here we go again...

I think ineffective is what I've observed. From my perch, over here in grey rainy Seattle and at 4am, oy vey, both you & Peggy are talking at each other rather than to or with each other. I faulted the medium because I believe you're both good, kind, smart women who probably work towards connection and understanding in your lives.

I wonder what this convo would be like between two close friends... what curiosity might emerge about the others' stance, what inquiry into difference, what uncovering of shared understndings as well as dramatic differences? I am quite aware that I say this having taken a pretty unrelentingly closed stance a time or two in this forum! So I do understand the passion and convictions that lead to expressing a strong stance. (thinking of some of my responses to Alan, for instance.)

I know that I have regard for both of you, and the postings have begun to be onerous to read... and I just wonder if a different approach is possible.

K. Sleepy middle-of-the night typings here...

I mostly try to stay out of disputes like this, but from where I'm sitting, this is what I'm observing: On one side (Bae, Zoebird) the arguments are based on personal experience and interaction with Amish people, on the other side (Peggy) there has been no indication she's given that she actually knows any Amish, and is basing generalizations on perhaps what she's read or seen on TV or is projecting. Not saying Peggy has never talked with an Amish person, only that she has not indicated that she has done so.

I personally give more credibility to people who have a direct first-hand knowledge of a subject over people who do not.

In any community or series of communities you see all kinds of people. The Amish, Christians, Mormans, Pro-life activists, democrats, republicans etc. are not one group living on an island. So I think based on people's life experiences there is a lot of truth to what everyone has posted. Each group grows in it's own way and within the group there area all kinds of members.

What distresses me about all of this is not the differing opinions, but that posting pictures of fetuses is supposed to somehow make us all see the light about how wrong we are. Back to the original post I don't think there is one person who wouldn't be ecstatic if abortion was no longer needed. It's the shaming, I know what is better than you attitude.

Interestingly I was talking to a retired social worker the other day. He was talking about before birth control he would deal with unwanted children. One kid was given away by his parents. They went to church and asked around and gave him away. Luckily the family took good care of him. My BIL has a younger brother who was abandoned in his town and his family took him in. No formal adoptions, they just took them in and raised them.

recently there was a tragic story where a young woman had a baby and put it in a dumpster. When it was found a few days later they determined it had been put in the dumpster live. All of the lecturing, shaming, arguing and laws won't make unwanted children wanted and loved and well cared for.

Oh get a grip people! sheesh!
Zoe, take a breath girl! Saying you think them quaint isn't condescending. I think they are quaint. Reality is subjective.
How do you know I haven't talked to/know any Amish? Isn't that assuming on your part.

"Typically, by the time a young person is 27 (and usually before), they are encouraged to make a choice to join the church or 'drift away' entirely and may be shunned (they may also not be shunned, though it is still worthwhile to recognize that the young people are still considered very separate from the rest of the community). "

"There are several different kinds of problems -- everything from abuse in families, hiding of people with disabilities, and genetic health problems that are as yet to be solved (though there are several 'english' doctors who are working on that specifically -- one of them formerly Amish himself, but desiring to go to medical school, he did, and simply "missed the time" that he could become Amish. in deciding to stick with modern medicine as a profession -- he simply 'drifted away' from the Amish community. And yet, not fully shunned, he is their go-to physician for his community, and he's managed to find a treatment for three common genetic diseases -- I'll look for the source, it was a local newspaper article in the Lancaster New Era newspaper from about 5-6 years ago). "


Your own words.
So, he isn't 'fully shunned', just sorta shunned. Because he wanted to be a modern medical doctor. I think the operative word in all your post is ex-Amish. Ex. Are you ex-American because you wanted to pursue business opportunity outside of the US? Are you ex-baptist, or whatever religion your family is because you are a yoga instructor? How do you think yoga would be viewed in the Amish community? Am I ex-Texan because I don't live there?
By my way of thinking, if you are born something, you are something. We aren't talking about crack whores or drug dealers here. We are talking about kids who dream of being an airline pilot, or musician or evolutionary biologist. These are not sinful things. Certainly not careers worthy of shunning, or even sorta shunning. Why is there ANY shunning? That's the religious element I don't like. When religion comes in, often sensibility goes out the window. I don't doubt the parents of these kids miss them and love them, but when your religion tells you you must keep your own kid at arms length, that they can't live in your community and attend your church, the church they grew up in, well, I find that repressive. (not regressive..that was a typo) You are tossed from your church if you choose any career not church approved. Do you deny that? If that's not true, then I am wrong. How is that not repressive? How does that not put pressure on kids to only choose the approved path?

