Interesting fortune cookie message

[PuppyFluffer]

I got take out Chinese yesterday and my fortune cookie said;

"Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause."

I immediately thought of circumcsion and the various ways we all have of conveying information. After thinking about it a while, I think I disagree with the cookie message. I think one can use strong and bitter words to speak of a strong cause. But I think it's a fine line between knowing when your audience has remained receptive and when they have shut down. When your audience has shut down, I am fairly certain that stronger words will get them to open back up again.

[wendy1221]

I don't know. Strong words can make you feel very attacked as well. I came here for support 4 years ago (before I registered, so my posts are lost. I think they were deleted b/c they mentioned religion?) My dh's religion "requires" circ, so I came here for support and advice and instead I left feeling attacked and didn't come back for an entire year. My ds ended up NOT being circ'd (ds2 was dh's first), but it was no thanks to the people here. Namely 1 person in particular who someone told me is no longer allowed to post in this forum. My dh came around on his own b/c he knew how I felt about it (ds1 isn't circ'd either) and I ended up not needing to do all that much persuading other than telling him how I felt. Dh is an intactivist himself these days.

I ALWAYS try to be gentle when it comes to circ. I feel attacking someone gets you nowhere with them. Attacks make them feel guilty, defensive, and stuborn, ime. Not always the best thing, especially if they come here for info, which suggests they already have misgivings about it.

[TigerTail]

If it made you get angry & think, that is a step ahead of compliantly doing what 'everyone' else does. I think more people who get pissed off at our words go on to think deeply about the subject than those that are met with, "Well, it's not necessary, but it's your choice & I respect that."

PF, those are interesting points. People willing to listen about unnecessary surgery & consider that sanely, don't require the same ballbat over the head into the next paradigm shift that people smugly convinced they are right do.

[wendy1221]

Um, obviously, I was already thinking, since I didn't want to do it--already had an intact son! and came HERE instead of iVillage. I left and didn't come back for an entire year. I found people ELSEWHERE who could calmly talk me through it and give me resources. Attacking me didn't help me AT ALL. It didn't stop and make me "think deeply" about the words people said to me. It made me feel attacked and unsupported. I'm not even sure if other people replied to my post b/c I didn't check back.

I think telling people that the rest of the world does not circ their boys, that *we* are the only country that does it for non-religious reasons, yet we have a much higher rate of STD's and reproductive cancers than they have in Europe makes an excellent argument. Not to mention Viagra doesn't sell much at all in countries where most older men are intact. I also add that I feel that it is my son's body and no one should be allowed to perform cosmetic surgery on him without his consent. I think these arguments will make people think much harder than calling them names, like "mutilator", "child abuser", whatever, will. Of course, if they're just being stupid, especially people who admit to knowing there's no benefit, but are doing it for "cosmetic" reason, I admit I can be harsh. I have no tolerance for stupidity and selfishness.

[TigerTail]

We aren't calling the people 'mutilator, 'abuser'; we are describing actions. Not everyone is deadset on finding the truth. Some people need shocked out of complacency. (Since you went on to find the info, you obviously got what you needed; you just ended up pissed off at personalities. I'll take a thousand people hating my guts to save one child from torture.)

[wendy1221]

No, this person actually called me names.

And my point is, I came HERE for information. I specifically said, I do NOT want to circ, but my dh feels it is his religious duty. I am not a member of that religion, but I agreed to raise my kids w/ that religion (not thinking about circ--DUH!) If someone had given me what I came here for, gentle support and some links or books for my dh, then I wouldn't have HAD to go elsewhere. And it was very hard to find this information on my own. My biggest help was "Questioning Circumcision" by Ron Goldman. Someone could have simply given me the link to that book, gave me a cyber hug and told me to be strong in my stance in convincing my husband. Instead I was attacked, called a coward, told I should leave my dh (simply b/c he was ignorant? how does that help the cause?), an other nasty things were said. I don't think that helped AT ALL and I can only think of a very few situations where it would.

I don't think attacking and being offensive is the right FIRST reaction. Sometimes, nothing else gets through, but I think if that's the FIRST reaction, you will turning a lot of people away without getting the point across. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. They're not hearing your message when you get offensive. THey're hearing the offense, and their reaction is defense, whether they would agree if they thought about it or not. And I think many people won't bother to think about it. THey'll think "Sheesh, what a b***!" And then they'll leave on that note in many cases. Even if they continue to argue, they're arguing out of defensiveness, not using their intellect.

[TigerTail]

Originally Posted by wendy1221

Instead I was attacked, called a coward, told I should leave my dh (simply b/c he was ignorant? how does that help the cause?), an other nasty things were said.

Oh, I never tell people they should leave their dh (I don't *think* so!), that's why. Better to convince someone then dump them & let them go on their destructive way. Sorry you were attacked; we aren't perfect, & I know a LOT of people on other boards accuse us of 'calling them names' when all we are doing is presenting facts (links to medical info!)- it's their modus operandi.

[Heffernhyphen]

Originally Posted by TigerTail

We aren't calling the people 'mutilator, 'abuser'; we are describing actions.

