I just got the call........ - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 80 Old 07-28-2004, 01:59 AM
 
AutumnMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Northwest US
Posts: 4,480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am so sorry.....I just went through this with my friend

Quote:
Originally Posted by playdoh
It makes me nuts and I want to scream and break things. It will never make sense to me because it is senseless.
That is exactly how I feel!!

The thing that killed me is that I went to see them when he was 4 days old and held him while he still had his whole perfect little body, knowing what they were going to do to him in 3 days

Needless to say I cried for the next 2 days.....it just kills me that mothers won't protect their babies!!

Oh, FTR, I had talked with her 2 or 3 times and lent her the Dr Fleiss book.
She read it, focusing mostly on how they do the different procedures, and them proceded to tell me that they had decided to do it anyway.....it was 'kind of scary to read about that one baby whose lung popped' from the screaming, but she was 'comfortable with their decision'

Anyway, I know how you feel, and I totally think you are doing the right thing to wait to visit
AutumnMama is offline  
#62 of 80 Old 07-28-2004, 02:15 AM
 
stayhomemummy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In St. Paul Minnesota
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
WOW!

I'm so glad that I read this post! I have learned so much! It's really amazes me how uninformed the public is about very important issues. We need to talk about these things. We sould be hearing more conversations about important issues such as this in coffee shops, at moms groups, but we dont' it's usually unimportant chitchat, gossip stuff! Ya know!

I'm so sorry for that baby boy! I wonder if they showed a video of the circ to all new parents right after birth or in prenatals how many would go thru with it! Or if the dad had to go with in order for it to be done!! Yikes thats'd be enough to scare my Dh!
stayhomemummy is offline  
#63 of 80 Old 07-28-2004, 12:11 PM
 
Mamm2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry to hear about your nephew. I get so depresed from reading these types of posts. I am planning on getting a license plate that is anti-circ. Just trying to get the word out, it makes me feel a little better.

Again, sorry about your nephew. As another poster said, maybe you can influence him to stop the cycle of violence.
Mamm2 is offline  
#64 of 80 Old 07-28-2004, 03:58 PM
 
Nathan1097's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Senior-Title-Less!
Posts: 3,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stayhomemummy

I'm so sorry for that baby boy! I wonder if they showed a video of the circ to all new parents right after birth or in prenatals how many would go thru with it! Or if the dad had to go with in order for it to be done!! Yikes thats'd be enough to scare my Dh!
I'd have to look it up but I think on http://www.cirp.org/ there is an article/study by Wiswell (or maybe others?) about just this. Video counselling dramatically reduced the number of parents who chose to circ.
Nathan1097 is offline  
#65 of 80 Old 07-28-2004, 05:13 PM
 
Christy1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Michigan Corn Field
Posts: 5,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
Apparently my brother witnessed the circ, and said it was "brutal." Yep, it is. I coulda told ya that, dummy!
So now that he's seen it, will he do it to another baby? Or did actually seeing it make him realize how he has wronged his son? That they are not, in fact, "chopping it off," but ripping it away?

~Christy crochetsmilie.gif, mom to DD Sage (12-2003) joy.gif and DS Isaac (04-2012)  babyboy.gif, wife to Josh geek.gif.

Christy1980 is offline  
#66 of 80 Old 07-28-2004, 07:08 PM - Thread Starter
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christy1980
So now that he's seen it, will he do it to another baby? Or did actually seeing it make him realize how he has wronged his son? That they are not, in fact, "chopping it off," but ripping it away?

I hope so, but I don't know. I just heard that he said it was "brutal" from my sister.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is online now  
#67 of 80 Old 07-28-2004, 09:21 PM
 
SaveTheWild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: With the love of my life
Posts: 765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
Good. It should, considering you mutilated your child.

Did you not happen to see what I wrote in my first post? If you're not a regular contributor to the anti-circ fight, or don't plan to be, please don't post on this thread. I won't be responding to anything else you have to say because I don't want the thread to get pulled.


The "only post here if you are on my side" aspect is one thing, but to attack her for saying how it would make her feel to be ignored...

If you want sympathy, being sympathetic goes a long way.
SaveTheWild is offline  
#68 of 80 Old 07-28-2004, 11:37 PM - Thread Starter
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveTheWild


The "only post here if you are on my side" aspect is one thing, but to attack her for saying how it would make her feel to be ignored...

If you want sympathy, being sympathetic goes a long way.

My nephew deserves the sympathy; I was never asking for it for myself.

I wanted the opinions of people with a particular point of view, people whose viewpoint I already respect and trust.