If you would go back and read my original post on this, and stop trying to turn me into some kind of monster, you would see my original post said this way of life, as a choice, is fine, but that it is repressive for the young people because their choice is very limited. I never said they were stupid. I never said they couldn't read or talk to english, and I never said that some don't choose to continue their education. I simply said I think it's a harsh choice between the exciting, modern world and your family/church/community. Unfortunately, with the Amish, you can't have both.

I may not know 'hundreds' of Amish, but I know young people, and they are pretty much the same the world over. They see this modern, exciting world all around them, and I can imagine the Amish youth thinking, 'Now what is it about becoming a beautician that's sinful again'?

I think this discussion (or demonizing me!) is actually related to this whole thread. This thread is about choice, women's choice, and how women don't want to be damned for their (legal) choice. It's about how religious belief is trying to dictate that choice, for all of us. That's repressive, yes? I am an absolute believer in choice. I see, in the Amish, a group that on the surface seems nice and quaint (not an insult) and something many of us strive for (simplicity) but I also see, at night in the privacy of those homes, young people forced to choose between a very respectable career (not church approved) and their families/community/church. They can't just go away and seek their fortune with family blessing/welcoming them back home. They have to literally choose between everything they knew and loved and their dreams. Maybe you think it's ok if they are only sorta shunned, but I think it's just terribly sad.

Peggy,

Again, terms such as "get a grip" and "take a breath" are condescending statements toward me that assumes that you are being wholly misunderstood and a victim. And again, pushing off your own responsibility for your own words onto the reader.

Likewise, I have not made the assumption that you haven't spoken with or have relationships with amish or ex-amish people. Bae asserted that he thought this was likely. I made no comment. You have had ample opportunity to express your experience with the amish -- but based on your posts and the statements you have made about the amish, it is logical to assume that your knowledge is limited.

Similarly, I stand behind my statements -- which are also evidence that I am not romanticizing the Amish, something of which you accused me several times. It also serves to demonstrate how a person can criticize a community without being disparaging of that community.

In your construct of "shunned" -- your argument is illogical because you are fixated on what you think it means, or how you think it is applied, rather than looking at evidence as to how it is actually practiced within the community.

Then, you diatribe about naming. Ex-amish is a term that they give themselves, it is not a term that I gave them. If they choose to use the term, why shouldn't we use it?

It might be more academically correct to assert that the young people who do not choose to join the order in adulthood were never amish, because in order to be amish, you have to join, and you cannot join until you are of the right age (old enough to make the decision to join). So, any young person who chooses not to join, would technically not be ex-amish, and the only who would be ex-amish would be those who chose to join the order, and then chose to leave the order.

You then make correlations between someone who "no longer lives in texas" with the use of the term, as well as someone who is no longer whatever religion based on their profession. There are a lot of false comparisons here. There is a difference between them, and it certainly doesn't prove your point.

If a person actively rejects something -- such as no longer wanting to follow their community's or family's chosen faith -- then it may be that they are "ex." I would have no problem, for example, using the term "ex-catholic." Academically, it might not be accurate (as I have not been formally excommunicated), but it would still function effectively in communication about my background which I no longer follow or practice.

But by your logic, I would still have to be called catholic, even though I have rejected that faith practice. It would be more accurate to say that I was raised catholic, and that it certainly colors my perspective of many things, but it is entirely inaccurate to assert that I am "catholic" simply because I was raised catholic. It is more accurate to say that I am "ex-catholic." And, it isn't damaging to catholicism or to me to use this term.

In the alternative, when we choose to move, it often isn't because we are actively rejecting something. It may be, and it may be that people no longer want to associate with the ideas associated with that place. In this second instance, it would not be inaccurate for someone to call themselves "ex-texans."

But, what I have discovered in my process of moving place to place throughout the US, as well as internationally, is that where I come -- the cultural aspects -- really are a part of who I am. We jokingly say in the office that we are "so American."

Even so, we are "ex-pats." Yes, it is a term we use. Technically, we are ex-pat americans, and the ex-pat community here is diverse. Most of our friends are ex-pats, not kiwis. I find that interesting as well.

And it is accurate to call ourselves "ex-pats" and accurate and not at all denigrating for you to call us "ex-pats." You might call us ex-americans, but that would only be accurate when we give up american citizenship -- which we have not. If we did, then yes, we would be "ex-americans."

Finally, to the last paragraph -- you are not being demonized. Please quote where you are being demonized by me (or anyone). I strongly suspect that you cannot quote statements where you are being demonized because I have simply and respectfully pointed out the statements where you were being disparaging and condescending, asking you to take responsibility for your statements and communications.

You then say that you value choice absolutely, except that your statements do not bear this out. Your statements assert to me that you really only value those choices that you value.

You do not value a community that has this specific religious tradition, and you do not value those parent's rights to choose how to raise their children, and their children's right to choose their religion (80% do) or choose to go their own way (20%) outside of that religion.