That's an interesting dance of semantics. So if I choose to circ my son, I'm not sexually abusing him, he's just being sexually abused. :

I too have come here for information and been completely turned off by the harshness of language. Maybe not you personally, TigerTail, I don't remember who said what, I just know my general take on the whole presentation of information. Saying that a mother is torturing, sexually abusing, molesting, raping her son is certainly purposefully looking to hurt. Wendy's right; you catch more flies with honey.

[TigerTail]

nak

mmm- i'd wager cac has saved more kids than all the sticky gooey 'parental choice' boards out there combined.

it's odd, because those us more direct souls aren't telling people whose activism is less forceful to get out there and bite some heads off to get to the people who only respond to that, but there's always phases of telling us direct folks that our style of intactivism is wrong, because it turns the more sensitive people off.

why don't we just do what we do best and not pick so much? i'm glad for wendy's honesty about her situation, it brings up excellent points to consider. 'it upset me' is different than saying 'it's bad, stop it.'

as far as the dance of semantics, that's a ua thing. i see why the dance is necessary though- i can say someone is doing something stupid, but not say, 'hey! stupid!'. do you not see a difference?

[trmpetplaya]

I think it's important to have both strong words and gentle words. Most people react better to one or the other. I like that others here have a different style than I do because then it seems like all the bases are covered. In one recent thread (not at CAC) I felt a little like myself and another intactivist were playing good cop-bad cop. But as long as the OP listened to at least one of us then she might actually think about what she's set on doing.

And it helps to realise that a lot of the defensiveness and perceived attacks aren't from US it's from pro-circumcisers being unsure of their decision. Not in the pp's cases obviously, but I've definitely seem pro-circers get defensive over the most general broad statements :

love and peace.

[PuppyFluffer]

A lot to respond to here.

First off, Wendy, I am sorry you recieved that sort of response here. I'll take up more communication with you via PM addressing your specific case. I am definately sorry to hear that what you experienced!

I think that we all have different ways of presenting information. Intactivists are up against so much social conditioning that it can be hard to break through to someone to get them to see another angle. It's a topic that people can be fiercly protective of.

Regarding the use of terms. We've had several discussion about whether or not circumcision is mutilation, is abuse, is sexual abuse, is violation. We've gone to dictionaries and found definations for these terms and most of us have concluded that the act of cirucmcision, based on these definations, can be labeled mutilation and abuse and a violation. The user agreement states that we cannot namecall. Therefore, it is against the user agreement to call a person a sexual abuser or a molester. It is ok to call circumcision sexual damage, mutilation etc. The difference is that you can label the act by descriptive adjectives but you cannot use those same adjectives to label a person.

I don't think uninformed parents who consent to circumcision are abusers. They are consenting to a violent act which violates a baby against his consent. I am certain that most all parents do not have it in their mind's that this is what they are authorizing because they are not told the truth by medical staff and many don't do independent research ahead of time.

Just because a parent is ignorant of the real process of circumcision, the real damage of circumcision or the lack of medical need for circumcision doesn't make them evil. It sadly makes the uninformed about an act that they can never undo, can never take back and will regret if they learn the real truth behind RIC.

In the threads I've seen here asking for help in educating people, I see a great deal of factual information shared, links to legitimate sites with information on the natural bodily functions of the foreskin, the things lost with circumcision, etc. Some people do use strong language to describe it, to define it and to discuss it.

Someone has a signature I believe that says "Circumcision, the more you know the worse it is." That is so true. And many of the core members of this forum are so knowledgable and the damage is very well known to them. One just wants to scream NO, STOP, DON'T DO IT.

I think there is a place for the strong language just as there is a place for the softer language....but amongst it all, there needs to be facts. Images, medical descriptions, knowledge of function etc so that a truly informed decision can be made for the children we are entrusted to care for. I think there is a place for it all but I also think we as educators and activists accomplish more when we tailor our message for the broadest acceptance.

[njeb]

And don't forget the lurkers, those people who read here but never post. How many of them get turned off by our strong language? I worry about that a lot.

[wendy1221]

I want to scream NO STOP DON'T DO IT! But I type "Please don't circumcize your son. You will regret it if you do." A lot of times people use the UTI argument and I absolutely do use the "girls get TONS of UTI's and you wouldn't circ a daughter to prevent that, would you?" argument, which I guess some people even think that is harsh, bringing up FGM. I guess I'm pretty logical and not so emotional in my arguments. Maybe that's the difference. Harsh language causes an emotional response, which can sometimes be good, sometimes be bad. I try to get them to think scientifically about the whole thing.Because I personally think the scientific facts are CLEARLY in favor of intactness. Unfortunately, all these articles written by people w/ little scientific understading and read by people w/ little scientific understanding seem to be really confusing people (talking about the HIV and UTI articles you read in every parenting mag these days. Not that *I* read them, but I read on this forum every single day, even if I don't always post.

IRL, I'm not much of an intactivist, I must admit. I'm really not very good at talking to people face to face. I'm not very good at expresing my thoughts on paper, either, but that is easier than talking to people for me. I am sure I have undiagnosed Asperger's, which might explain it.