there yet, at least not everywhere. Until we live in a world (or culture or society) that does not promote circumcision for spurious reasons, or a society (or culture or world) that bans circumcisions except when truly medically necessary, AND until we can be sure that no medical practitioner has a financial stake in promoting unjustified circumcisions to "make a buck" or because of his or her own personal prejudices, someone must have the authority to REFUSE circumcision on behalf of babies and children too young to defend themselves.

And, until society or law takes up the slack, it *is* (and IMO should be since one of the key roles in parenting is protecting your children to the best of your ability IMO) the *parents'* responsibility to make that decision of defence. Unfortunately, if you place this burden of responsibility on parents, you also--and unfortunately--legally give them the authority to decide the opposite.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

True. But, see, I thought Mothering magazine was already 'there'.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

I too thought the statement was waaaaay too wishy-washy.







I'm sorry it got lumped in with vaccines. I don't vax but I'm pro-INFORMED choice on vaccines. I think there are a lot more pros and cons on the vax issue than there are on the circ issue.

The take-away message I got from it smacked of "let's make the right decision for our family" as if there is ever a benefit to the FAMILY of genital reduction surgery for an INDIVIDUAL.









Hey, let's write letters to the editor, shall we?


----------



## AmandaBL (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky*
Hey, let's write letters to the editor, shall we?


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Let's hold our horses for a minute please. I don't think it will do much good to flood Peggy's e-mail box with hundreds of messages. As a matter of fact, I think it could be counter productive.

Let me make a suggestion . . . Let's all have our say here. I'll compose a message about this that only addresses the parental right issue. I'm not going to beat her up or anything like that, just propose that she rethink the issue somewhat from the viewpoint that since circumcision is permanent and irreversible, doesn't the ultimate decision lie with the person who will have to live with the decision long after the parents are dead and gone. I'll send it tomorrow afternoon along with a link to this thread where she can see everyone's opinion in a concise and well assembled whole.

That being the case, let's stay far away from religion and lets be respectful of Peggy and the tightwire she has to walk. If you have said something that should not have been said or if something could have been better put, now is the time to start editing those posts.

Does this sound good to everyone?

Frank


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Well, if I hadn't already cancelled my subscription, this would have caused me to do so.


----------



## Mom4tot (Apr 18, 2003)




----------



## Ligmom (Nov 24, 2001)

I, too, am disappointed that Peggy didn't take a stronger stance against circumcision. I understand not wanting to alienate people who have circumcised their sons. However many people (myself included) need to hear the brutal truth spoken openly to understand the significance of circumcision--that it is wrong and does harm to children.

I hope Peggy will make a statement about her article. I'd like to hear her response to this thread.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Britishmum*
I understand that she needs to sell copies and doenst want to upset a proportion of her readership. But I believe that there are some causes that are worth standing up for. There are moral issues that you need to put yourself on the line for. If you are a voice of 'authority', you have a moral responsibility to do so.

I agree. That's why I made the FGM correlation. No one would think twice about condemning that practice publicly. Are boys worth any less?

Quote:

... but as unclear as mud about mutilating a child's genitals.















I am especially surprised because of the Mothering's usual stance (Fleiss articles, the circ. reprint available for purchase) and the tone of this board. Her statements just don't go along with either. Maybe it's her personal POV.

I had not thought about cancelling my subscription, but I'm going to consider it now. It's my favorite magazine, but if I cannot count on it to take a stand for what it's right, then what's the point?


----------



## LoveChild421 (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:

While I do suppport choice in the matter of vaccinations I see no middle ground or allowable choice(by parents) when it comes to genital cutting. It is not their place to alter a child's genitals in any way...even in cases where the sex is unknown. The matter should be left to the owner.
This is exactly how I feel- it really is a human rights issue- why do women have the right to intact genitals but not men? Is it simply because often women lose all capacity for sexual pleasure while men don't lose all capacity but certainly do lose full capacity? It's not ok to kill someone's sexual pleasure but it is ok to handicap it?

Parents do not have authority over a child's body or future sexuality. Just because a mom wants her newborn to have a nosejob doesn't mean one is performed- it is just the same- circumcision has no medical benefits and it cosmetic surgery.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

I did send Peggy an email with the same thoughts I have expressed here. I also sent her the link to this thread and to the same thread in Activism.


----------



## njeb (Sep 10, 2002)

I, too, am troubled by Peggy's comments on circ. Mothering Magazine has always been a friend to me; I've subscribed since 1979, and I own every single issue that's ever come out. Peggy has taken several courageous stands in favor of home birth and midwifery and gentle discipline, among others. Why not vax and circ.?


----------



## rainbowmoon (Oct 17, 2003)

this makes me sad.







nothing about circ. should be questionable. and it's not about trust it's about respect for your child's body!!! I am simply shocked to see this attitude in Mothering that it's ok if it's the choice your family makes. it's _so_ not ok to mutilate baby boy's genitals!


----------



## ThatLinGirl (Jul 15, 2004)

This really upsets me to hear.









I just gave a friend a gift subscription to Mothering. Her pregnancy was a bit of a shock and she's very confused on multiple issues - one of them being circ. I'm sending her good info - but I really hoped this magazine would have something backing up what i've been saying to her before she's due.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

That's how I feel, Lindsay. 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 to sway the cultural mindset. I do a better job over a coffee with them







.


----------



## homebirthing (Nov 10, 2002)

How sad and frustrating. I expected more from Mothering. Protection of all children should be the number one thing when it comes to NFL.


----------



## lise brit (Apr 8, 2003)

Hi Everyone,

Am I the only one who is questioning why vax and circumcisions are lumped together in one sentence as being complex decisions?

I realize that many of you do not vax, but the research available on that issue is far more complex than the circ issue.

Sincerely,

Lise


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Yep, that's what I thought too (see my post above). No circ = no brainer. Vax.....definitely a brainer.


----------



## Messac888 (Jan 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mattemma04*
With the NFL book,if I remember correctly while it did not advocate circ it did recommend to atleast wait till a child was 6 months old to cut him up.Somehow being older makes it better.


I do feel that the wording may need to be better, but I took this statement as that, if a family waits at least six months to decide to cirsumcise, they will learn that they do NOT need to cut off part of their ds's genitals. KWIM? After 6 months, they may no longer be intimidated by an intact penis. And, if after 6 months the family decides to go through with the "procedure" anyway, the doctors will be more likely to use anaesthesia.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## rainbowmoon (Oct 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Messac888*
After 6 months, they may no longer be intimidated by an intact penis. And, if after 6 months the family decides to go through with the "procedure" anyway, the doctors will be more likely to use anaesthesia.

Just my 2 cents.

it still doesn't make it right though


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

I was like this







when I read that wishy-washy editorial. My first thought was to bring it here and talk about it! My second was, will I get in trouble for questioning her?







: I wasn't quite sure if the whole "never question a mod's decision" thing would spill over into never questioning Peggy O'Mara's articles. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who read it this way.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:

I just gave a friend a gift subscription to Mothering. Her pregnancy was a bit of a shock and she's very confused on multiple issues - one of them being circ. I'm sending her good info - but I really hoped this magazine would have something backing up what i've been saying to her before she's due.
I saw the eczema article and told a friend to pick up the magazine, after reading Peggy's editorial, I made copies of the eczema article for her and told her not to buy it. (she's pregnant with a boy)

Quote:

Am I the only one who is questioning why vax and circumcisions are lumped together in one sentence as being complex decisions?
It makes no sense.

Quote:

but I took this statement as that, if a family waits at least six months to decide to cirsumcise,
6 months? Where does she say that? Most parents circ at birth anyway, barring medical problems.

Quote:

will I get in trouble for questioning her?
I haven't gotten in trouble yet...and this is actually my most popular post in the 3+ years I have been here! Maybe something good will come out of it and some creative soul will come up with a nice Senior title for me!


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

I just wanted to say that I was also disappointed with that editorial. And I agree - vax and circ should not be lumped in together. While I have stopped vaxing my children, I do think that the evidence there is much more complex, and certainly strong arguments are made for immediate medical benefits to vaxing.

Not the case at all with circumcision.

I actually bought Peggy's Natural Family Living book to check out the circ information before I started sending it as a baby gift. It seems to be very anti-circ, but then does recommend that if you want to circ, you wait until 6 months.

I have decided (very sadly) not to buy and give it as a baby gift. I do believe that circ is a black and white issue, and I don't understand not taking a strong stand against what is, as others have said, a human rights violation.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Hey Ilaria, just wanted to let you know I always check out your posts....you're not being ignored!


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Oh thanks.


----------



## AmandaBL (Aug 3, 2004)

I really really really hope that a correction is made. I love mothering & hope I can continue to do so.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

As far as I am concerned this is a complete 180 from the Case Against Circumcision issue that Mothering Mag ran years ago.


----------



## Mavournin (Jul 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
As far as I am concerned this is a complete 180 from the Case Against Circumcision issue that Mothering Mag ran years ago.









Exactly.


----------



## Soxfan Mom (Nov 5, 2004)

I vaccinate my children but am always willing to open my mind to why I should be wary and ask a lot of questions. But circumcision? I wouldn't have dreamed of doing that to my baby boy. I'm disappointed in the editorial. I wish Frank would start a petition using his excellent post.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Soxfan Mom*
But circumcision? I wouldn't have dreamed of doing that to my baby boy and am appalled that Mothering took such a wishy-washy stand. I wish Frank would start a petition to send to Ms. O'Mara's in-box using his excellent post.

Essentially, that's what this thread is all about. An on-line petition. I had intended to write Ms. O'Mara and provide a link to this thread so that everyone could have their say without jamming her inbox. However, someone else has already e-mailed her. If we don't hear something from her soon, I will approach her again with a link to this thread and ask for a response. It could be that she has already been here and is currently putting her thoughts together for a response. I know that will be very difficult for her and I don't want to unnecessarily pressure her.

Frank


----------



## bravofrenchie (Oct 15, 2004)

All that I've been thinking has already been said by others on this thread, so I'll just add my







: to all of the above.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Yes, PLEASE let her know how you feel about this editorial! You can email her what your wrote in response to this thread. Let her know! Even though she might read this thread, she needs letters that can be published in the next issue!!

[email protected]


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Perhaps we need to introduce Peggy O. to Penn and Teller. :LOL


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

I got my niece a sub for her baby shower. I want my $$$ back!! I got her the magazine along with the Mothering book on circ JUST because of their stance on circ. I was robbed!...as well as all the baby boys out there who's parents minds may have been changed if she stuck to her original stance on circumcision. This board has become a disappointment lately, now the magazine too?









If anyone knows of a REAL AP board, please PM me with a link. TIA!


----------



## Piratemomma (Jun 16, 2004)

Ive thought about gifting Mothering to expectant mothers. Definately wont now.


----------



## calngavinsmom (Feb 19, 2003)

So sad to see Mothering has let down the baby boys









Tara


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

I won't be recommending Mothering Magazine, that is for sure. I thought Mothering was willing to take a stand against cosmetic genital surgery in infant boys.


----------



## sistermama (May 6, 2003)

I wonder who she is so worried about alienating? I can't imagine that there are hordes of circumsizing parents lining up to buy a mag that regularly shows breasts (eek) and discusses the use of marijuana during pregnancy.....


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:

both in the integrity of the child's body and the inherent authority of the parents to make decisions for the family.
Woah.








The authority of the family to make decisions about the cosmetic mutilation of a child's genitals with little, inadequate, or no anestesia?
Parents have no such authority or right. The procedure should be banned. It should be a criminal offense. A felony. Period.


----------



## indie (Jun 16, 2003)

I'm disappointed too. If it hadn't been for the outspoken folks at MDC I would have left the decision for any boys that we might have had up to my DH and who knows what he might have done thinking it was just normal to circ. We didn't know back then that DH actually has a really bad circ that causes problems. Now that we know we would never do that to a child or say that it was ok to do to someone else.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

This sort of talk feels bashing to me and I struggle with things like this as I don't want to silence strong opinions. But at the same time I get angry that some members use Mothering and MDC's resources to accuse and cast suspicion rather than expressing their feelings and disagreement with respect and assume the best.

Word of disappointment and question, discussions of the topic in general are fine. While I can appreciate why you feel what you do and why you wish to have this discussion, it certainly can be had without nastiness.

The thread can continue if all posts that contain accusations and expressed suspicions and insinuations are edited within 24 hours. Also, please refrain from posting to take issue with my direction here. Take that to me privately please.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

I also suggest that you attend a Peggy O'Mara chat and ask your questions there. She will be hosting one this Tuesday at 1 PM EST.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cynthia Mosher*
The thread can continue if all posts that contain accusations and expressed suspicions and insinuations are edited within 24 hours. Also, please refrain from posting to take issue with my direction here. Take that to me privately please.