You are saying you want these young women to have choice, but not their parents, and not their religious community. The reality is that if we do absolutely believe in choice, then we also absolutely have to live with the fact that people will make different choices, and sometimes those choices will have outcomes that we find "sad" or do not prefer.

While we can talk critically about these outcomes, this doesn't mean we must be or are allowed to be disparaging.

And, this situation is strikingly similar to the abortion situation. Because we are talking about the choices -- and the rights to choose -- of many people, as well as protected classes of individuals (unborn children; children).

In the abortion discussion, in speaking about the issue of the baby, we are also speaking to the issue of the woman. And, we are talking about what rights and responsibilities the baby has and when, as well as the mother. Because at some point, these two things are in direct opposition. The baby is viable, and therefore has legal rights and protections; the mother is also viable, and she also has rights and protections.

According to the state and relevant law, the baby's 'right to life' upon viability supersedes the mother's "right to choose." her choice is no longer absolute, because we -- as a community that created laws -- has determined when viability exists and a pregnancy must continue unless the woman is under medical threat.

The same is very much true of parenting. You seem to come down on the idea that the child has absolute right/choice in his/her upbringing, and ultimately in how their parents and church must respond to them as adults -- without even considering that the community and parents are making conscious choices on how to live, and raising their children accordingly.

And, we all know that there are rules around parenting -- that neglect is at issue, for example -- such that a child may be removed from a home and put into a more safe environment. But beyond that, our legal situation is such that parents are free to make choices in how to live their lives and how to raise their children -- and free to make choices in their religion.

As adults -- which is how the legal system roles out -- these children can then make their own decisions. And yes, that may mean giving up their communities and families.

But if you are an absolute believer in choice, then you would see that choice has far reaching consequences, and sometimes the choices of one outweigh the opportunities and choices of another. It's true in the abortion argument (before viability, woman prevails; after viability; child prevails); and it is true in the parenting argument (before adulthood, parent prevails; after adulthood, child prevails); and it is true in many other situations besides.

And yes, you are free to find that "sad" about any number of these situations.

But you are not free to be disparaging, condescending, and eschew responsibility for the way in which you choose to communicate your feelings on the matter.

Nor are you free to simply "claim" victimhood in this "situation" of our postings without any evidence to support that. No one has attacked you. No one has demonized you. No one has disparaged you. No one has been condescending to you.

If I have -- quote it. It's evidence. And I'll consider it, and apologize if necessary, and reframe to communicate my intent. If not, then this is another illogical argument on your part, one for which you need to take ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

In any community or series of communities you see all kinds of people. The Amish, Christians, Mormans, Pro-life activists, democrats, republicans etc. are not one group living on an island. So I think based on people's life experiences there is a lot of truth to what everyone has posted. Each group grows in it's own way and within the group there area all kinds of members.

What distresses me about all of this is not the differing opinions, but that posting pictures of fetuses is supposed to somehow make us all see the light about how wrong we are. Back to the original post I don't think there is one person who wouldn't be ecstatic if abortion was no longer needed. It's the shaming, I know what is better than you attitude.

Interestingly I was talking to a retired social worker the other day. He was talking about before birth control he would deal with unwanted children. One kid was given away by his parents. They went to church and asked around and gave him away. Luckily the family took good care of him. My BIL has a younger brother who was abandoned in his town and his family took him in. No formal adoptions, they just took them in and raised them.

recently there was a tragic story where a young woman had a baby and put it in a dumpster. When it was found a few days later they determined it had been put in the dumpster live. All of the lecturing, shaming, arguing and laws won't make unwanted children wanted and loved and well cared for.

---

I simply posted the picture of the ultrasound. There was no shaming. I said nothing at all except to point out it was 12 weeks. The picture is what it is.

Wow! You are relentless! I suppose you won't be satisfied unless I agree you are correct! Ok, you're correct! There, happy? Sheesh! I did not denigrate anyone. Show me where I denigrated anyone!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denigrate

Now, let's look at the definition of shunning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning

Looks pretty cut and dried to me. If they don't really shun, then why call it shunning? Your words. They don't call it mildly disapproving.

You just spent a half page reading between the lines on my simple statement, I thought it was sad that the young people, especially the girls, had limited opportunity. How is that denigrating? Only going to 8th grade is limiting. Not denigrating, but the truth. And it's limiting for anyone. Amish, inner city, anyone. How is that OK for the Amish and sad for the inner city kids? Let them be educated, fully educated, all of them, to the extent of a 21st century American, which is where they live, then let them choose the Amish life. That, to me, IS choice. Real choice. I also feel this way for inner city kids, kids in Appalachia, kids whose parents live in a van, all kids in America.

