Anyone bothered by latest Mothering issue?!?!?! - Page 6

[A&A]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You've exactly proven my point.

[mamakay]

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]

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]

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?