I want to know if you think this guy is serious, or if this is some kind of joke.
Prince George Citizen of British Columbia, Canada, published an opinion piece today by Neil Godbout, who is their news editor, entitled "Mothers can improve themselves by following these tips."
The opinion is so shocking to me that I keep checking the calendar to see if it had suddenly become April 1st.
Let's see what, if it is to be believed, this man is recommending...
In his opinion piece on May 11, 2007, entitled "Mothers can improve themselves by following these tips", Neil Godbout wrote:
In the spirit of Mother's Day, here are some important parenting tips for all the moms, courtesy of Practical Child Training Book 3: Body and Mind by Ray C. Beery, published by the New York-based Parents Association Inc. in 1917:
Ok... 1917... I suppose some ideas only get better with age, so let's see if these are timeless gems.
I've changed the order, to save the best for last.
- "All boys hate to wash their ears until a gentle mother learns how to do it for them. Dirt is a source of danger morally as well as merely physically."
Hmmm... Dirt as a moral danger sounds a bit strange, but let's move on.
- "The child who plays hard until his seventh year is usually not spectacled, deformed or maimed."
Again, a bit strange. Advocating vigorous play for a child sounds reasonable, though I doubt it will much reduce the need for vision correction.
- "Flannel next to the skin is considered undesirable in all cases excepting when rheumatism has laid hold of the system."
This is when I start to seriously consider whether this guy is joking. Flannel??
- "Never blame a child of seven or younger who seems troublesome until you are sure there is no pathological reason back of it. Nearly all childish naughtiness is due to a minor disorder."
So if your kid is every "naughty," they have a "minor disorder"? I'm leaning towards thinking this guy is pulling our leg.
- "Let your daughter grow naturally, unrestrained by clothing."
Presumably this means loose clothing, but who knows.
- "Let your girl realize you will not tolerate gossip. If we are to have a fine intellectual whole-souled type of woman in the future we must eliminate pettiness. It holds back women's social and economic status more than inability to vote."
I sure hope this guy is joking.
And now, for the grand finale:
- "If you find a child masturbating, do not terrify him (author's italics). Consult the doctor. A minor operation, circumcision, will stop the irritation which often induces this bad habit, but the habit, if persisted in, will endanger reason, give rise to abnormal ideas, and cause general ill health and irritability of temper throughout a lifetime."
Circumcisions in Canada are unusual. In 2003, the rate was under 14%.
This guy had better be joking. If not, he's asserting that:
- Children masturbate due to "irritation"
- Masturbation is a "bad habit"
- Masturbation will "endanger reason," "give rise to abnormal ideas," and "cause general ill health"
- The solution to a child finding a part of his body pleasurable to touch is to CUT THE PART OFF.
So please, help me out. Is this guy serious, or is this a prank? I really can't tell. It's almost unthinkable that a person could advocate these ideas. This book from 1917 demonstrates the hysteria which led to circumcision taking hold in North America, but does anyone believe this stuff today?
I certainly hope not.
Update I:
The predominate view seems to be that the opinion piece is satire.
Assuming that to be the case, I wonder what Neil Godbout thinks about his neighbors to the South, where the book originated, who still perform over a million of these surgeries on infants per year.
Update II:
In response to this, I wrote the following:
I understand why you'd think that
but,
A) We can't all just focus on the top few issues in the world
B) Specialization is common
C) Involuntary non-therapeutic circumcision is a serious violation of an individual's right to genital integrity
D) Americans, on the whole, are strangely quiet on the issue
So, it's actually a somewhat unusual opportunity to take an important stand to hasten the demise of a practice which the rest of the world, by and large, never started, or have since abandoned.
There will be lots of resistance, but such is the way with all social change.
One of the really positive aspects of this whole thing is that unlike so many other difficult issues (disease, energy, etc) is that this one is quite easy to solve. It's mainly a matter of raising awareness, raising proxy-consent standards, and lowering the circumcisers' sharp tools.
Finally, I'd like to share an exchange which some here don't want you to see (there are a few users determined to hide as many of my comments as possible, with little or no regard to their content). It began as a proposal to a user who recently wrote a diary about FGM:
Update III:
A proposal
Thank you very much for your answer too.
So more options for the leftover foreskins than organ donations? Hmmm.
You raise an interesting issue here. I don't know how the two situations are similar and different. I'm just saying, for example, if they get sold, shouldn't you be given the choice to opt out? Maybe you don't want your sons foreskin to wind up on The Colbert Report (or derivative thereof).
If you think I'm harsh, I must be honest and tell you that I don't agree with your statements on FGM having possible health benefit or protecting from possible UTI. These are demonstrably false claims. Note well, I said claims are false; not that you made them up. Fair enough?
I propose we agree on this:
We make no assertion that FGM confers any particular medical benefit.
We make no assertion that FGM could not possibly confer some particular medical benefit.
I hope we find statements on this that we both think reflect reality and which we both agree on.
A response followed, which I incorporated into my next response:
Its consistent with your position
I propose we agree on this:
We make no assertion that FGM confers any particular medical benefit.
We make no assertion that FGM could not possibly confer some particular medical benefit.
I can't agree because I don't believe there is any medical benefit of FGM. The reality as I see it (and Amnesty, HRW and every other NGO for human rights also sees it) is that FGM is torture. I can't compromise on that, RB.
Actually, you can agree even though you don't believe there is any medical benefit of FGM.
Agreeing does not indicate belief that there is any medical benefit of FGM.
To use an analogy, let's say you believe the idea that a FGM could ever confer even a single narrow medical benefit of any kind whatsoever is about as likely that there are pink elephants that fly.
Still, it's imprudent to assert "There are no elephants that are pink and which fly." It's basically impossible to prove that statement. There's no reason to express your view in this way, either. What you can say, though, without any concern of even possibly being mistaken, is "I don't think there are any pink elephants which fly" or "It have not seen proof that there are pink elephants which fly."
It was only because you stated with certainty and absoluteness that there cannot possibly exist an elephant which is pink and flies, that I initially took issue with you. That statement is simply not supportable. It overstates the case, and unnecessarily so.
I hope you will reconsider the proposal.
I would also point out that it's dangerous to allow any part of ones anti-FGM stance to rest on the assumption that there could not be even a single, narrowly measured benefit to some form of FGM, because then, where does that leave you if someone trying to support FGM actually manages to document one?
FGM is unethical for numerous reasons, and it would make no difference whatsoever if any medical benefit were found.
I look forward to the response from the user with whom this exchange is taking place.