To me, the one being condescending is the one who says 'of course MY kid deserves all the encouragement and support and opportunity I can give him to embrace this wonderful, complex world and seek his bliss, but for these other kids...not so much'. It's BECAUSE I respect these kids that I believe every American kid should be afforded the same wonderful opportunity, encouragement and support to function in this world we live in as my kid, or your kid And I don't give exception in my opinion in this for families whose parents just don't happen to 'believe' in a world functioning education. That's not denigration. That's my opinion in this world we live in, right here right now.

Now, I never said they were stupid. I never said they were ignorant, except in the context of 'not knowing many modern things', I never said they were illiterate, or unfriendly, or anything denigrating. You, on the other hand, accused me of saying all those things, again reading into my words something that wasn't there. That is how you demonized me. You accused me of calling them stupid. I did not.
I own my words, but I'm NOT going to own your words.
I said take a breath because you are getting spun up over something I never said! But, I'm thinking you'll find a way to twist these words as well. Fine, have at it. I'm done with this ridiculous conversation. Apparently I'm not entitled to my own opinion without being demonized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

I simply posted the picture of the ultrasound. There was no shaming. I said nothing at all except to point out it was 12 weeks. The picture is what it is.

---

And if a picture shames anyone, what does that say?

Peggy,

You have asked me to quote where you were disparaging to the Amish. I have already done so, twice: posts 115 and 117 (my posts), both quoting post 85 (your post). I have directly addressed your accusations against me -- where I felt you were condescending and quoted that as well (the first paragraph of my last post, such as "get a grip" and "take a breath" quotes you directly as well).

From here, you then -- once again -- accuse the reader of "reading into" what you said (I already quoted you twice!) and thus are continuing to proclaim victimhood.

You then begin to attempt to "repound" your perspective towards me.

Please note that my issue is no longer about your opinion regarding the Amish, but rather your treatment of me, and your treatment of a class of people through your language.

So, what do I want? This is the relevant question.

I want you to behave with respect and decorum. And, I want you to own your words.

When someone owns their words, she usually does one of two things:

1. reads the statements and apologize, then re-write expressing her true intention; or

2. re-contextualizes the content which is essentially demonstrating what inferences she was making from that information provided.

In the instance where you quoted me, I did the second. I fully own the content, and contextualized it as the evidence with which I intended it to be used (which may or may not have been clear from the post).

Thus far, you have refused to acknowledge the statements that I have quoted and where I have demonstrated that they are disparaging or condescending, but keep demanding that I quote them and explain. Nor have you re-contextualized those statements, only continued on beating a horse despite evidence to the contrary (already provided) in order to further attempt to prove your point.

But ok.

Without this, then I can have a clear expectation of you, in your communications. If someone calls you out, you will play the victim. Good to know, right?

I wonder what this entire convo between Peggy & Zoebird wold look like without a single use of the word 'you' in it?

a friendly discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

a friendly discussion?

---

Dude!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

I simply posted the picture of the ultrasound. There was no shaming. I said nothing at all except to point out it was 12 weeks. The picture is what it is.

---

what I feel is what I feel regardless of your intent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

And if a picture shames anyone, what does that say?

---

That the man who made them pregnant is not standing by their side which would eliminate so many of these unfortunate abortions that no-one wants to see happen. But women are always to blame and bear the brunt of pregnancy.

and the bottom line is women are much more likely to be in poverty then men

http://www.nwlc.org/our-blog/poverty...xtreme-poverty

The child poverty rate – already very high at 20.7 percent in 2009 – jumped to 22.0 percent last year, meaning more than one in five children was living in poverty. More than half of poor children lived in female-headed families in 2010.

who thinks that things are getting better in this economy? In the midst of all this the legislators, who are largely men continue to pass laws to try to label women as sluts and whores for trying to access birth control, try to outlaw abortion, and tell them to "pull them up by their bootstraps." the war on women is really a war on children. These poor innocents.

I really think that it is very easy to live in a little bubble about what should be. I for one would be ecstatic if abortion was no longer needed. but what I want and what is are two different realities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

what I feel is what I feel regardless of your intent

---

why do you feel that way looking at it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

That the man who made them pregnant is not standing by their side which would eliminate so many of these unfortunate abortions that no-one wants to see happen. But women are always to blame and bear the brunt of pregnancy.

---

?.....that certainly doesnt apply to all men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

?.....that certainly doesnt apply to all men.

---

absolutely. Most men are good husbands, good friends and good providers. If all women could depend on such partners would the abortion rate be so high?

In general, I would say that a discussion is friendly when both parties are willing to be respectful of each other, as well as when each party is willing to own their own statements, recontextualize as required, and also apologize and reframe when that is necessary.