I agree with you that we should write respectfully. Words that anger do not foster communication but instead tend to stop communication. That's not the objective.

This is one of, if not one of the most passionate topics I know of not only in parenting but in all topics. It has a way of creeping up on you and as you learn more, it only becomes more disturbing to the point that it can control our reason and logic for a while at least. That means that we will often post things in superlatives and things that are harsh. I've been there. There were things that I would have liked to post that would have melted computer screens across the globe. In this passionate time of our lives, it can be hard to recognize what can be offensive when we re-read our own writings. It makes so much sense to us that we can't see how it could possibly not make sense to everyone else. I hope everyone will go back and re-read what they have written in this frame of mind.

However, I hope that you will realize too, that everyone who has posted here does not visit this forum every day and may not read your post for several days. 24 Hours is a little short for complete compliance with you request. I hope you are flexible in this matter.

Frank


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Frank, we do not leave posts up that are attacking and casting of suspicion. If the editing is not completed within the timeframe then I will remove the thread and those of you that are frequenting the forum regularly can post a new one adhering to the respectful discussion guidelines and ask that reponses conform.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Cynthia,
I just hope that Peggy is made aware of the concern voiced on this thread. It would mean a lot if some personal response was voiced here- rather than just being told to attend the regularly scheduled chat.

Frank,
I know you mentioned writing a collective letter. I think that is a great idea. Maybe even a new thread with the letter and then everyone that wishes to have their name added can post?
-------------------------------------------

I have a conflict on Tuesdays and so far have missed all the excellent Tuesday chat guest speakers, and will miss next Tuesday's as well. I had hoped to hear a response before then though. Surely things are not that busy at Mothering?

My family has been sick and I'm still sick. I have not even touched my edition of Mothering yet. Thanks to the OP for pointing out this inconsistency- the strong support Mothering had for intactness was one of the main reasons that I subsribed to Mothering. I am sad to see that support was not what I thought.

Jessica


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
As far as I am concerned this is a complete 180 from the Case Against Circumcision issue that Mothering Mag ran years ago.


----------



## feebeeglee (Nov 30, 2002)

So did anyone get to chat?


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Not me - I was out and about today. But I'd love to know.







:

Did anyone else send a letter to the editor?


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

I caught the last part. I couldn't ask a question because I wasn't on the list, and it was full already.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Just a bump and a reminder for everyone to let Peggy know how you feel about the editorial. They locked my thread in ACtivism, so this is it.


----------



## hummingbear (Apr 17, 2003)

Shucks, I had to miss Tuesday and was hoping that someone else was able to atttend and ask Peggy O'mara about this article. It sounds like no one did.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Yeah, I was wondering how the chat went. I have missed ALL of the Tuesday chats due to prior obligations)-:

I'm still wondering what was meant by "medical circumcisions". I don't consider optional circumcision of an infant 'medical' since they are not medically necessary- and religious circumcisions are not 'medical' either.

It was a weird choice of wording the statement- as well as a total surprise.

Jessica


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

:
Wondering about the chat...

Also, is Peggy O a posting member here at MDC? Any chance she has read the threads and would comment?


----------



## ERSsmom (Dec 6, 2004)

:


----------



## Past_VNE (Dec 13, 2003)

Anything new?


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Is the new issue out yet? I'm in Malaysia, so I have it sent to me after I get it in Az. So it takes a while....I will probably cancel my subscription anyway, this is a big hassle and if their circ stance has changed, then I don't want to give them any of my money.
Though I wonder if I can get my money back since I paid for a 3 YEAR subscription!


----------



## bleurae (Feb 25, 2005)

This is completely unacceptable to me. This is a right and wrong issue, a human rights issue, and an absolute. I really would like to understand why, she is an educated kind woman, why would she condone this??? It is absolutely NO different than FGM and I am POSITIVE she would never NEVER condone that. I have such a HUGE sense of betrayal from this I am not even sure how to process it.

bleu

mama to bliss who is whole, intact, and beautiful


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Just got the recent issue....nothing. No comment from Peggy, no letters published.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

how sad. Mothering is not what I thought it was, or what it used to be. Definitely not the magazine for me anymore.


----------



## crayon (Aug 24, 2002)

This is just one more way that mothering is going more mainstream. It is sick that it is even suggested that circing would be a proper choice for a parent to make. I know many people who stop buying magazines now.








I am sad for mothering to be going in such a unhealthy and unnatrual way-


----------



## crayon (Aug 24, 2002)

Does she support female cric then??? This is just so wrong!


----------



## bell bottom blues (Aug 14, 2004)

Is it possible that she meant the first part to refer to circ (trusting in the inherest integrity of the child's body) and the second part only refers to vaccines (parents making informed choices)?


----------



## Leddie (Nov 22, 2002)

You know, I'm not entirely sure what the outcome of all of the discussion on this site was. I tried to skim the copy of Mothering Mag. I received today and was disappointed by what I have found. Perhaps I've missed some sort of futher explantion (which was sort of what I was looking for) or at least, some additional information. Please let me know if you found something about this issue in the last mag.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bell bottom blues*
Is it possible that she meant the first part to refer to circ (trusting in the inherest integrity of the child's body) and the second part only refers to vaccines (parents making informed choices)?

I wish. But her statements are VERY clear.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Peggy will be holding a chat this Wednesday 1 PM EST. Perhaps one or more of you can attend the chat and ask your questions.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

I would love to be able to ask her a few questions 'in person', unfortunately, I will be flying from Malaysia to Italy on Wednesday (and Thursday! a 28 hr trip! by myself with my 2 little ones...but I digress...)


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bell bottom blues*
Is it possible that she meant the first part to refer to circ (trusting in the inherest integrity of the child's body) and the second part only refers to vaccines (parents making informed choices)?

She's a better writer than that. She knows how to make herself clear.


----------



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

I don't think circumcision is a complex decision. It's NOT like vaccines. Vaccines have 2 sides to it. Circumcision doesn't. It's an assault on a newborn baby and that is all it is. no "second side" or "good side" to circumcision. It's plain WRONG.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
It's an assault on a newborn baby and that is all it is. no "second side" or "good side" to circumcision. It's plain WRONG.


Ironically, so many mothers wouldn't know that if it hadn't been for Mothering (and the Fleiss articles) in the first place.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

That is ironic, and kind of sad. I wonder what happened to the "Case AGAINST circ" stance? It was clear cut and to the point. I wonder if this forum will follow suit and be renamed.
I feel sick to my stomach about this. Mothering was, I thought, the only magazine worth getting, I'd look forward to every issue like a child at Christmas and then I'd read it all in one breath....


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and maybe people opposing circumcision would show up here more often if it was renamed and we could convince them to see things our way







('cause we'd all still be here, of course!).

Though the lack of response from Mothering is rather disturbing...

love and peace.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

I disagree, I think language and semantics are very important. But that might be due to my MA in Linguistics.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

UPDATE - went to chat with Peggy today and posted a brief summary here, will post a link to the transcript when it comes out:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...61#post3410561


----------



## LuAnn (Jun 1, 2004)

Edited or unedited, Peggy's statement is shocking. I am glad I stopped subscribing a couple of yr. ago. I thought the magazine was getting inconsistent in some ways, but I never dreamed it would come to this.

Since when does Mothering magazine have to cater to folks who are still living in the 7th century? Yes, if you remain neutral on male infant circ, you will undoubtedly attract more people to "natural" parenting. . . doesn't anybody get the irony here?

I wonder what could be next.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

This isn't the place for it, but since it was mentioned... there aren't two sides to vaccination, just as there aren't two sides to circ. If there is, one "side" of vax is a pack of lies and misinformation. I'm just as bothered by the tiptoeing around the chemical assaults on children as I am about the "un-chemical" assaults such as circ.


----------



## Sherra (Jun 27, 2005)

Calm,

I couldn't agree with you more. I wish people would stop saying the two sides thing to the vaccine debate and compare it to this one with circumcision on how cut and dry it is..I see them both the same...both as assaults to the human body. I spent several days gingerly watching my little baby in the ER after having a seizure from her two month shots. I wince whenever people who have vaccinated and got lucky that just maybe their child didn't get damaged by it say these things when several of us out here weren't so lucky so please folks, don't go there with that argument.

On topic though, You guys here have educated me about circumcision. I'm glad my first baby wasn't a boy or I would have due to misinformation. After reading this forum, if my second one is a boy, I won't circumsize. I just came here out of curiosity and to see if I could learn anything and boy did I ever.

Sherra


----------



## LuAnn (Jun 1, 2004)

This is wonderful to hear, Sherra.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
This isn't the place for it, but since it was mentioned... there aren't two sides to vaccination, just as there aren't two sides to circ. If there is, one "side" of vax is a pack of lies and misinformation. I'm just as bothered by the tiptoeing around the chemical assaults on children as I am about the "un-chemical" assaults such as circ.

We don't vax, but I do understand why someone would choose to. Immunology is complex. There are way too many unanswered questions for it to be the no-brainer circ is.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I understand why someone would _choose_ to vax, sure.

- There is so much info "for" vaccination,

- the info for vax is easier to get,

- it is pushed on us to the point of being almost a legality,

- conforming to the norm.

- "Everyone does it, it must be ok."

- the medical community endorses it.

But I understand why someone would choose to vax in the same way I understand those who have circumcised their sons - see list above. It isn't a no-brainer until you have all the facts, just like circ. Once you learn things such as a) it takes a full year for the effects of the vax to work (thereby rendering the argument that newborns/infants are of decreased risk in their first yet null and void) and b) if there is an outbreak, there are no documented reports of those vaccinated suffering less or not at all from the disease.

Like, aren't those the two biggest reasons we consider vaxing our children? Especially the protective new mother holding a newborn, we tend to freak at the thought of others _breathing_ on our child let alone getting some horrific whooping cough. But it is pointless - told to me by five separate doctors and published in an Australian medical journal - that they are not effective in the first year. And only one doc had the guts to tell me that they aren't effective at all and wouldn't vaccinate his children for love nor money.

No brainer. If informed.


----------



## pippet (Aug 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilaria*
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 really thought that was well written actually. Certainly it's going to enrage some people and not others but given the fact that both those issues are being so hotly debated these days (and that's a good thing), I think that whether or not you agree with the issues, her statement is true - maybe not for all of us but for the majority of North America - these are definitely complex and personal matters to which there is no single easy answer. To those that are converted then to you it is a simple matter with a single solution, but to the rest of the world that is just starting to educate themselves and question these practices, her statement is right on the money.


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

To my mind, the *answer*, the *truth*, is already there. It exists, waiting for those who currently have the wrong answer, or who have simply never asked the question. But just because (general you) are misinformed, it doesn't mean there is no single right answer. If (general you) put away your preconceived notions and look, you should be able to see it. I guess where she's right is that it may not be easy, but that is no excuse for pretending there are many different answers.


----------



## Sherra (Jun 27, 2005)

"It isn't a no-brainer until you have all the facts, just like circ."

AMEN AMEN AMEN

It also is A NO BRAINER if you end up with a child that has seizures because of her vaccines like I did. No statistic they spew will make you feel better.........nor explain it or make the "other side" more attractive. Put yourself in those shoes. If you want to get technical, one can use the argument about circumsicions that their boys turned out fine so it's ok. Well, when you really get educated, you find out it's really not all that ok..neither are vaxes as some of you state.

Get educated about everything regardless of your previous thoughts..we are the parent..not the doc..not the media..not our congressman! I'm just glad I kept an open mind to you guys on this subject, or my next boy would have been circumsized! Keep the mind open, learn, read, experience!

Sherra


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pippet*
I really thought that was well written actually.

Well, yes, in the sense that she is a good wordsmth. It is pretty prose but it fails in the sense that it is well thought out and reasoned. Isn't that what we are looking for when we read something?

Quote:

I think that whether or not you agree with the issues, her statement is true - maybe not for all of us but for the majority of North America - these are definitely complex and personal matters to which there is no single easy answer.
Well, this is where we diverge. She says _"Both medical circumcision and vaccination are complex, personal matters for which there is no single, easy answer"_ and that is just not true. This is just throwing a red herring into the discussion. Medical circumcision is extremely rare and a medical circumcision in the first few days of life is non-existant. A medical circumcision would be one that was done to resolve a medical issue that had symptoms present or indications. The only indications present in newborns indicate that a circumcision should NOT be done as is the case with hypospadius/epispadius. All newborn circumcisions are just a cosmetic genital modification that is done for the esoteric satisfaction of others, not the man involved at the most basic level.