My "attack" on her, as you put it, had more to do with her circumcising her son than anything else.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is online now  
#69 of 80 Old 07-29-2004, 12:27 AM
 
Acksiom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveTheWild
If you want sympathy, being sympathetic goes a long way.
Yes indeed! Do you speak from experience?
Acksiom is offline  
#70 of 80 Old 08-02-2004, 12:04 PM
 
laralou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: little house in the suburbs
Posts: 4,904
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
My nephew deserves the sympathy; I was never asking for it for myself.

I wanted the opinions of people with a particular point of view, people whose viewpoint I already respect and trust.

My "attack" on her, as you put it, had more to do with her circumcising her son than anything else.

I am not sure reading her post that she did circ. I think she might have been proposing a hypothetical situation. So before attacking, I'd suggest clarifying that point.

That said, personal attacks are against the UA. And "exclusivity" on threads isn't allowed. We have already had a thread removed for this reason. So in the interest of keeping this thread alive, please no more personal comments and no more telling people they shouldn't post.
laralou is offline  
#71 of 80 Old 08-02-2004, 02:11 PM
 
bringingup4forHIM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
yes, one day he will realize what you tried to do for him. i spent months begging my best friend and arguing with her about this. fourtunaly i am VERY convincing and she did not circ her ds or the other three she has had since!! everytime i see their beautiful faces, i can't help but think that i saved them from a life of pain and regret. on the other hand, my brother circd his two sons. no room for discussion, he wanted them to look like him. like men go around showing themselves daily?!?!!? HUNH???
bringingup4forHIM is offline  
#72 of 80 Old 08-02-2004, 02:39 PM
 
bringingup4forHIM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
my jaw is on the floor. i have never heard about a lung popping during a circ?!?! oh my. i just see it as stupid, unnecessary pain. dh and i were talking about this last night and i told him that if he wanted us to vax (we do not vax or circ), i would have considered it, but if he wanted ds circ, i would have left him. extream? maybe. but that is my child and i will not let someone tourture him. if it were a little girl, it would be called female gental mutilation and that is illegal. we go to war over such stuff. but for 5 dollars more with your insurance, you can have your son cut on!!!? what is wrong with these people?
bringingup4forHIM is offline  
#73 of 80 Old 08-02-2004, 04:37 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bringing:

I had never heard of a baby bursting their lung during the circumcision procedure but I don't doubt it. Dr. Robert Van Howe reports first hand experiences of seeing babies burst their bladders and intestines during the procedure so the lungs would also seem possible.

It is hard to imagine pain so intense that this kind of damage could occur. It is surely torture and those who do it continue to ignore it and begrudgingly admit there is any pain at all.

This denial has permeated much of the medical profession and it is policy at some hospitals to return the baby to it's mother with the report "He slept right through it!" when in reality, the child screamed and fought with all of his might.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#74 of 80 Old 08-02-2004, 05:20 PM
 
mountaincaats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: playin in the woods~Blue Ridge Mtns
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A&A - I send hugs to you from all of us here at my home. I send hugs to your nephew for his pain and I also send hugs to your brother and SIL that they may one day become enlightened and think, "What the heck were we thinking? - Mutilating our son like that! What idiots we are." Let's just hope little son recooperates ok. Because boy, it is so gruesome and illegal(in my opinion) what happens to these little ones who don't stand a chance.

My husband and I were browsing Nathan 1097's website last night. (Incredible research by the way. I wanted to show him and enlighten him even more. He is just like, "I cannot believe this is still allowed and legal." We talked and figured that one day it will be illegal(unless medically neccesary) and the doctors who have done this will be sued. One day they will equate ripping part of a boy/man's penis off to the genital mutilation of females. That was legal up until 1959 here, right? I cannot believe it is 2004, and it is still legal. And to think that people who research this still do it.
I am just glad that we knew enough when I gave birth to not mutilate and poison with toxins either one of sons. (They get enough toxins just living.(I know - this is not the vax board. ))
But I seriously have learned the most just recently. Thank you for the knowlegde everyone of you.

~~mountaincaats~~

~Shannon
mountaincaats is offline  
#75 of 80 Old 08-02-2004, 06:18 PM
 
Acksiom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaincaats
One day they will equate ripping part of a boy/man's penis off to the genital mutilation of females. That was legal up until 1959 here, right?
Well, it would depend on the jurisdiction. What I suspect you may actually be referring to is the date of the last 'favorably' slanted medical journal article published in the usa about it.

It was not criminalized at the federal level in the usa until 1996. Prior to that (but only by a few years at most, I believe) a couple of states had specifically outlawed it -- north dakota for one, IIRC. I would imagine that there had been some city, county, and local ordinances against it passed here and there, as well.

But really, there wasn't a specific 'law of the land' against it until 1996, although it, and routine and ritual male genital amputation as well, was probably already illegal prior to that under laws regulating the practice of health care.