But, instead, I feel that I am being told that I must accept the limitations of a medium as a valid excuse for an individual's miscommunication -- though that argument was never brought forth as valid when I confronted Bae regarding the pepper spray -- and that was an inferred conversation, and therefore a more difficult argument to make -- not a simple, direct statement that is disparaging/condescending that can be clearly quoted and identified).

Or, in the alternative, I could accept that I was "reading into" the statements and misunderstanding, and thereby victimizing the other person -- of course, there has been no evidence on this account.

Nor any evidence that I have been "unfriendly" or "disrespectful" in any way so far.

In the end, the question that I ask myself is this. How do I behave in these media? How do I communicate? Is it effective, pertinent, and clear? Is it respectful of any party involved -- the other posters, the communities about which we are speaking (ie, the amish, women, women who would have abortions, etc)?

WHen I feel that someone is behaving in a way that is in appropriate, what is the best possible means to 'call out' this behavior? I attempted at first to focus on the material, to provide evidence to the contrary of the claims, and when that tactic didn't work, I went directly to the issue that I had.

These statements are what I find problematic. This is why I find them problematic. This is the behavior or recourse that I expect out of this.

There, an entire statement without the word "you."

But at the end of the day, the process is the same regardless of with whom the communication is held.

You felt you were being told that you must accept the limitations of the medium as an excuse for miscommunication?

red fox,

Yes, as I stated prior. Perhaps that was unclear?

I feel that we all have ample experience with this medium, such that we understand it's limitations, and thus have the intelligence and adaptability to accommodate those limitations in our communications within this medium.

When we fail to communicate effectively, I assume that it is in error, and that the person has the opportunity to reframe (or recontextualized -- the term I have used before) their statements or to apologize and restate in such a way that better asserts the intended meaning.

In case anyone would be offended by post 125, wherein I describe in more detail why I consider the "limitations of medium" excuse not valid, by including an age 'starting point' of 25, please let me apologize to anyone who may be offended by this, and write according to my meaning.

I believe that those under the age of 25 are particularly savvy with this medium, and also tend to have a particularly playful and creative way of using it. It often defies my expectations and understandings, and creates a unique learning experience for me. I rarely find these playful, creative methods of communicating to be offensive -- they are simply, or tend to be, uniquely different than those in my own age group, or those in the age group about 10 years (or more) above me. We tend to be more "staid" -- perhaps out of our life experiences or comfort levels.

I do, however, enjoy communicating with those who utilize these creative methods -- regardless of age (because both younger and older are capable of it!) -- because I find it to be a valuable learning experience for me. I also like to "play" in this way as well, though I admit it is a bit of a mind-bender, breaking me out of common forms and tropes, which expresses ideas and feelings in ways that I cannot explain.

I do not believe that the communications on this thread that I found offensive fall into this category, as I have rarely found these playful versions to be that -- nor do I see evidenced in the writing that the person is working from this particular angle.

I certainly do not want anyone to think that I think that those who are younger than myself are less intelligent, mature, or capable of sound arguments. I know -- from my own experience and other evidences out there -- that young people (under the age of 25) are very capable, intelligent, curious, and excellent communicators -- and in fact often uniquely excellent in these modern incarnations of communication (texting anyone? my goodness!) :D

I am *reading* your post. You expect me to "read into" your post that you MEANT that you felt these children (poor kids!) were sadly not being encourage to "pursue their dreams!" beyond what their community values or they would be shunned!

But here is what you WROTE:






Originally Posted by peggy

I'm not talking about the quaint window dressing we all see, but the realities of the life. We can all admire simple living and buggies and oil lamps and farming. I do. But I admire it as a CHOICE, and not as some edict from god. Or rather the leading elder of the order, who has surprising latitude to enforce his interpretation of the 'rules'.
It's not a choice.

What you wrote:
It's not a choice.



What I wrote:
8th grade, despite some people's thought, does not prepare you for the realities of modern life. Sure, it prepares you to wait on tables, or scrub toilets, but not much else.

What you wrote:
Really, I'm reading into this?




What I wrote:
These people don't just have a comfortable relationship with computers or technology, and although you say you know those who do, we know that isn't the norm.

What you wrote:
"we" do? evidence?

Oh, wait, here is your evidence:




What I wrote:
It just isn't. That's their whole thing, remember?

What you wrote:
Obviously, you are very ignorant of the amish. Do I know about the amish? DO i remember? Yes. What about you?




What I wrote:
Being shunned by your community, and even your parents is a very big pressure on young people. People do what they know, largely, in this closed community as well as the greater modern community. It's a whole lot easier to just go with the flow rather than seek further education, without family support, separate yourself from the community you grew up with knowing this community now say you as a traitor, and cast yourself into an unknown, unfamiliar world.

What you wrote:
Yes, and obviously this is not a problem of just the amish, as you write. If this was your whole point, why make all of the other ignorant, condescending statements that you made?