Then she says: _"We trust both in the integrity of the child's body"_ Well, this just makes no sense at all. To trust in the integrity of the child's body would be to trust in Mother Nature or a higher power that either/both know how to make baby boys best. To circumcise a baby boy at or near birth (or most anytime for that matter) is to distrust the normal and natural form of his body and the collective knowledge of years of the refinement process of evolution or the higher power. To circumcise a child is to violate the integrity of his body in the most intense, personal and private way possible.

Then she says: _"and the inherent authority of the parents to make decisions for the family."_ This is nothing more than apologia for our culture of unnecessary and invasive genital cutting. Infant male cutting should be able to stand the test of other similar procedures and if it will not stand that test, it should be eliminated. Would a parent be allowed to make a "family decision" to remove a child's ears? (or even the earlobes?) How about removing parts of a baby girl's genitals? Let's make the test even more difficult. How about prophylactically removing the tonsils or the appendix? Certainly, for a very few children, this would have benefits later in life that would eliminate the possibility of infections and illness and in the case of the appendix, the possibility of death from peridonitis. Do these stand the test? Of course not! Nor does infant male circumcision stand the test. The only way circumcision is allowed is because a doctor more than 130 years ago declared that circumcision was an allowable "family decision" to prevent the horror of masturbation and America accepted his declaration as fact and stubbornly clings to the validity of that declaration.

The truth is that male (or female, for that matter) is nothing more than a violation of a man's body in the most personal, intense and private way possible. There is nothing "medical" about it and it is not a "family decision" but simply a decision of the man that is hijacked by the family when the man is at his most vulnerable time of his life.

Quote:

To those that are converted then to you it is a simple matter with a single solution, but to the rest of the world that is just starting to educate themselves and question these practices, her statement is right on the money.
It is a simple matter with a single solution. There is no benefit to circumcision. As it is practiced in America and the rest of the world, it is simply a violation of a man's body. Education or not, it should simply be banned without proven medical necessity. The medical profession does not have the courage to confront the issue and continues to perpetrate this violation of men through timidity and greed. Peggy's statement is simply an effort to calm the waters and not offend anyone. It is not the courageous statement we would expect from this source and to many of us, represents a backtracking of Mothering's previous stance on this issue that we have trusted for years.

Frank


----------



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

Good point, Frank. I just realized Peggy wrote "medical circumcision" is a complex decision. It's not, it really upsets me that people think this is such a complex decision. To me, it's as uncomplex as deciding not to perform female genital mutilation on my daughter.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
Good point, Frank. I just realized Peggy wrote "medical circumcision" is a complex decision. It's not, it really upsets me that people think this is such a complex decision. To me, it's as uncomplex as deciding not to perform female genital mutilation on my daughter.









:


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
Good point, Frank. I just realized Peggy wrote "medical circumcision" is a complex decision. It's not, it really upsets me that people think this is such a complex decision. To me, it's as uncomplex as deciding not to perform female genital mutilation on my daughter.


I'm with you on this one. I'd like to see someone put up a list of the issues that make it complex. Everyone I have seen so far has fallen apart like a house of cards on the first challenge. Without medical indication, it is simply a cosmetic modification at the behest of people who have no medical knowledge or background in the issue. It is not the fault of the people who choose circumcision in the vast majority of cases but instead, it is the fault of the medical professionals who should have the information and should have questioned the procedure but have failed in their responsibility to the ultimate patient, the man who they circumcise.

Frank


----------



## LuAnn (Jun 1, 2004)

It was refreshing indeed to see you continually use the word "man", Frankly. An old-timey anti-circ worker said to me decades ago that there was no "infant circumcision". "When you circumcise a baby, you circumcise a man" were his words, and they have stayed in my mind. Yet no doctor would restrain a man to cut his genitals, would he. (Though they have been known to do that to adolescent boys gooing in for another non-necessity, tonsil removal...)


----------



## pippet (Aug 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking*
Peggy's statement is simply an effort to calm the waters and not offend anyone. It is not the courageous statement we would expect from this source and to many of us, represents a backtracking of Mothering's previous stance on this issue that we have trusted for years.

Frank

For this issue where a lot of times people who are trying to educate themselves on the matter or just starting to educate themselves on it, they are faced with harsh judgment or rude remarks and are so blasted by the anti-circ representatives that they feel immobilized. Passion is a great thing but for an insecure parent, couching the passion with sensitivity goes very far in encouraging someone to delve more into the issue rather than recoiling at the controversy. To calm the waters and not offend anyone could be akin to attracting more flies with honey than vinegar. I thought that Peggy showed tolerance and respect for all parents, inviting them to go into the issues rather than slapping them in the face with facts or opinion.

For people that are not readers of Mothering, this would encourage them to take a look at it and the principles that its editorial and many of its readers hold. It could act as an open door to educate people that are not already subscribers and the converted on some of these issues.

I totally see how a subscriber or someone who has 'been' with Mothering for years would be offended by this. Subscribers of most magazines are the converted that the magazine is preaching too and we get to enjoy reading articles that are in our like frame of mind and valiantly declare "Amen!" when we agree with their perspective. It's why we subscribe in addition to new information and education for sure.

Someone contemplating the circ issue would likely be more apt to research further, check out Mothering as a whole etc. if they are not offended right off the bat. And I do believe in passion for the issues and the balls to take a stand, but I also believe in meeting people where they are and gently encouraging them. Anyone reading that article and coming here would find a ton of info against circumcision and vaccinating and enjoy a wealth of information to base their decision on and I think wording things in an open, tolerant way opens the door for people to feel comfortable in exploring more.


----------



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

While I agree with Tara, above, that you do catch more bees with honey, I also feel that in this particular issue, which is male genital mutilation, we can't be soft. When a baby is being strapped down and tortured by CHOICE and yes, most babies without a drop of pain relief, only causing that baby harm, not just psychological trauma but also future sex problems, not to mention the assualt of human rights on an innocent child, I think this practice needs to end NOW and we can't treat it as though it's a choice or like there's something to think about. We need to get the information out there that it's wrong, whatever way you look at it.


----------



## heket (Nov 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pippet*
Someone contemplating the circ issue would likely be more apt to research further, check out Mothering as a whole etc. if they are not offended right off the bat. And I do believe in passion for the issues and the balls to take a stand, but I also believe in meeting people where they are and gently encouraging them. Anyone reading that article and coming here would find a ton of info against circumcision and vaccinating and enjoy a wealth of information to base their decision on and I think wording things in an open, tolerant way opens the door for people to feel comfortable in exploring more.









:

I'm one who came timidly MANY times before I actually ever posted here. But there were some very passionate comments posted that did ruffle my feathers, and there were other more gentle ones that got me thinking (hence why I kept coming back). Like Sherra, I'm glad dd came first so I could have the time to really understand what circ was and able to make a stand with dh on the issue. Ds is intact and I can definitely say it's due to this forum.

But I do agree with Pippet, that more people will become enlightened about circ if you meet them half way and offer the info against it.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pippet*
For this issue where a lot of times people who are trying to educate themselves on the matter or just starting to educate themselves on it, they are faced with harsh judgment or rude remarks and are so blasted by the anti-circ representatives that they feel immobilized.


Our message can't be diluted just because people aren't prepared to handle the truth. Mothering used to know this. It's sad to see that perhaps they don't anymore. If parents are "insecure," as you put it, that's their problem, not ours. And if their insecurity leads them to circ'ing their sons because our message was too "passionate" for them, that's their fault, not ours.

Calling circ a "complex" decision is not only a cop-out and a sell-out, it's also patronizing.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pippet*
couching the passion with sensitivity goes very far in encouraging someone to delve more into the issue rather than recoiling at the controversy. To calm the waters and not offend anyone could be akin to attracting more flies with honey than vinegar. I thought that Peggy showed tolerance and respect for all parents, inviting them to go into the issues rather than slapping them in the face with facts or opinion.

Do you think we should use compassion,tolerance, respect and sensitivity and calm the waters, to use honey instead of vinegar in speaking out against female circumcision?

Quote:

For people that are not readers of Mothering, this would encourage them to take a look at it and the principles that its editorial and many of its readers hold. It could act as an open door to educate people that are not already subscribers and the converted on some of these issues.
What this does is to perpetrate that notion that parents have the right to needlessly amputate genital parts from their children when no such right exists. It is only tolerated by common practice.

Quote:

I totally see how a subscriber or someone who has 'been' with Mothering for years would be offended by this. Subscribers of most magazines are the converted that the magazine is preaching too and we get to enjoy reading articles that are in our like frame of mind and valiantly declare "Amen!" when we agree with their perspective. It's why we subscribe in addition to new information and education for sure.
This wishy washy statement perpetrates the idea that men have no rights to the integrity of their body and genitals. Most people reading her statement would say "Oh, yeah!" and go on about their business without ever considering it again. Many magazines have a purpose. The purpose of Mothering is to promote natural parenting for the best of the baby's health and well being. Cutting genital parts off of a man as a newborn is the antithesis of natural parenting. It is brutally forcing the child into submission of society's expectations of his genitals by the most personal and private invasion possible. This "parents right" statement is the antithesis of what mothering stands for. It would be like Mothering advocating formula feeding, CIO and other methods of child raising that are not natural.

Quote:

Someone contemplating the circ issue would likely be more apt to research further, check out Mothering as a whole etc. if they are not offended right off the bat. And I do believe in passion for the issues and the balls to take a stand, but I also believe in meeting people where they are and gently encouraging them. Anyone reading that article and coming here would find a ton of info against circumcision and vaccinating and enjoy a wealth of information to base their decision on and I think wording things in an open, tolerant way opens the door for people to feel comfortable in exploring more.
The problem is that the statement is not neutral. It advocates that parents have a right to make a choice that is counter to the best interest of the man and violates his body. If it were merely a statement that there is great controversy about this procedure and that parents should carefully research what they might be about to do, I doubt that anyone here would have a problem with it. It doesn't do that. It tells parents that they have a right to violate a man's body unnecessarily. They simply don't have that right. It is a right that is stolen from the man when he is absolutely unable to put up any defense for himself.

Frank


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking*
Do you think we should use compassion,tolerance, respect and sensitivity and calm the waters, to use honey instead of vinegar in speaking out against female circumcision?

You're right. And also, how compassionate, tolerant, respectful and sensitive is a medical professional that does this to a child, or a parent that allows this? I'm sorry but the CHILD is being violated. where is the compassion towards our own children?


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LuAnn*
It was refreshing indeed to see you continually use the word "man", Frankly. An old-timey anti-circ worker said to me decades ago that there was no "infant circumcision". "When you circumcise a baby, you circumcise a man" were his words, and they have stayed in my mind. Yet no doctor would restrain a man to cut his genitals, would he. (Though they have been known to do that to adolescent boys gooing in for another non-necessity, tonsil removal...)


The kind of clear headed thinking that you are doing is the same thinking I was having LuAnn.

Back when I habituated debate boards, people would argue that it was not a violation of a man's rights. When you put it into these terms, the violation becomes much clearer. People have no problem doing something to an infant without thinking it is a violation yet, no infant goes through a circumcision willingly. Imagine a mid 20's man being strapped down as an infant is strapped down in a circumstraint. (I've heard it called a circumcision crucifix and that sounds appropriate to me) That would be a clear violation of his rights if he were not consulted about it and if he did not want it. Everyone agrees with that, no problem! However, parental rights extend all of the way up to 17 years and 364 days after birth. Would it not be a violation of the man if this were done to him on that last day? Of course, it would! Well, let's make it a little more difficult! How about when he was 14 years old? Well, it would be an unusual parent who did that to their son and someone I would recommend professional psychiatric services for. But how about 10 years old? Or 7 years old? Still unethical and a violation if the boy is strenously objecting, isn't it? Even in a 4 or 5 year old, it is very questionable if there is no medical reason for it but suddenly, we get to a change. Below the age of about 3 years old, suddenly it becomes acceptable in their minds. Why is that? In reality, nothing has changed except the age of the man. He still doesn't want it and he still is being violated, it's just that he can't voice his objection. But, every time you hear of a child being circumcised, you should picture a fully grown man in that circumcision circumstraint because that is what is happening. A man's body is being violated. It is being violated as a child but childhood is so short. It violates the entirety of the man's sexual life just the same as strapping a 20 something man down and hacking his genitals would be a violation of his body and his rights. Circumcision of a man without his implicit approval is a violation regardless of the age when it is done.

