Anyone bothered by latest Mothering issue?!?!?! - Page 10

[MrsMoe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Quirky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

UPDATE - link to chat with Peggy

here

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