What I wrote:
They can certainly choose this, that's their right. It's also my right to say I think it's a rather non-productive community at the very least, and terribly regressive(I acknowledged later this was a typo. I meant repressive) at the most.

What you wrote:
Yes, That's right. I'm reading into your opinion that you find these people "non productive and backwards."





So, if a kid wants to be a yoga instructor? How would they fare there? Do you think they could stay in their community and do this? I don't think so. What about being an artist? or a Musician? Or a scientist? And what if this kid was a woman? This community has a fairly narrow focus on approved careers. And if you want something different? Sorry. You have to choose between your parents, friends, and community and the thing that floats your boat.

what you wrote:
As evidenced, a kid can choose to leave, and they may not be fully shunned by their community. I've given several examples.





I don't think I'm being condescending. Anyone who has lived an extremely sheltered life would be overwhelmed by modern American life.


What you wrote:
Culture shock is not a terminal disease. Culture shock can be overcome, and in most instances, is. And even if it is overcome, often people choose to go back to their original culture/environment anyway. It is, perhaps, a more educated choice.





We have fundamentalist who won't let their kids go to public school because they fear the messages and ideas 'out there', but these people still have TVs and magazines and presumably function in the modern world. Take even those modern things away and you have a pretty sheltered person, innocent and ignorant of modern ways. Mind you, that doesn't equal to stupid, it just means what it says, ignorant of the ways.

What you wrote:
Right, and ignorance can be overcome.




What I wrote:
Do you think Amish sit around the table talking politics?

What you wrote:
Yes.




What I wrote:
Or modern music, movies, the art museum, fencing, world languages, science, world politics, advances in medicine, business, or a zillion other things we talk about and take for granted everyone knows even a little about.

What you wrote:
Yes, to many of these things (not music or movies, but pretty much the rest of it).




What I wrote:
Michael Jackson. You probably don't listen to him, or even admire his music, but you know who he is. And if someone makes a reference to him, in what ever context, you probably get it. That's a cultural reference.

What you wrote:
Right, without knowing all the cultural references of another culture, all is lost. I live in NZ. I don't get 90% of cultural references here. Seriously.

Poor me, so backwards and unproductive and not able to make a choice about how to live!




What I wrote:
And there are a million of those we don't even think about that color our everyday lives. . . . How many Amish do you think have read 1984? or Animal farm? of Atlas Shrugged? Or Catcher in the Rye?

What you wrote:
Right, because without these things, we just can't have a good life in the modern world, or have a real choice in regards to deciding not to continue in modern life or their own traditions.




What I wrote:
This is what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to demonize them, but I'm also not romanticizing them either. They are what they are. A fairly closed, strict religious sect, quaint buggies aside.

What you wrote:
So, this is what you are talking about?

That these people are ignorant, non-productive, and backward and incapable of making it in the modern world, and because of that, incapable of having a choice in regards to whether or not to continue in the modern world or be amish?

Demonized view? no.

Ignorant and condescending? yes.



Here is the entire post that you presume to damn me with. Tell me exactly what is ignorant and condescending? You're pretty much the only one calling names here. I stand by all my words. I admitted in a later post that I meant repressive, not regressive, (although regressive simply means opposing progress) and if you had actually read my posts instead of damning me, you would know that. There is nothing denigrating here, except your personal attack on me.

You seem to agree with me that they don't have the cultural references, the background in literature, education, or experience we all share in this MODERN world, which is what I'm talking about. I never said a person can't learn. You INFERED that. I just said an 8th grade education does not prepare you to live successfully in THIS MODERN WORLD. And it doesn't. That isn't denigrating. It's reality. And if your culture doesn't embrace or value education beyond 13, then you are hard pressed to 'go it alone'. I never said some don't. Again, your 'interpretation' of what I said. I just said it was very difficult. And the faster this world speeds ahead, the harder it will be.

You are so invested in making these people educated, and forward thinking, and hip and connected, you've got them more savvy than a New Yorker! You can't even allow them to be what they are, a closed religious sect that live a simple, fairly austere (simple, plain, disciplined) life. I would suggest you are the one being condescending. I accept them for who and what they are. But apparently that bothers you.


I own my words. They are not denigrating and I won't apologize or re-phrase them to fit your world view. Sorry Zoe, you are just going to have to accept that.

Now, if you want to discuss the merits of an 8th grade education,(dropping out at 13) and how it's doesn't prepare you to function successfully in a modern, 21st century world, that's another thread we can start.