Frank

Frank


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
You're right. And also, how compassionate, tolerant, respectful and sensitive is a medical professional that does this to a child, or a parent that allows this? I'm sorry but the CHILD is being violated. where is the compassion towards our own children?


You have to understand that most people don't regard newborns as real humans as they would a child that is 5 years old or older or an adult. The newborn is regarded more as a Barbie doll or a baby doll and it is this reason that circumcision seems so OK. The "professional" pro-circers (OK, I know this isn't an accurate term) and the circumcision fetishists urge parents to circumcise their newborns because they know that the longer that baby is out of the womb, the more the parents are going to regard him as a "real" person and understand that he has rights and the less likely they are to have him circumcised. They know that it is an act of opportunity and that it is a short lived opportunity so it must be acted on immediately. I have even seen reports of doctors using this by telling parents that there is a window of opportunity and if they miss it, their son can not be circumcised. That is not true but is simply a measure to put pressure on the parents to force them into accepting circumcision for their son.

Frank


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Thank you Frank, on behalf of my husband.

I'm just here to address one point:

*CIRCUMCISION IS DAMNED AS MALICIOUS.*

or

*LEARN MORE ABOUT CIRCUMCISION'S PRO'S AND CON'S*

Ok, now which headline is going to make a mother grab it with both hands? Strong wording, emotion inciting, angry - every time. My husband did a major in advertising, and would laugh at the thought that being gentle does anything to evoke passion or even sell information. Even content written in that fashion is overlooked more often. When people insist on the flies and honey angle, they have had no experience in marketing. And marketing covers everything, not just things you want to sell. We have an important thing to "sell" here, the integrity of our children, we can't ditz around with that. Slapped in the face with facts? Heck yeah, slap them in the face with facts! Stir them up. That has changed more people's minds over more issues than honey ever has. Maybe it worked for some, but look at the headlines again, which would motivate you to read further?


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Whether people go into the 21st century dragging their heels, kicking and screaming, or whether they go there celebrating, the future WILL happen. Routine infant circumcision WILL be eliminated in the United States of America, and then, borrowing the words of the great Martin Luther King, Jr., we will be able to say, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, our boys are free at last."

I just love the argument of, "you have to be nice to me, or I'll circ my boy." Who are you really hurting? Me? Not really. Your boy? Most definitely!!!!!!!


----------



## heket (Nov 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking*
The kind of clear headed thinking that you are doing is the same thinking I was having LuAnn...

Wow. Just plain wow. Thanks for writing that Frank.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

And........... people read Mothering because it's MOTHERING. None of the faithful readers want it to turn into another version of Parents, Parenting, Child, American Baby, etc. Mothering is watering itself down!!! At this rate, it will soon be just another mainstream mag.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heket*







:

I'm one who came timidly MANY times before I actually ever posted here. But there were some very passionate comments posted that did ruffle my feathers,


Oh waaaaaaaaaaah. Ruffled feathers. Genital mutilation. Which do you think we care more about?


----------



## heket (Nov 18, 2003)

You've exactly proven my point.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
Oh waaaaaaaaaaah. Ruffled feathers. Genital mutilation. Which do you think we care more about?

I don't want to be mean, but I really agree. Mutilating babies (or men, as Frank so eloquently explained) isn't just "kinda bad" or "not the best choice". It's an absolute atrocity. I'm generally a pretty tolerant, understanding individual, but I have *no* tolerance for this. It might be the *worst* thing our society does.


----------



## heket (Nov 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
I'm just here to address one point:...

I hear what you're saying (or should I say see what you're writing?







). To answer you're question, I would read both, but that's not what the average mainstream person might do. Our (American) society does revolve around the attention getting ploys, so the first one will catch more eyes.


----------



## LuAnn (Jun 1, 2004)

Is it "our society" that is committing torture of babies? The way I see it, it is being done by psychos who have spent their whole lives maneuvering themselves into a position where they could not only get away with this barbarity, but actually get paid for it! Amazing.

And they are doing it because they are ignorant? No, because they are hurting over something else, and they are blind, and, as the late John Erickson said, when you are blind you need to be told you are blind. Mothering magazine was doing this, esp. with their great article by Paul Fleiss a few years ago. What happened? Why is it now okay to be using babies' bodies to satisfy parents' and doctors' and religious groups' personal concepts?


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LuAnn*
Is it "our society" that is committing torture of babies? The way I see it, it is being done by psychos who have spent their whole lives maneuvering themselves into a position where they could not only get away with this barbarity, but actually get paid for it! Amazing.

And they are doing it because they are ignorant? No, because they are hurting over something else, and they are blind, and, as the late John Erickson said, when you are blind you need to be told you are blind. Mothering magazine was doing this, esp. with their great article by Paul Fleiss a few years ago. What happened? Why is it now okay to be using babies' bodies to satisfy parents' and doctors' and religious groups' personal concepts?

I see your point. I guess I should have said "..that our society tolerates".
I'd never really thought about it before, but the OB that delivered my son tortured me...sewed my tear up, refusing to give me any local anestesia...I was sobbing, dumbstruck by his cruelty...
It makes perfect sense, though...he's a circumcisor. A sadist. At least my wound healed....


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heket*
You've exactly proven my point.


And you've proven mine.


----------



## njeb (Sep 10, 2002)

What we're really debating here is the best way to reach people. Do we go in with both guns blazing and talk about genital mutilation, or do we soft-pedal our approach in the hopes that that will persuade more people to leave their sons intact?

This debate has been going on for a long time. I honestly don't know the answer to this one. But I do know that both sides need to treat each other with respect. After all, both sides do agree that circumcision is wrong. We just disagree about which tactics to use in communicating with other people.

Instead of causing hurt feelings, how about if we give concrete examples of what works and what doesn't? For instance, if you used the soft approach with your brother and SIL, but they circ'ed anyway. Or if you told someone that circumcision is genital mutilation and now they won't speak to you. Or if you used the soft approach with a friend, and now her second son is intact even though her first one is circ'ed. Yes, we're going to make mistakes from time to time, but I think we can all learn from each other.


----------



## TortelliniMama (Mar 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pippet*
For this issue where a lot of times people who are trying to educate themselves on the matter or just starting to educate themselves on it, they are faced with harsh judgment or rude remarks and are so blasted by the anti-circ representatives that they feel immobilized.

But I think there's a lot of ground between harsh judgment or rude remarks and stating that parents have the right to make the decision to alter their children's genitals at will. I've always been impressed at the way that this forum, while passionately anti-circ, has also been supportive to those parents who are either on the fence about their first son or who have already circ'd previous sons and are reconsidering for/have not circ'd subsequent sons. I think the message of "when you know better, you do better," is appropriate and supportive. I don't think "well, whatever you think is better for your family" is appropriate or helpful in this situation.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

The comment does not offend me, and here is why.

Just because we or MDC doesn't agree with us doesn't make one party or the other party "right" or "wrong," it just means we share various opinions.

I as an example personally think circumcision is just horrid, but I have to respect the neutrality of MDC so as not to sound judgemental against the mothers who choose to do so. MDC provides education based upon their views and research that they accept as fact, but they shouldn't play judge against parents either.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
, but I have to respect the neutrality of MDC so as not to sound judgemental against the mothers who choose to do so. MDC provides education based upon their views and research that they accept as fact, but they shouldn't play judge against parents either.


So....does this work with other issues as well? Should they be "neutral" about breastfeeding, in order to not "sound judgemental" to parents who choose to formula feed? Should they call breastfeeding a complex issue? Should they be neutral on everything? If so, what then distinguishes them from every other blah, blah, blah parenting magazine out there?


----------



## Mom4tot (Apr 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
So....does this work with other issues as well? Should they be "neutral" about breastfeeding, in order to not "sound judgemental" to parents who choose to formula feed? Should they call breastfeeding a complex issue? Should they be neutral on everything? If so, what then distinguishes them from every other blah, blah, blah parenting magazine out there?









Amen.

There are certain things I can't be neutral about, and hope MDC isn't either, circumcision being right at the top.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *njeb*
What we're really debating here is the best way to reach people. Do we go in with both guns blazing and talk about genital mutilation, or do we soft-pedal our approach in the hopes that that will persuade more people to leave their sons intact?

With most issues, there is a fine line separating being too aggressive and being too gentle. With this issue, there is a wide and very blurry line.

Being a veteran of debate boards, I have seen this many times. I have seen people say that quoting the AAP's position statement is hate speech and on the other hand, I have seen people say that very aggressive statements were what shocked them into re-thinking their previous thoughts on circumcision. We have even seen it here. Many parents have said that the videos of circumcisions were the thing that made them change their mind and decide to leave their son intact yet at the same time, we have seen some people so offended that they have petitioned MDC to have these links removed from our siggie lines and MDC capitulated and they are no longer allowed.

This is like the "Good cop, bad cop" scenario. In a debate board, there are people who are very aggressive and there are people who are very gentle. Both types reach a certain type of parent and both types are effective in their own way. Even posting true and valid information in a neutral way will garner complaints from some. On those debate boards, I always got a lot of complaints sent to the moderators yet, I was not banned. Even here at Mothering, there is a group that polices this board and sends complaints about me in an effort to get me banned and I carefully avoid anything that could result in that. Apparently the management agrees with my posting since I am still here.

The bottom line is that you can't be all things to all people. Some you are going to offend and some you aren't going to reach no matter what tack you take.

Frank


----------



## njeb (Sep 10, 2002)

Thank you, Frank!







What you said is very helpful to me.









What I need to do now is decide which kind of debater I want to be, both on-line and IRL. I guess I feel more comfortable with the gentle approach, since most people I know who circ'ed their sons are good parents, but are woefully misinformed. It's not easy to hear that you did something wrong. Besides, I feel that there but for the love of God goes me (or however that old saying goes).

But for those of you who feel better with a more aggressive approach, go for it!







As Frank says, it takes both kinds.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *njeb*
. Besides, I feel that there but for the love of God goes me (or however that old saying goes).


Just FYI:

"But for the grace of God, there go I."


----------



## LuAnn (Jun 1, 2004)

It looks to me as if, ultimately ,this is a world of balance: for every person who was offended by a given approach, there was someone else who could not have been "converted" in any other way. So, all approaches are okay. Even sticking nasty photos in people's faces - it does sometimes work, in my experience. And, I do respect more peaceful folk who just talk mildly and gently. But there is no room for Mothering, of all parties, to be wishy-washy. Mild and soft-spoken do not equal wishy-washy.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *njeb*
Thank you, Frank!







What you said is very helpful to me.









What I need to do now is decide which kind of debater I want to be, both on-line and IRL.

I had to make a choice years ago. When I first became involved in this issue and learned that the problems I was having were directly related to circumcision, I was filled with anger. Men just naturally tend to let that anger out and men tend to communicate with each other in very direct terms and with few punches held back. I quickly learned that women just don't work that way and that by and large, it was women I was communicating with. It became obvious that if I wanted to be effective in communicating this issue with these women, that I had to change my way of communicating to a softer method. It works!

It's not that I hold back or that I avoid issues, I just find ways to state it so that it is not offensive to the majority of women. I still get the message out.

Frank


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Frank, you just said something that I can't believe happened. They don't allow those sig links cos people can't help themselves and have to open them? Yikes. You know, (tangent coming up..) it really bother me when people won't look at pictures or footage of a child in agony, whether it be war shots or circ or whatever. Those children and their parents had no choice but to see it and _feel_ it, and we sit with our luxury of having the choice to look away. And look away we do. I make myself look at any photo and film that comes into my vision, I sometimes cry, but to me it is respect to the person (child/adult) who had to actually go through a trauma. At least for us it only hurts our sensibilities if we look.

(tangent finished)


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Now let us detach ourselves emotionally for a moment and look at the big picture.

You catch more flies with honey.. or so to speak.

Rather than seem overly dogmatic, I think Mothering was trying to take a more gentle approach by making this statement. Obviously Mothering is anti-circ and they publish non-circing medical data.

Honestly, is it fair, kind, or professional to come off as judgemental, dogmatic, and have a bulldog "how dare you do this you twisted sick parent" approach? Is that an effective way to change the minds of a parent who is investigating circimcision? No. In fact, by being a "bully" is a great way to scare somebody off.

If you were speaking with a person on a hot topic which you both were in disagreement, for example a MDC poster, and they came off as judgemental, abusive, and as a bully, would they be able to sway your opinion? No. They would in fact "turn you off." It could in fact drive you away, and any logical argument they may provide would be clouded by thier high horse views and poor attitude. Now what if that poster was kind, and took a non-judgemental approach and simply discussed the topic from a non-emotional stand point with medical data and facts to back up their view? Wouldn't it be far easier to see thier side, and possibly even change your view?