And in fact, one could even make a serious argument that it still hasn't been specifically criminalized, on the grounds that the legislations in question violate the 14th Constitutional Amendment and are therefore inherently invalid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaincaats
I cannot believe it is 2004, and it is still legal. And to think that people who research this still do it.
I have another of my little essays on that, if anyone's interested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaincaats
I am just glad that we knew enough when I gave birth to not mutilate and poison with toxins either one of sons.
Me too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaincaats
But I seriously have learned the most just recently. Thank you for the knowlegde everyone of you.
You're welcome! Glad we could help.
Acksiom is offline  
#76 of 80 Old 08-02-2004, 06:40 PM
 
mountaincaats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: playin in the woods~Blue Ridge Mtns
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Acksiom - Thanks for the knowledge. Anything you have to throw my way, I am interested. There is so much out there to know. Please post any extra references you have. I will gladly read it.
~~mountaincaats~~

~Shannon
mountaincaats is offline  
#77 of 80 Old 08-02-2004, 10:11 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaincaats
We talked and figured that one day it will be illegal(unless medically neccesary) and the doctors who have done this will be sued.
Already the first man (William Stowell) has sued his circumciser. The case ever got to court. The doctor and hospital settled with him and several other cases are lined up and will be filed soon.

Quote:
One day they will equate ripping part of a boy/man's penis off to the genital mutilation of females. That was legal up until 1959 here, right?
Believe it or not, it was legal until 1996 and at one time in the early 1900's it was quite common here. There are still some American women living who had this done to them.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#78 of 80 Old 08-03-2004, 12:22 AM
 
mamamoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 12,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't usuallu post here, but A&A I just wanted to say that I know how you feel. Unfortunately. My nephew was circ'ed about 3 years ago, and I still cry thinking about it. I sent my brother and sil a ton of info, and talked to my brother many times, but they still did it. My brother just joked and said, it didn't hurt him(meaning my bro), and he wants his son to look like his dad. I can't stand the excuses when someone gives you the facts and you choose to ignore them, it is just sick.

I feel lucky that I lifed 1000 miles away from them when he was born, and I am so sad to feel like I don't want to be a part of their lives(not my nephew, but my bro & sis).

For the record I also sent them tons of bfing and vax info, and they ignored all of it.
Debi

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#79 of 80 Old 08-03-2004, 03:45 AM
 
Acksiom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaincaats
Acksiom - Thanks for the knowledge. Anything you have to throw my way, I am interested. There is so much out there to know. Please post any extra references you have. I will gladly read it.
~~mountaincaats~~
YW, MP!

Here ya go:


I once saw someone claim that the only reason why routine and ritual male genital amputation continues in the usa is because the victims can't make their resistance known.

Well, no, actually; it's not that simple. Baby girls can't make their resistance known either, but they're protected from this under federal law regardless.

No, there's more to it than just that. And on that topic, here's something I wrote a while back in response to the question:


"HOW could they pass that law and have it apply to only one gender?"


Welcome to Men's Issues. . .which is something that you might want to investigate on your son's behalf.

The short summarized answer to your question is that technology has not advanced sufficiently to allow loosening of the fundamental restrictions of male role socialization.

To expand on that point -- the genuine advances in equality for women in the western industrialized nations over the past couple of generations (as opposed to the false ones) can be attributed to several technological advances: drastically lowered infant mortality, cheap safe effective birth control, and legalized abortion, and also, to a lesser extent, advances in the preprepared foods industry and other areas of traditional women´s responsibilities, such as labor-saving devices in the home.

All these things have afforded the societies of western industrialized nations the ability to relax women's role socialization. 'Equal' opportunities for women are based fundamentally upon these technological advances, which free up the resources necessary to afford women such opportunities.

It is the necessities of biology and fundamental survival which create social role constraints. Women are traditionally directed and restricted to careers in childrearing and homemaking not because of men's lust for power and dominance but because certain facts are obvious to the members of human communities, empirically demonstrating to them that the work of community survival has to be divided up efficiently in order to be accomplished successfully.

Now that women no longer must bear eight or more children to make sure that at least three survive, no longer have to make by hand for entire families the clothing needed to defend against nature's rigors, no longer must expend huge efforts in preparing foodstuffs not only daily but in storage for the rest of the year, and so on and so forth, not to mention the tremendous biological demands caused simply by pregnancy itself, the members of the communities in which they live can afford to allow them to perform other tasks at their choice.

The same is not true for men.

Men still make up the overwhelming majority of those who do the dirty, dangerous, deadly, daily work of civilization´s engines -- mining, logging, construction, sanitation, heavy industry, and so forth and so on. 24 of the 25 worst jobs employ men in 95% to 99% of available positions. And the responsibility for socially endorsed appropriate violence also remains almost exclusively male.