My experiences with the Amish are extremely limited, but one in particular stands out. My Dad (the consummate cattle rancher from Nebraska) and I had the opportunity to spend a day with an Amish farmer in Ohio many years ago. My Dad was very politically active and very environmentally conscious. His dissertation, in 1952, dealt with his concerns regarding the use of chemicals in 'modern' farming and he eventually became quite well known in agricultural politics on a national level. Anyway, during the day in Amish country I have rarely seen two men so engaged by what the other had to say. Both men were talking well above my head at the time, but it was obvious the Amish farmer had no shortage of knowledge of nematodes, microorganisms, spores or any of the myriad other things that effect livestock and crops. That gentleman was also extremely aware of the shift taking place (in the late 1960's) regarding public policy and industrial agriculture.

I have no idea how that farmer acquired his knowledge, but he had it. It may be way off base, but from that single encounter I have always assumed that it was acceptable, in the Amish culture, to gain knowledge from other parts of the world and from there it was basically a matter of filtering it down to find what aligned with their values when deciding what to put to use. If that is true I would view that as extremely enlightened rather than backwards. To those with firsthand knowledge of that culture: is that close?

Correct, Gregg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

My experiences with the Amish are extremely limited, but one in particular stands out. My Dad (the consummate cattle rancher from Nebraska) and I had the opportunity to spend a day with an Amish farmer in Ohio many years ago. My Dad was very politically active and very environmentally conscious. His dissertation, in 1952, dealt with his concerns regarding the use of chemicals in 'modern' farming and he eventually became quite well known in agricultural politics on a national level. Anyway, during the day in Amish country I have rarely seen two men so engaged by what the other had to say. Both men were talking well above my head at the time, but it was obvious the Amish farmer had no shortage of knowledge of nematodes, microorganisms, spores or any of the myriad other things that effect livestock and crops. That gentleman was also extremely aware of the shift taking place (in the late 1960's) regarding public policy and industrial agriculture.

I have no idea how that farmer acquired his knowledge, but he had it. It may be way off base, but from that single encounter I have always assumed that it was acceptable, in the Amish culture, to gain knowledge from other parts of the world and from there it was basically a matter of filtering it down to find what aligned with their values when deciding what to put to use. If that is true I would view that as extremely enlightened rather than backwards. To those with firsthand knowledge of that culture: is that close?

---

You too Gregg? Show me! SHOW ME where I said they were backwards! Do it now, cause I'm getting pretty tired of being accused of saying something I didn't say. So go ahead, do it. Show me. You're supposed to be helper, well help. SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THEY WERE BACKWARDS, STUPID AND LAZY!

You know gregg, I've read lots of your posts and I didn't think you were illiterate and unable to read. To those of you who know him, is that true?

I would expect a farmer to know about farming. That's his business. Pretty much the only business along with related 'business' , fixing the farm equipment, animal husbandry, carpentry. think the girls know all that? Or maybe just 'girl' things like cooking and sewing, and milking.

You are all so anxious to present these folks as worldly and forward thinking, and hip and savvy, and connected, hell, we should all drop out of school at 13 and stay right in our own communities. Apparently we will learn all we need to know to function...in that community. How far would that have gotten you gregg? How far would that have gotten you bae? Do you think those good Amish parents are teaching their kids about geometry and algebra and computer science and computer chips and marketing and evolution and molecular biology, and physics, electrical repair and computer languages, or any foreign language besides english, or programming, or all the other bits of education you all take advantage of knowing and using.

It's a particular sort of arrogance that takes all the advantage of a modern 21st century education and experience but argues for keeping a certain segment away from this because, I don't know, we don't think they deserve it. Or we like driving into the country and buying milk from them, or quilts.

Which brings us back to my original point, which for the life of me I don't know why I'm being damned on.
I think it's sad that Amish kids have less opportunity in THIS MODERN WORLD than your kids or my kids. I may not know 'hundreds' of Amish, but I do know kids, and I'm not so arrogant as to think Amish kids are any less intelligent, curious, or excited by the world all around them. But when your family doesn't value education beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic (13) it's hard to rise above that. Sure there is continuing education, in home skills and farming skills, but that's pretty narrow, and the bigger (smaller) and faster the world grows all around them, the more these bright, curious kids will be forced to choose between home/family/church and 'the world'. I know y'all keep saying it's a choice these kids can make, but it's not a fully informed choice, is it, or there wouldn't be any backlash to not choosing it. And there would be better preparation towards making that choice. i.e. school past 8th grade. Heck, why not send them off to live with an english family for 6 months or a year. Then it would truly be an informed choice. I would certainly admire something like that.

Now how am I derisive or ignorant in saying that? How is it condescending to say I think these bright kids deserve every opportunity my kids, your kids, Appalachia kids, all kids deserve, without condemnation from their community. So, maybe they aren't 'fully shunned' (zoe's words)... How lovely.

Peggy, Gregg did not reference you at all. Please, I know you've been feeling attacked, and that is a dreadful feeling. May I ask you to consider that he is not talking about you?

PS - In my book, you have the right to your opinions!