I think Mothering took the high ground, and to me, that deserves a lot respect.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
Now what if that poster was kind, and took a non-judgemental approach and simply discussed the topic from a non-emotional stand point with medical data and facts to back up their view? Wouldn't it be far easier to see thier side, and possibly even change your view?

No. I think I would see that they were exactly as you said "non-emotional" about it. That would send a subconscious message to me that it wasn't an important issue to them, that they had little evidence to back it up and their opinion was probably not worth listening to.

Quote:

I think Mothering took the high ground, and to me, that deserves a lot respect.
And I think Mothering took the easy way out. The accepted stance. The stance that was most likely not to ruffle feathers. What happened to the days of Great American Journalism? When did writers and journalists become afraid to tackle the difficult issues and become politically correct? We might as well have government censorship. That's what political correctness is, isn't it? Censorship by public acclaim or disdain?

Frank


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Peggy O is a good enough writer that she could have made an anti-circ stance in the nicest way possible. She chose not to. Shame on her.

It's a false dichotomy to assume that she EITHER had to take no stance against circ OR sound mean and *itchy. That's just not true. Saying "do whatever you want, I'm sure you'll make the right choice in there somewhere" isn't what I'd call honey. It's what I'd call bullcrap.

And....... aren't editorials supposed to be opinions? Why even write an editorial that comes across as completely neutral? What's the point in that? Just because you get paid for it?


----------



## pippet (Aug 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
Now let us detach ourselves emotionally for a moment and look at the big picture.

You catch more flies with honey.. or so to speak.

Rather than seem overly dogmatic, I think Mothering was trying to take a more gentle approach by making this statement. Obviously Mothering is anti-circ and they publish non-circing medical data.

Honestly, is it fair, kind, or professional to come off as judgemental, dogmatic, and have a bulldog "how dare you do this you twisted sick parent" approach? Is that an effective way to change the minds of a parent who is investigating circimcision? No. In fact, by being a "bully" is a great way to scare somebody off.

If you were speaking with a person on a hot topic which you both were in disagreement, for example a MDC poster, and they came off as judgemental, abusive, and as a bully, would they be able to sway your opinion? No. They would in fact "turn you off." It could in fact drive you away, and any logical argument they may provide would be clouded by thier high horse views and poor attitude. Now what if that poster was kind, and took a non-judgemental approach and simply discussed the topic from a non-emotional stand point with medical data and facts to back up their view? Wouldn't it be far easier to see thier side, and possibly even change your view?

I think Mothering took the high ground, and to me, that deserves a lot respect.









ITA... it's true that sometimes people run the other direction because of the people they encounter that are representing the issue - placing a label on them and running in the other direction instead of really looking at the issue itself.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
and have a bulldog "how dare you do this you twisted sick parent" approach? Is that an effective way to change the minds of a parent who is investigating circimcision? No. In fact, by being a "bully" is a great way to scare somebody off.



Who, exactly, suggested that she say this?










She could have said something similar to the following: (written better, of course, because Peggy O. would be writing it)

"We breastfeed. We co-sleep. We have natural births, when possible. We try to eat organically. Obviously we do everything in our power to raise our children in the best possible way. This should include leaving our children with their whole bodies, not disrupting bonding by sending them off to be strapped to a circumstrant and circumsized."

Of course, if she felt it necessary, she could have made it very clear that she was talking about routine infant circumcision and not making a call on religious circumcision.

But she could have made a clear-cut case for intactness, saying it in a warm, loving, gentle, "you want what's best for your baby" kind of way. The words "sick and twisted" wouldn't have to appear anywhere.

If she's not anti-circ, she's not the NFL and AP guru she purports to be.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
So....does this work with other issues as well? Should they be "neutral" about breastfeeding, in order to not "sound judgemental" to parents who choose to formula feed? Should they call breastfeeding a complex issue? Should they be neutral on everything? If so, what then distinguishes them from every other blah, blah, blah parenting magazine out there?










And, MrsMoe, you still haven't addressed this.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
And, MrsMoe, you still haven't addressed this.

I didn't know I was forced to respond within moments after you posted. I just got done taking a bath, picking up around the house, spending time with my daughter, making dinner and eating... or am I not allowed to do other things besides post on MDC? Give a girl some time!

The magazine clearly states repeatedly why circimcision is not medically neccessary, why breastfeeding is best, and the benefits of co-sleeping. It also goes into detail dispelling many myths and the like.

Regardless if you like it or not, what a parent does with their child is their choice, and it's not up to you or me or anyone else to judge that parent.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
I didn't know I was forced to respond within moments after you posted. I just got done taking a bath, picking up around the house, spending time with my daughter, making dinner and eating... or am I not allowed to do other things besides post on MDC? Give a girl some time!

The magazine clearly states repeatedly why circimcision is not medically neccessary, why breastfeeding is best, and the benefits of co-sleeping. It also goes into detail dispelling many myths and the like.

Regardless if you like it or not, what a parent does with their child is their choice, and it's not up to you or me or anyone else to judge that parent.


Response to your first paragraph: Sorry. I just got anxious to hear your reply. :LOL (But, just for the record, the post on which I wanted a response was posted yesterday, so it wasn't "within moments" that I wanted a reply.)

Response to your second paragraph: In the years I've read Mothering, I've read a lot about co-sleeping and breastfeeding, but only the two Fleiss articles about circumcision. You said that it is discussed "repeatedly" in Mothering; could you please tell me in what issues (beyond the two Fleiss articles), since I must have missed it?

Also, more specifically to my original question, when Mothering magazine is pro-breastfeeding, is that being "judgemental" against mothers who choose to formula feed? If not, then how is that different from being anti-circumcision?

Response to your third paragraph: Ahhhhhhh......... the lightbulb goes on. No wonder we've been conflicting so much. You see circumcision as a CHOICE parents should get to make. I don't. It is genital mutilation, plain and simple. What other body parts should parents be able to "choose" to cut off? Should dh and I have the "should we cut off part of his ear" discussion? Why not? Isn't it my baby and my choice? Should I have had the "choice" to cut my dd's genitalia?

And, interestingly enough, you don't even seem to limit this "choice" thing to just circumcision. WHATEVER a parent chooses is not for me to judge? Does that include when a parent is abusive?


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Mrs.Moe! Quoting you from another thread:

"Originally circumcision was performed in the US as it was thought to minimize masturbation in little boys. What followed was Doctors pocketing money and convincing people that it could cure everything from blindness to cancer and so on. There are so many nerve endings in the foreskin, and by removing that foreskin sexual pleasure IS reduced. Also, it makes the skin on head of the penis toughen due to friction etc. Unless the foreskin is diseased, which is extremely rare, there are no medical benefits to circumcision. It simply accomplishes one thing - removing sensitivity to the sexual organ.

Just because something is normal and common in your area doesn't make it right. 85% of men/boys in the world are not circumcised. Little girls are also circumcised in Africa, but for some reason that is viewed as genital mutilation whereas cutting the genitals of a little boy isn't? To me, this is not a logical conclusion."

You know all this, and you STILL think it's a choice I shouldn't judge?









(Feel free to eat, take baths, spend time with your daughter, whatever. I'll wait. No rush!! )


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Here are Mothering's views on circumcision:
http://search.freefind.com/find.html...y=circumcision
Found 761 items

Circimcision IS a parental choice, regardless if you like it or not.

Do I agree with circumcision? NO, absolutely NOT! To me, it i clear as day that it is genital mutilation. I am and always will be very against circumcision.

As I said in the other thread that you created in my honor, I don't think it is my place or your place to judge anyone ever period for parenting choices, even if we feel those choices are clearly wrong. It's wonderful to have your views, and odds are we likely have many of the same parenting views... but judging a person negatively will only reap negative repercussions.

At one point in time, I was not anti-circumcision. It was thanks to a very kind coversation with a friend (when I was 20 and pregnant with what I thought and was told by my Dr. was a boy) that made me realize that circumcision WASN'T OK. Had she judged me, or been rude or dogmatic and bullied me, she would have offended me and ended the coversation right then and there, and may have very well resulted in my continuing to think circumcision was an OK thing to do, just like the rest of America.

Now, as to the definitionof the word choice
Main Entry: 1choice
Pronunciation: 'chois
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chois, from Old French, from choisir to choose, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German kiosan to choose -- more at CHOOSE
1 : the act of choosing : SELECTION
2 : power of choosing : OPTION


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*

Circimcision IS a parental choice, regardless if you like it or not.



Legally, yes. Morally and ethically, no.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A*
Legally, yes. Morally and ethically, no.

But it is STILL a choice and it is not up to me or you to pass judgement on others because of our personal morals.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I think it's a big mistake not to judge atrocities. What the hell is wrong with us if we don't pass a judgement on someone who is clearly doing wrong. I personally get so sick of all this don't judge people's actions crap. It is human nature to judge and judgement has fostered many a social movement.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
But it is STILL a choice and it is not up to me or you to pass judgement on others because of our personal morals.

Well, now, this is where we are going to take widely divergent routes! (Getting up on soapbox)

Not only do I think it is appropriate to pass judgment, I think it is my responsibility to pass judgment for the benefit of our society. This is something my Mother taught me from the time I was very young and I think it was a valuable lesson.

You see, there are many things that are unacceptable that are not against the law and there are people who are willing to do these things if there are no repercussions. Passing judgment and condemning these actions that are not illegal but are unacceptable are one of the glues that keep our society together and all societies. Judgment has a history that goes back to the beginings of civilization and without judgment, we would not live in a civilized society.

My mother taught me that certain people could be bad influences for me and that I could get in trouble simply by associating with these people. She taught me to judge them. She also taught me that by associating with these people, I was likely to take up their bad habits or "Sleep with dogs and you will get up with fleas." Clearly, associating with people who insist on cutting off parts of baby boys makes it seem more acceptable. Can you deny that? Certainly, seeing in a national magazine that cutting off parts of baby boys is a legitimate personal choice makes it seem a more acceptable action, doesn't it?

Certainly, sex between teenagers is legal (within certain limitations and in most states) but is it an appropriate action? Can you see that the only thing that keeps most teens and some pre-teens from having sex is that people will pass judgment on them and condemn them? After all, like circumcision, it is not illegal so should middle and high school be a sexual free-for-all? What is to prevent it or even moderate it if there is no judgment and condemnation?

The aversion to judgment is from people who do not want to be held accountable for their actions. The hue and cry against judgment is simply a means to demonize it and have their way without repercussions. They have tried to make judgment an evil thing. Judgment is a cornerstone of all successful societies. Judgment and condemnation gives us a code of ethics, morals and behaviors not covered by statutory law. In that way, it keeps the actions of most people within acceptable standards and it protects us from those who have no regard for others and would take advantage of us.

I would strongly suggest that you teach your daughter to be judgmental for her own protection. Teach her that there are people out there who have motives and intentions that are not altruistic. Teach her that there are people that will do things to her that are not in her best interest and safety and that those people can cause her great harm. She will be much safer for it.

This line of thinking that we can not be judgmental and hold others responsible for their actions is simply political correctness run amuck. It's no good for the individual on either side and it's no good for our society or our nation.

Frank


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Poeple that circumcise are doing so out of ignorance. What good does judging them do?

Judging others just puts the person doing the judging up on a higher pedistal... judging others means you think that you are better than they are. Is that the right attitude to have, an attitude of superiority? Feeling you are btter than others?


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
But it is STILL a choice and it is not up to me or you to pass judgement on others because of our personal morals.


It's a human rights violation, plain and simple. Of course I'm going to pass judgement on that. Slavery was once legal, as well. Were the abolitionists merely wrestling with their "personal morals"? Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

More on judging others... if you are judged by another, how does it make you feel? If we are judged in a negative way, it can spur feelings of being misudnerstood and feelings of trying to be made to feel inferior to the person judging you. Then - if we are judged, the normal human psychologial response is to shut down and go on the defense, and even get angry.

I am not superior to others. Everyone makes wrong choices, ALL OF US! Just because somebody makes a wrong choice doesn't make it right for us to pass judgement on them.

Intolerance breeds hate and predjudice.


----------



## feebeeglee (Nov 30, 2002)

I agree it is inappropriate to judge a _person_, to compare their worth as a human being to your own and determine that you are somehow a better person than they are.

However it is not inappropriate to judge a person's _actions_ and determine that those actions are morally and ethically wrong.

It's irrelevant whether a particular action is legal in a particular society - unless you think that wife-beating was a perfectly moral and ethical thing to occur within a marriage until the day it was made illegal (most of the US permitted it well into the 20th century). I think that a man beating his wife was doing something _wrong_, whenever he did it.