Consider, for example, martial arts training advertisement directed to women. It primarily -- if not indeed exclusively -- focuses on the element of self-defense. But 'self-defense' is categorically not why we train men in violence skills; we train men in violence skills for the defense of others.

And we further indoctrinate men to accept that by generally applying lower standards of applicability of protection and defense to men. The members of a population that are expected and directed to perform the majority of defense and protection by definition receive the least amount of protection and defense themselves. It´s tautologous.

Watch the modern entertainment media with an eye towards whom are accounted the appropriate and justified targets of violence, and it will quickly become obvious to you. Those persons are overwhelmingly men.

We do this because we need a constantly resupplied pool of willing self-sacrificers -- persons who will give up their integrity, health, and lives for the needs of others. Men must be trained from birth to be simultaneously more autonomous and yet less self-serving. Men must be trained to believe that their physical integrity, health, and lives are less valuable than those of others -- those others primarily being women and children.

This is the sort of basic everyday stuff everyone knows on a deep level but never acknowledges consciously and fully. And that fails to happen for pretty much the same reasons that some parents who are complicit in the genital mutilation of their children react negatively to the truth about it. We are all pretty much complicit in the social brutalization of men for the purpose of maintaining a large field of willing self-sacrificers ... specifically, men who will work themselves to exhaustion, illness, injury, and death, to satisfy the needs of others.

Much the same pressures have long been applied to women for precisely the same reason; a community needs well-raised children to survive, and women are the ones who make the babies. It is not because of the demands of power-hungry men; it is simply the empirical exigencies of community survival needs.

We put men at risk because they are the ones that we can afford to lose, in terms of population replacement. We protect women likewise -- because they are the ones that we cannot afford to put at risk, in terms of population replacement. Our technology has changed the latter, but it still has not really changed the former.

But, of course, it is terribly politically incorrect at the moment to point this out -- or to point out that women are equally responsible for the cultural standards and prejudices that restrict both women and men´s opportunities.

Nevertheless, however, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Rules The World. Men and women together made the world our parents, grandparents, and ancestors lived in, with all its prejudices, restrictions, and cultural standards.

In short, we protect and defend men less because the division of labor necessary to our civilization -- and, let's face it, our high standards of luxury -- requires it.

And we train boys (and girls) to value boys' physical integrity, health, and lives less than those of girls in order to make sure that both genders accept that division of labor, submit to its requirements, enforce its dictates, and reward its enactment.

We not only allow but endorse and even reward the general greater brutalization of boys overall in order to make sure that they will grow up willing to do the dirty, dangerous, deadly work. We train them from the cradle to value themselves less, and the needs of others more.

And that's the fundamental reason why we can have a Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act voted into law in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Social standards -- the general acceptance of such discrimination -- the cultural inertia which resists changes to it -- are far more means to that end of maintaining our high standards of luxury than they are ends in and of themselves.

The bottom line is that little boys are denied their fundamental equal right to genital integrity because we still need them to grow up to become the men who will accept the risks necessary to mining our ores, logging our forests, shoveling our wastes, building our infrastructure, and protecting our lives.

We have a lower standard of protection for boys because we need them to value themselves less than they do the rest of us.

And that's really all there is to it.

And because of that, your little boy is four and half times more likely to kill himself than his female peers -- and six times more likely to kill himself between the ages of 20 and 24 -- and ten times more likely to kill himself after being divorced and deprived of access to his own children.

When a well-trained man is deprived of his children -- who are the primary focus of his socialization and the reward for accepting it -- what does that training tell him?

That he's a worthless waste of resources which are better given to others.

And so he blows his brains out with a bullet.

It is the last service to others that has been left for him to perform.





Added postscript point. . .you may have noticed Frankly Speaking's sigline. David Reimer killed himself after losing his job, and his adopted children to divorce. We can never know for sure. . .but it certainly does appear that what all his years of abuse and torture at the direction of John Money could not accomplish, the loss of his children did -- his self-destruction.

I think it's something to consider.
Acksiom is offline  
#80 of 80 Old 08-03-2004, 09:07 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ack:

Spomething you failed to mention is that men are expendable in their reproductive role. While women are limited in the number of children they can bear to 15 or 20 for biological reasons, there is no such limitation for men. A man could easily father 2, 3, or even 4 times that many children in a lifetime. If some terrible disaster or epidemic were to happen that only wiped out men, the reproductive rate could continue unhindered with some adaptation of our social and cultural standards. I imagine some of this happened after some of the particularly devastating wars that wiped out substantial portions of the male population. Women have a strong instinct and desire to reproduce and will do it by whatever means necessary including taking another woman's husband or having a child out of wedlock if there are not enough available men to fill the demand.





Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off