The law, it is said, is an ass. And it is no barometer of morality or ethics.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
Poeple that circumcise are doing so out of ignorance. What good does judging them do?

My brother circumcised his son because he didn't want to accept the fact that his own sexuality had been violated.........that our own parents could do such a thing to him. So, if you pass it on to the next generation.....then of course it wasn't harmful, right? He DIDN'T circ out of ignorance. He had more than enough information (thanks to me). So, yes, I judged him.

If enough people stand up to circ, we'll finally get it eradicated. Looking the other way (under the guise of being "non-judgemental") doesn't do anyone any good.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feebeeglee*
I agree it is inappropriate to judge a _person_, to compare their worth as a human being to your own and determine that you are somehow a better person than they are.

However it is not inappropriate to judge a person's _actions_ and determine that those actions are morally and ethically wrong.

It's irrelevant whether a particular action is legal in a particular society - unless you think that wife-beating was a perfectly moral and ethical thing to occur within a marriage until the day it was made illegal (most of the US permitted it well into the 20th century). I think that a man beating his wife was doing something _wrong_, whenever he did it.

The law, it is said, is an ass. And it is no barometer of morality or ethics.









:


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Just for the record, my dh wishes that his parents had never been given the "choice" to mutilate him in such a personal way. We don't judge his parents, but the society in which they lived.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feebeeglee*
I agree it is inappropriate to judge a _person_, to compare their worth as a human being to your own and determine that you are somehow a better person than they are.

However it is not inappropriate to judge a person's _actions_ and determine that those actions are morally and ethically wrong.


I can agree with this.


----------



## LuAnn (Jun 1, 2004)

Mamakay, that is horrible what the doctor did to you. What a four-star, double-barrel, unreconstructed, card-carrying, b*****d.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feebeeglee*
I agree it is inappropriate to judge a _person_, to compare their worth as a human being to your own and determine that you are somehow a better person than they are.

However it is not inappropriate to judge a person's _actions_ and determine that those actions are morally and ethically wrong.

It's irrelevant whether a particular action is legal in a particular society - unless you think that wife-beating was a perfectly moral and ethical thing to occur within a marriage until the day it was made illegal (most of the US permitted it well into the 20th century). I think that a man beating his wife was doing something _wrong_, whenever he did it.

The law, it is said, is an ass. And it is no barometer of morality or ethics.

I think this is a great way of putting it. I do not feel superior to the parents who circed out of ignorance - there but for the grace of God went I, and I am eternally grateful that I learned the truth about circ before having a baby boy.

(My dad chose to be circed as an adult, and the reason we heard growing up was because of "infections." Which turns out not to be the real reasons, according to my mom, but having heard about "infections" had I had a son earlier than I did I might well have circed.)

But back on topic, I agree that parents who circ are making a legally allowable but morally wrong decision. Some make the decision out of ignorance, others make the decision even having been educated. I don't think they are evil people, but they have made a morally reprehensible decision, IMO. If they made it out of ignorance, then I am sorry for them and their sons.

If they made it with knowledge aforethought - like my BIL and SIL - then yes, I think less of them as people. I judge them for having knowingly chosen to harm their sons. Just as I would judge them for beating their children. Physical harm to kids is simply wrong.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

I don't have the right to judge . . . . Charlie Manson? Howz about John Wayne Gacey? Theodore Kazynski? Sam Berkowitz?

I once wrote here about a man who had committed several murders. Maybe more than several. I don't think anyone other than the man knows how many. I passed judgment and said this was an evil man regardless of the fact that he had been forcibly circumcised in Viet Nam. Well, his cousin came here and tried to dress me down for making judgment about him and telling me that I had no right to pass judgment on him. Essentially, my comment to her was

*BULL HOCKEY!*

Making judgment and acting on those judgments are a necessary part of our society. Only if we do that, will we survive.

Frank


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking*
I don't have the right to judge . . . . Charlie Manson? Howz about John Wayne Gacey? Theodore Kazynski? Sam Berkowitz?

I once wrote here about a man who had committed several murders. Maybe more than several. I don't think anyone other than the man knows how many. I passed judgment and said this was an evil man regardless of the fact that he had been forcibly circumcised in Viet Nam. Well, his cousin came here and tried to dress me down for making judgment about him and telling me that I had no right to pass judgment on him. Essentially, my comment to her was

*BULL HOCKEY!*

Making judgment and acting on those judgments are a necessary part of our society. Only if we do that, will we survive.

Frank

With all due respect, parents that circ their children are not serial killers. To compare the two is rather far fetched, don't you think? Parents that circ are uneducated and mislead by the health industry and if you were a parent in the 1950's in Hometown USA, odds are you would have circed your boys also.

Maybe society would bridge gaps of predjudice and hate if it would stop judging others.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I can't believe I am about to disagree with my favorite anti-circ people, BUT, I must.

Yes, we have the choice to circ, and it is also a legal choice. But it isn't one we should have in my opinion. I also must agree that judgment is not appropriate. Until we walk a thousand miles, shoes, all that stuff, then we cannot judge another's actions. And just like we have the choice to circ - but shouldn't, we also have the choice to judge - but shouldn't. But judge we do, as mentioned, it is human nature.

There is a reason non-judgment is written as a virtue in most spiritual arenas and cited as something to aspire to. There is damn good reason. It is a very hard to reach place in human psyche, but one humanity must reach for world peace, as one example. If a person is free of judgment, they wouldn't circ to begin with! The judgment upon ourself by ourself is the driving force behind most of our actions. If people weren't so threatened by the thought that they could seem non-conformists, weren't so lead by the baaa-baaaa mentality of group herding and following, then they would be free to make love - not fear - based decisions.

Also be sure not to confuse the judgment we teach our children (is it safe to cross the street; should you wear that in the cold) with the judgment upon another culture, religion, species or person. Yes, some things are clearly wrong - such as a healthy penis being mutilated. But what we are looking to avoid is that _feeling_, you know the one, where you see a woman with a bottle in a newborn baby's mouth and think, "tsk tsk, breast is best" - you have just cast judgment upon that woman with your feeling. You have just assumed waaaaay too much about that woman, her upbringing, etc etc.

We have judged circ to be wrong, and as far as I am concerned, it is wrong. That doesn't mean I'm going to judge the parents. I don't know enough about them to know how they tick and what drove them to that. I'd be guessing, and no doubt wrong. Judging the actions is the same thing, it is still judging _their_ actions. *All that need be judged is circumcision.* Circ is wrong, that is an impersonal judgment call. Don't extend that judgment to people, that is pointless, and won't raise our compassion and humanity at all.

Can you tell I have a passion in this area?







I learned the hard way. I judged Bin Laden, only to learn I was completely wrong about his motives and thought pattern. I judged a person evil who is just in the same boat as any other terror/war supporter or instigator. I was saying B-a-a-a baaa-aa-a along with everyone else, until I learned the only thing I could judge accurately was "killing is wrong, and to my knowledge - that which is fed to me by the establishment - he killed". Just added all that so you can see how I came to my impassioned conclusions.


----------



## bleurae (Feb 25, 2005)

judgement:The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation

I think we ALL have very differing views of what judging is. We ALL judge, that does not mean we all think we are better than others, maybe we just know more, are more educated in a certain area, are more "awake" or some other thing. I have friends who circ...they know my stance, it never changes, at times when it comes up I repeat my beliefs, and I do not condone their circ'ing their children. Does it make me a better person? I think that is something I cannot judge because I have no way of knowing. If I meet someone who is thinking about circing, however, I will do everything in my power to educate them and change their minds, if they still do it...I do have to say that it alters my ability to be close, but no more than I cannot be close to someone who spanks. I think it stems more from a deep core pain at being unable to stop it and not being able to be around it...the circ that is. As for hitting, I also speak up and if it is much I will also report.
THAT is a judgement, and one that saves a lot of children. Sadly we cannot "report" circ'ing because it is legal....well circ'ing boys, we CAN report circ'ing girls.

The argument about judging though, it really might help to back up and discuss your definitions of what it is before getting to much more heated.

My lil 2 bits.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I don't get heated, hence my user name. But how a post is read is determined by the reader - judgment.







You defined judgment, and I agree with that definition. Opinion being the operative word in that definition.


----------



## PuppyFluffer (Mar 18, 2002)

This has turned into an interesting discussion of beliefs. You all have done a nice job of keeping this an informative opinionated productive conversation.

I have a question about this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
We have judged circ to be wrong, and as far as I am concerned, it is wrong. That doesn't mean I'm going to judge the parents. I don't know enough about them to know how they tick and what drove them to that. I'd be guessing, and no doubt wrong. Judging the actions is the same thing, it is still judging their actions. *All that need be judged is circumcision*. Circ is wrong, that is an impersonal judgment call. Don't extend that judgment to people, that is pointless, and won't raise our compassion and humanity at all.

How do you judge circumcision without connecting your thoughts to the people responsible? The parent(s) who sign the consent form? The nurses who promote circ? The doctor who performs it?

Circimcision is an action, not a person, place or thing. How do you separate your opinion of the circumcision without also forming an opinion of the people who facilitate it?


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Good question, Karen. I am not a zen expert yet, but trying







. It is a constant battle at the moment, and I always have plenty of questions for my teachers, like my Buddhist teacher. It is something that developed for me over time (and not near perfected of course), through things such as looking at times I was judged. That was a good one for me. I was no doubt judged many times unknowingly, but it was the times it was brought to my attention that I can use to understand judgment.

I am sort of aloof, shy, uh, like standoffish - but only when I am taking in new people. But I have been called a snob, like I'm looking down on them etc, because that was how they felt - I was judging them or something. Well, I wasn't, I was just enjoying watching or trying to think of a good line to enter the conversation with. I worked as a mirror. I reflected to them what they thought of themselves. Because they felt drunk and noisy, they assumed I was thinking that of them and judging. I was just wishing I could also cut loose, but I reflected their own feelings so they could only judge me as judging them. See how weird the cycle can be? And how wrong judgment can be?

I have misjudged others and then felt an idiot afterwards. My own inner feelings were projected onto them by my expectations and I got it wrong.

My brother was a heroin addict (this story comes in handy a lot), and people would see this man, thin, broken, begging and sick on the street and think "JUNKIE!" and have whatever pre-conceived ideas about drug addicts per individual added to that. Not realising he was given heroin for a pain killer by his boss at 16 years of age and forced to part with his wage every week for drugs or he'd lose his job. Also that he was an amazing artist and beautiful person who helped people and animals all the time, almost costing his own life a few times. Judgment. It's not helpful.

I won't ramble too much further, but will say that experience and intospection plus help from enlightened people showed me the error of judgment's ways. And there are no exceptions. If you come up with one, then that is your conditioned mind playing tricks on you.

Serial killers, horrible people right? Have you ever known one? Actually, have you even met one? They are often sick, very sick, and of need of help since they were children. Abused backgrounds, chemical problems in the brain, longings beyond our priviledged understandings. Expressions of evil, killing innocent people so horrendously, it is easy to judge that right? Well, not everyone does. I personally know 3 people above such judgment, and know _of_ many others, such as the Dalai Lama. So it isn't inevitable. It is a state of understanding. And the state of understanding most of us are at is evident by the state of the world. Look around. See judgment at work, up close and freakin' personal.

_Separate the action from the person._ See the core of the person, the God within, and everything else is the crap heaped on top from a lifetime of goodness knows what. The person is not the action - and thank Gods for that because then we'd all be in trouble! _Circumcision_ is bad. _People_ are trying to do what is right. They are doing what generations before have preached is the right thing to do. We all have our own versions of "the right thing to do" and found it isn't. Then others, such as doctors who do the circs who know better but choose money over morality - they have a lifetime of conditioning to overcome, a fear of losing, a fear of speaking out, a fear of loss of income and losing their sense of self and lifestyle. Then there are what I call the "innocent perpetrators", the doctors who believe it is healthier, the mothers who also believe strange things like that.

It is all too involved really. I know this won't get understood, but it is all I have in my sleep deprived state right now. I wish I could make it easy to understand, but I'm just not so good at that, obviously.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Jeez, that was long.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

I'm with Quirky--I don't judge the parents who circ in ignorance, but I DO judge the parents who circ with the full knowledge of what they are doing. There is a vast chasm between those two types of circ'ing parents, IMO.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
I can't believe I am about to disagree with my favorite anti-circ people, BUT, I must.

Yes, we have the choice to circ, and it is also a legal choice. But it isn't one we should have in my opinion. I also must agree that judgment is not appropriate. Until we walk a thousand miles, shoes, all that stuff, then we cannot judge another's actions. And just like we have the choice to circ - but shouldn't, we also have the choice to judge - but shouldn't. But judge we do, as mentioned, it is human nature.

There is a reason non-judgment is written as a virtue in most spiritual arenas and cited as something to aspire to. There is damn good reason. It is a very hard to reach place in human psyche, but one humanity must reach for world peace, as one example. If a person is free of judgment, they wouldn't circ to begin with! The judgment upon ourself by ourself is the driving force behind most of our actions. If people weren't so threatened by the thought that they could seem non-conformists, weren't so lead by the baaa-baaaa mentality of group herding and following, then they would be free to make love - not fear - based decisions.

Also be sure not to confuse the judgment we teach our children (is it safe to cross the street; should you wear that in the cold) with the judgment upon another culture, religion, species or person. Yes, some things are clearly wrong - such as a healthy penis being mutilated. But what we are looking to avoid is that _feeling_, you know the one, where you see a woman with a bottle in a newborn baby's mouth and think, "tsk tsk, breast is best" - you have just cast judgment upon that woman with your feeling. You have just assumed waaaaay too much about that woman, her upbringing, etc etc.

We have judged circ to be wrong, and as far as I am concerned, it is wrong. That doesn't mean I'm going to judge the parents. I don't know enough about them to know how they tick and what drove them to that. I'd be guessing, and no doubt wrong. Judging the actions is the same thing, it is still judging _their_ actions. *All that need be judged is circumcision.* Circ is wrong, that is an impersonal judgment call. Don't extend that judgment to people, that is pointless, and won't raise our compassion and humanity at all.









Very well spoken.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Good question, Karen. I am not a zen expert yet, but trying







. It is a constant battle at the moment, and I always have plenty of questions for my teachers, like my Buddhist teacher. It is something that developed for me over time (and not near perfected of course), through things such as looking at times I was judged. That was a good one for me. I was no doubt judged many times unknowingly, but it was the times it was brought to my attention that I can use to understand judgment.

I am sort of aloof, shy, uh, like standoffish - but only when I am taking in new people. But I have been called a snob, like I'm looking down on them etc, because that was how they felt - I was judging them or something. Well, I wasn't, I was just enjoying watching or trying to think of a good line to enter the conversation with. I worked as a mirror. I reflected to them what they thought of themselves. Because they felt drunk and noisy, they assumed I was thinking that of them and judging. I was just wishing I could also cut loose, but I reflected their own feelings so they could only judge me as judging them. See how weird the cycle can be? And how wrong judgment can be?

I have misjudged others and then felt an idiot afterwards. My own inner feelings were projected onto them by my expectations and I got it wrong.

My brother was a heroin addict (this story comes in handy a lot), and people would see this man, thin, broken, begging and sick on the street and think "JUNKIE!" and have whatever pre-conceived ideas about drug addicts per individual added to that. Not realising he was given heroin for a pain killer by his boss at 16 years of age and forced to part with his wage every week for drugs or he'd lose his job. Also that he was an amazing artist and beautiful person who helped people and animals all the time, almost costing his own life a few times. Judgment. It's not helpful.

I won't ramble too much further, but will say that experience and intospection plus help from enlightened people showed me the error of judgment's ways. And there are no exceptions. If you come up with one, then that is your conditioned mind playing tricks on you.

Serial killers, horrible people right? Have you ever known one? Actually, have you even met one? They are often sick, very sick, and of need of help since they were children. Abused backgrounds, chemical problems in the brain, longings beyond our priviledged understandings. Expressions of evil, killing innocent people so horrendously, it is easy to judge that right? Well, not everyone does. I personally know 3 people above such judgment, and know _of_ many others, such as the Dalai Lama. So it isn't inevitable. It is a state of understanding. And the state of understanding most of us are at is evident by the state of the world. Look around. See judgment at work, up close and freakin' personal.

_Separate the action from the person._ See the core of the person, the God within, and everything else is the crap heaped on top from a lifetime of goodness knows what. The person is not the action - and thank Gods for that because then we'd all be in trouble! _Circumcision_ is bad. _People_ are trying to do what is right. They are doing what generations before have preached is the right thing to do. We all have our own versions of "the right thing to do" and found it isn't. Then others, such as doctors who do the circs who know better but choose money over morality - they have a lifetime of conditioning to overcome, a fear of losing, a fear of speaking out, a fear of loss of income and losing their sense of self and lifestyle. Then there are what I call the "innocent perpetrators", the doctors who believe it is healthier, the mothers who also believe strange things like that.

It is all too involved really. I know this won't get understood, but it is all I have in my sleep deprived state right now. I wish I could make it easy to understand, but I'm just not so good at that, obviously.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PuppyFluffer*
This has turned into an interesting discussion of beliefs. You all have done a nice job of keeping this an informative opinionated productive conversation.

I have a question about this:

How do you judge circumcision without connecting your thoughts to the people responsible? The parent(s) who sign the consent form? The nurses who promote circ? The doctor who performs it?

Circimcision is an action, not a person, place or thing. How do you separate your opinion of the circumcision without also forming an opinion of the people who facilitate it?


To form a negative opinion of a person blindly doing what they think is best, and what their parents think is best, and what their doctors think is best isn't fair.

Take at look at the meaning of the word "judge"

Main Entry: 1judge
Pronunciation: 'j&j
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): judged; judg·ing
Etymology: Middle English juggen, from Old French jugier, from Latin judicare, from judic-, judex judge, from jus right, law + dicere to decide, say -- more at JUST, DICTION
transitive senses
1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
2 : to sit in judgment on : TRY
3 : to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
4 : GOVERN, RULE -- used of a Hebrew tribal leader
5 : to form an estimate or evaluation of; especially : to form a negative opinion about <shouldn't judge him because of his accent>
6 : to hold as an opinion : GUESS, THINK <I judge she knew what she was doing>
intransitive senses
1 : to form an opinion
2 : to decide as a judge


----------



## PuppyFluffer (Mar 18, 2002)

I have typed and deleted 3 responses so far....let's see if this one makes it.

I try to be conscious of my judgements and try to be aware not to use them as a way to elevate myself above others. I understand the points you are trying to make Calm. I can agree with them on many levels.

Judgement to make yourself feel better or above another is wrong. Judgement to form a basis of information in order to make a decision is not (IMO). For example: To see a circ'd baby and think "What a cruel and stupid parent" is wrong. To think "I'm so much smarter that I didn't do that to my kid" is wrong. In these instances, I'm making speculations about another and using information to elevate my own self opinion.

To see a circ'd baby and think "I wonder if that parent had all the information before making that choice?" is not wrong I think. Feeling empathy for that baby's experience of pain and loss for his forceful separation from his whole body is not wrong. To read the sticky thread about parents who regret circing and feeling bad for them for their guilt and taking the lesson of their experience to help me shape my own decisions is not wrong.

We are all taking in data every day that we use to make choices for our own behavior. Some would call that judgement. I call it useful information.

I can make a choice without harboring hate and anger.

If I found that a friend chose to circ their boy after I had given them factual information about the procedure, the function of the foreskin and the risks of the surgery, I would distance myself from them as a friend. I don't want to associate closely with someone who would make that choice. It is my right to chose to associate with people whose choices I respect. I feel it is my responsibility as a parent to live my life in a manner that I want my child to admire and duplicate. I don't like hyprocrisy and it would be hard for me to remain in a respectful relationship with someone who didn't respect the intergity of their child's genitals IF they had the full information about the practice. So, is that a judgement?

I don't feel it is my obligation to tolerate all the world's behavior and this notion that all judgement is bad seems like a push to neutralize any and all behavior to such a point where anyone can do anything and there are no social guidelines.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

I neither hate nor judge parents who circ. I HATE circ. HATE it. But even those parents who choose to do it knowing much of what I know...I think they really just don't "get it". Technically, they might have the info. But really, something in their past probably conditioned them to choose poorly.
That's why I think it should be banned. If we're going to say you can't do it to your daughter, we should protect our boys too.
I disagree with Peggy. Peggy trusts parents to make the right choice. Peggy believes in the authority of the parent to make this choice. I _know_ otherwise good people circ.
I'm a libertarian. I hate laws. But I think this is one law that we really, desperately need. The whole purpose of law is to protect people from other people, and baby boys are seriously needing some protection. Genital integrity is a basic human right.
Judging misguided parents isn't even the issue! Pretty much *all* parents who choose circ are misguided in some way...I don't care if they've seen what I've seen..their logic is skewed...
The drive to conform to cultural norms is tremendous...that's how I'm able to get my 2 year old to "act right" without ever punishing him in any way.
We desperately need, and are on the brink of (I think), a massive shift in our cultural thinking on this issue. Once America thinks of circumcision like Europe does, it will cease to even be an issue.
If Mothering doesn't step up and take the lead, who will?

The law is not always right. But issues of human rights tend to really "stick" in popular thinking. When FGM became illegal, no one really put up too good of a fight. It's impossible to.
Cutting off the sexual organs of babies is just one issue that's terribly hard to defend. And parents aren't even the issue. It's our culture that needs to shift. If the culture shifts, the parents will follow.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
With all due respect, parents that circ their children are not serial killers. To compare the two is rather far fetched, don't you think?

Of course! But that was for illustration. There are the serial killers that I think it is totally appropriate to judge. At the other end of the scale, it is against the law to spit on the sidewalk in many places. It is extreme to place harsh judgment on those people who spit on sidewalks. There is a line in there somewhere it is appropriate to judge people and where it is not. The problem is that that line moves. At the present, the line is moving toward serial killers and away from sidewalk spitters. Because of the politically correct anti-judgment movement, it is moving closer and closer to the serial killers. This will do our society no good.

Quote:

Parents that circ are uneducated and mislead by the health industry
Some are and some are not. I do not judge the latter but I do judge the former and I think that judgment is totally appropriate.

Quote:

and if you were a parent in the 1950's in Hometown USA, odds are you would have circed your boys also.
Pure statistical odds say I would but in reality, I would not. You see, I have been very against circumcision since I was about 7 years old. There has never even once been any question in my mind.

Frank


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Oh well, the main thing is we all agree that circumcision should be banned. In this particular exchange, that is of more importance to me than how people judge others.


----------



## PuppyFluffer (Mar 18, 2002)

Calm, I agree with you. There have been a few interesting thread on judgement in Talk Amongst Ourselves.


----------



## crayon (Aug 24, 2002)

I judge! Yep, I sure do! I have no problem feeling anger at people who decided not to educate themselves and harm their children. I have a problem with people who harm their children using religion to back them up (like it is a safety net). I have a problem with people who need help who don't get it. I swear, if someone laid a hand on my child and abused them in anyway that person better fear for their life because I could give a rats ass what happened to them as a child- if you hurt my child- I WILL HURT YOU. I don't see the harm in judging others. I think it is normal and I think that if you take a blind eye to it more harm than good will come of it.

However, Calm, I do understand that there are deeper issues than "a druggie" "a murder" "a rapist" but that doesn't excuse or shadow over the crimes committed. And I test anyone who has had a daughter or a son killed by a drunk driver, murdered or raped to not judge.

I believe that circ'ing is wrong and I will fight for every child that doesn't have a voice. I wish that Mothering mag would do the same, be bold enough not to worry about the "mainstream" marketing. There is no justice in a screaming child, and I will judge!


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crayon*
I judge! Yep, I sure do!

I believe that circ'ing is wrong and I will fight for every child that doesn't have a voice. I wish that Mothering mag would do the same, be bold enough not to worry about the "mainstream" marketing. There is no justice in a screaming child, and I will judge!


I just have to say, Crayon, that you soooooooo rock!

And, with circ rates falling, the availability of internet information, and the number of anti-circ groups out there, it will become harder and harder for parents to say that they circ'd in ignorance.


----------



## calngavinsmom (Feb 19, 2003)

Hate the sin not the sinner......or something to that effect. ITA, circumcision should be *banned* no ifs ands or buts. Not offered in hospitals, clinics, doctors offices ect., ect.

It should not be a "choice" parents are trusted to make because most parents who choose it frankly are not trustworthy enough to research circumcision fully and make an informed decision in that regard. Too many do it because "Daddy is" or "It looks nicer" or whatever bias is dancing around in their little minds at the time.

IMO, that is irresponsible medicine and the medical industry sould not be catering to these peole at the cost of their little baby boys.

If baby walkers and bath tub rings can be banned to "protect" babies from negligent parents causing them harm, so can circumcision.

Take care,
Tara


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *callumsmom2001*

If baby walkers and bath tub rings can be banned to "protect" babies from negligent parents causing them harm, so can circumcision.


Good point!


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

That's where the confusion comes in with judging. It is like, if we _understand_ a person's actions, we are somehow _condoning_ those actions. I have this same problem when I am teaching forgiveness. People come unstuck because they really struggle with the belief that they must condone what happened to them to forgive it. And that is not understanding forgiveness or judgment. And if you don't understand the nature of it, you can't work with it, you can't rise above it, you can't reap its rewards as a virtue, you can't do nada but sit and screw ya nose up.

Once it dawns on people (an "aha!" moment) that it is a deep understanding that leads to forgiveness, they set themselves free. Forgiving a dead person, well, that's really hard because most people are taught that to get forgiveness one must apologise. If you ain't here, that's more difficult :LOL. But forgiveness is not about the other person setting you free, it is setting yourself free of the chains you bind yourself with, the attachment to an outcome or reason.

Same with judgment, which also carries much misunderstanding. If you think you are condoning behaviour unless you judge, if you think you are condoning behavior if you forgive, you are bound.
This is good:

Quote:

Hate the sin not the sinner


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *callumsmom2001*
Hate the sin not the sinner......or something to that effect. ITA, circumcision should be *banned* no ifs ands or buts. Not offered in hospitals, clinics, doctors offices ect., ect.

It should not be a "choice" parents are trusted to make because most parents who choose it frankly are not trustworthy enough to research circumcision fully and make an informed decision in that regard. Too many do it because "Daddy is" or "It looks nicer" or whatever bias is dancing around in their little minds at the time.

IMO, that is irresponsible medicine and the medical industry sould not be catering to these peole at the cost of their little baby boys.

If baby walkers and bath tub rings can be banned to "protect" babies from negligent parents causing them harm, so can circumcision.

Take care,
Tara


Also very well said.


----------



## Acksiom (Jun 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
Regardless if you like it or not, what a parent does with their child is their choice, and it's not up to you or me or anyone else to judge that parent.

<purring> Oh _reeeeaaalllly?_

And just _whom_, exactly, are _you_ to decide _that_ for _me?_


----------



## Acksiom (Jun 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feebeeglee*
It's irrelevant whether a particular action is legal in a particular society - unless you think that wife-beating was a perfectly moral and ethical thing to occur within a marriage until the day it was made illegal (most of the US permitted it well into the 20th century).

<sigh> Er, no, actually. It didn't. Not legally. The claim otherwise is a femelitist myth. In fact, to the best of our current knowledge and due to our general 'inheritance' of the british code of law, it has _never_ been legal in the usa for a husband to beat his wife.

Christina Hoff Sommers (for just one; there have been others) debunked this in passing years ago in her book _Who Stole Feminism?_ -- specifically, the section dealing with the corollary "Rule of Thumb" myth (see http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html for a relevant excerpt).

So -- _NO_, most of the usa did _NOT_ permit it well into the 20th century. In fact, even _before_ the usa ever _existed_, wife-beating was _already_ criminalized in british colonies in north america.


----------



## Acksiom (Jun 10, 2004)

And regarding the specific topic of the thread itself:

Sorry, but no. In order to so _criticize_ judgement, _one has to engage in judgement itself_.

There cannot _be_ any such criticism _of_ judgement without the _use_ of such judgement.

Which thus automatically _invalidates_ such criticism, being an example of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.

It's like arguing that since axes are used to chop things up, and chopping things up can have negative consequences, all axes should be chopped up -- with axes.

Problem is, _what happened to 'chopping things can have negative consequences'_, and _what, exactly, is to be done about that last axe there?_

So -- again, sorry, but your position is inherently self-contradictory and indefensible.

It sounds real nice and all, but it doesn't actually work in reality.

What happens in reality is that your share of the common civic responsibility for moderating other people's behavior either gets shouldered by others and they end up doing it for you, or else it simply doesn't get done period and we all in general end up paying the increased social costs from you not pitching in and doing your fair share.

So thank you for the offer, but no, I do not in fact want to do your share of that work for you. I categorically refuse to willingly subsidize your beliefs in this regard by either taking on part of your responsibilities without recompense from you, or else by suffering an increased degree of discomfort from the consequential decrease in social amity.

Judgement is not a crime.

Judgement is a _responsibility_.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

For any misunderstandings or oversights -

Judgment is a necessary part of life. We teach our children judgment. Judgment can save lives.

Is that bit clear? Ok, good.









The problem is not that kind of judgment, it is _false_ judgment. And judgment is based on pre-conceived ideas of life and therefore subject to being _false_. I use my judgment to weigh and evaluate. I try not to use my judgment to condemn based on my pre-conceived ideas which are mine, and human, and subject to fault - as are the rest of humanity's pre-conceived ideas. You cannot separate judgment from the preconceived idea it was born from. Therein lay the problem.

Also as mentioned, it does not _condone_ a behavior, is that part unclear or something?









I fetch to say that _I_, for example, am doing just as much for society and issues such as circumcision as, say, _you_, for example. But I am doing it without constructing in my mind some false idea of the people I am working with or against. I find judgment much more of a burden on our planet, and many more are *killed* by judgment than non-judgment. Actually, I fetch to say that not one person has suffered from non-judgment :LOL.

Quote:

It sounds real nice and all, but it doesn't actually work in reality.
This is very wrong and entirely a guess. I know it is a guess as I have seen non-judgment at work. Of course, I have also seen judgment at work, I only need to look at any war to see the results of that.

Quote:

I categorically refuse to willingly subsidize your beliefs in this regard by either taking on part of your responsibilities without recompense from you, or else by suffering an increased degree of discomfort from the consequential decrease in social amity.
If I could show you that judgment has often been the root cause of the decrease of social amity to begin with would that make a difference?

How are we saving the world faster than the Dalai Lama (for instance) who practises non-judgment?

Is it that hard to judge an action as wrong or unnecessary without also judging the person behind the action? (ie, guessing the reasons for their actions and forming (false) opinion of said.)

Anybody can judge. You are selling something that everyone _already owns_.

No one said changing the world would be easy. Sigh.


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Acksiom*
And regarding the specific topic of the thread itself:

Sorry, but no. In order to so _criticize_ judgement, _one has to engage in judgement itself_.

There cannot _be_ any such criticism _of_ judgement without the _use_ of such judgement.

Which thus automatically _invalidates_ such criticism, being an example of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.

It's like arguing that since axes are used to chop things up, and chopping things up can have negative consequences, all axes should be chopped up -- with axes.

Problem is, _what happened to 'chopping things can have negative consequences'_, and _what, exactly, is to be done about that last axe there?_

So -- again, sorry, but your position is inherently self-contradictory and indefensible.

It sounds real nice and all, but it doesn't actually work in reality.

What happens in reality is that your share of the common civic responsibility for moderating other people's behavior either gets shouldered by others and they end up doing it for you, or else it simply doesn't get done period and we all in general end up paying the increased social costs from you not pitching in and doing your fair share.

So thank you for the offer, but no, I do not in fact want to do your share of that work for you. I categorically refuse to willingly subsidize your beliefs in this regard by either taking on part of your responsibilities without recompense from you, or else by suffering an increased degree of discomfort from the consequential decrease in social amity.

Judgement is not a crime.

Judgement is a _responsibility_.


My issue was to not judge a parent in a negative light or condemn them in a judgemental manner due to that parnets ignornace or relgious beliefs. It is unfair, esp when it concerns a proceedure that their doctors do and their friends do and their parents did etc etc etc.


----------



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

Circumcision is as much a parental choice as child abuse is a parental choice. It's legal because the AAP doesn't have the guts to admit that they recommended an abusive procedure for all those years. Law suits would fly like you wouldn't believe if they came out an admitted that they may have harmed children psychologically and physically without option of repair.

I don't think there is such a thing as an educated, circumcising parent. To me, parents that circumcise either don't want to see the truth, or don't know the truth.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Anyway, back on the topic of this thread.

Which is the latest issue of Mothering magazine and it's editorial and subsequent response to by Peggy ovoer our reactions to it.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Has anyone gotten any reply to their emails or letters that they sent to Peggy?


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

All this dialogue about judgment is interesting, but really beside the point - we all agree, judgers and non-judgers alike, that we don't condone circ.

I believe Peggy could have, without implying judgment one way or the other of parents who have already circed for whatever reason, reiterated clearly the long-standing position of Mothering that non-religious circ is not a part of natural family living and violates the integrity of the child's body.

And no, no word from Peggy in the latest issue although she did clarify herself in the Mommychats. Unfortunately the transcript is not up yet. She did promise to stop by here and take a look at the discussion about her editorial/clarify herself, but that hasn't happened yet either.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quote:

Anyway, back on the topic of this thread.

Which is the latest issue of Mothering magazine and it's editorial and subsequent response to by Peggy ovoer our reactions to it.
I do believe that thread topics go through various subjects during a discussion, as is the nature of conversation. It has never been brought to my attention that diversions were not allowed, so mods - is that a no no or something?


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:

no word from Peggy in the latest issue although she did clarify herself in the Mommychats. Unfortunately the transcript is not up yet.
I was wondering if the transcript was up yet (I've lost the link to mommychats) so thanks for letting me know it hasn't been posted at this point. I would like to read it.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
My issue was to not judge a parent in a negative light or condemn them in a judgemental manner due to that parnets ignornace or relgious beliefs.

I don't think anyone here is judging those parents. I sent information several times a week for several months to one pair of parents. I never got a reply, a "thank you" or any indication that the baby was or wasn't circumcised and with relatives, the issue has been carefully avoided so I suspect he was. Surely, those parents can't be ignorant unless they purposely did not read the information. I did judge those parents in a negative manner and have no negative feelings for myself for doing so and no reticence to admit it publicly.

Frank


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

I don't think the diversion into a dialogue about judgment is a bad thing at all, but I think it is possible to be an advocate -- even a forceful one -- without getting into questions of judgment, whether judgment is good or bad, etc.

I think to shy away from advocacy for fear of coming across as judgmental is a great disservice to humanity. I truly believe we need to stand up and say "Circumcision is wrong" if we are to make a difference and reverse the course of this terrible human rights violation that has been perpetrated on millions upon millions of innocent baby boys. It is not enough to simply set a quiet example, because we will not change people's minds if we don't give them good reasons and a strong moral foundation for changing a lifetime's worth of misconceptions about the foreskin.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I totally agree with your post, Quirky. I haven't actually called anyone judgmental on this thread or any thread here at MDC I've been on. When I notice it as a topic and others defending judgment as a good course of action, that's when I step up. I don't even know why it became a topic of this thread :LOL. I am loud when it comes to activism. Including the topic of judgment (or has that been obvious?







). So I certainly agree that being loud about an issue is a good thing. I don't see how the two are related to be honest - judgment of a person and activism. They aren't related in my activism.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

I think how it comes up is that people say "we can't be forceful about advocating for intactness (or breastfeeding, or whatever the cause is) because then we will be judging the people who circed or ff'ed or whatever." I agree, I don't think that judgment and activism SHOULD be related but they so often are, because activists get accused of being judgmental. So the bf'ing campaign gets watered down because "we don't want to make ff'ing moms feel guilty and judged," etc.

The "judgmental" label I think is often used as a way of trying to shut activists up.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky*
So the bf'ing campaign gets watered down because "we don't want to make ff'ing moms feel guilty and judged," etc.

The "judgmental" label I think is often used as a way of trying to shut activists up.


And, interestingly enough, it's often huge corporate dollars, not just individuals, driving the "watering down" of these campaigns.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Quirky, you just hit the nail on the head!!









Quote:

I think how it comes up is that people say "we can't be forceful about advocating for intactness (or breastfeeding, or whatever the cause is) because then we will be judging the people who circed or ff'ed or whatever." I agree, I don't think that judgment and activism SHOULD be related but they so often are, because activists get accused of being judgmental. So the bf'ing campaign gets watered down because "we don't want to make ff'ing moms feel guilty and judged," etc.

The "judgmental" label I think is often used as a way of trying to shut activists up.










Then the f/feeders (and circumcisers) need to discern between judgment upon their person from judgment upon f/feeding. Just as they also need to discern between when they are judging a person and judging an act.

"Circumcision is horrendous"

is completely different to

"Parents who circumcise are horrendous"

My mother circumcised my brother, but she isn't horrendous. But most people cannot tell the difference between those two statements.


----------



## hummingbear (Apr 17, 2003)

ditto on the judging acts vs judging people

after all, in parenting one would preferably say to a child that something they did was bad not that they were bad

and..... I have seen strong judgement passed on people over many issues including circumcision.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

here

It took a while for the owner of Mommy chats to get this up...she just had a baby.


----------