I've avoided entering into this, despite the fact that I know some Amish and Mennonites well, as well as several very fundamentalist homeschoolers who homeschooled their kids to make sure that no "worldly" information was imparted to them, and to ensure their willingness to accept creationism, the Bible as literal truth, etc., and also someone, a niece of Warren Jeffs, from the offshoot fundamentalist sect of LDS folks up in Colorado City, who lived until adulthood in that sect, and is now shunned by her family completely for escaping marriage to a 58 years old man when she was less than 16 years old, and leaving.

I hear what all of you are saying. We've known expert Amish cheesemakers, farmers, and others, and one of my best friends is an "english" living smack dab in the middle of an Amish settlement, who interacts and is friends with all her neighbors. (In fact, she's the one person in the neighborhood with a car, so is the 'go to' person for grocery lists, etc., and the first person to alert me to the fact that she gets cases and cases of frozen bread dough from WalMart for them, so those Amish ladies can sell their "homemade" bread to the tourists at the farmers' market).

Of course, they are intelligent, able in many ways, and if it were possible to come to adulthood with awareness and knowledge of all the world, and THEN choose to enter one of these groups, freely, I'd personally have no problem with it. We have friends who became members of a Mennonite community as adults, and it has been a fine choice for them.

Where I have my problems, and I THINK this is what Peggy is trying to address, is that in many cases, the children of these groups, BECAUSE they are kept from knowledge or experience of a wider world, often accept the limited horizons of the world of their particular group, without question, and perhaps these are the lucky ones, because the ones who do not accept these limited choices often have the hardest row of all to hoe.

When I look at two families I've described that we know well, the ones that homeschooled, like bae, to widen their childrens' horizons and to introduce them to large amounts of ideas, worldviews, critical thinking skills, etc., and the ones who homeschooled to make sure no "suspect" "worldly" information filtered in, for the kids homeschooled with the very rigid, creationist, fundamentalist homeschool curriculum, whle they are great kids, they DO and did have very limited horizons for possibilities for their lives. The idea that they might travel to a foreign country (other than, perhaps, as a missionary), just did not compute. The concept of going to college just wasn't part of their lives. I sat at their dining room table one time, waiting for my friend to finish her homeschooling class, and picked up one of the teenager's "social studies" textbooks. It opened to a page which explained, very carefully, why Bangladesh and other countries suffer floods and other natural disasters "because they worship false gods", and exhorting the students "aren't you glad that YOUR parents have exposed you to the truth about our Savior?" I guess, thereby, making sure they wouldn't be subject to floods and natural disasters, which made me wonder how such parents explain tornadoes in the South, etc.)

I wanted to stand up and say something like, "This is ONE way of looking at the world. You are only exposed to people who will not question this view. Just know that there are many other ways of seeing reality, and many, many facts which are being withheld from you that could change how you believe." (I could never have REALLY said anything to them without destroying my friendship with their parents). They only interacted with people from their church, only were exposed to the fundamentalist curriculum of their textbooks. They only knew US because we had been friends of their parents before their parents became fundamentalists, and they only saw us a few times a year, with huge elephants of things unsaid in our visits in order to maintain our friendships.

So when their schooling was finished, at about age 17 for each, the two oldest girls started a small housecleaning business until both married just a couple years later. The third one worked for a short time as a waitress, before becoming pregnant (somehow, I guess the abstinence education didn't work out well) and getting married at 17 because of that. The two youngest are still at home, and the boy works on the small farmholding and does a small chimney sweeping business. Those are their horizons. NONE of them had any opportunity or exposure to anything that might have increased their options. When I compare their lives with the lives of the other family, I want to cry for all the possibilities unborn. Are they happy? Apparently. But, it almost feels as though they didn't even question the possibility of other options.

Most of the Amish people I know, and who live around my friend, are older, so I don't have a lot of experience with Amish youth, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have a lot of this more or less stunted "possibilities in life" situation.

The woman I knew from the fundamentalist LDS group had half a dozen mothers and several dozen brothers and sisters. She WAS one who had a spark of not wanting to fit the mold, and because her mother was in an abusive plural marriage, she wanted a different life for her daughter, so when the father tried to marry her off at a young age, the mother helped her escape. But to this day, many years later, she is still estranged from her large family, none of which will have a thing to do with her, and she is marked in many ways from her early life experience, and not what many would consider "normal" yet.

I find myself sometimes with the same feeling when I see a mother, grandmother and teenaged boy that I see occasionally in a Barnes and Noble we go to. Both women weigh probably over 400 pounds, and the young boy is well on his way. We step in when parents physically abuse their children, but why doesn't someone step in when that child is fed to become morbidly obese at a young age? Is religious freedom SO complete that people "own" their children and can keep them from experiences or knowledge that they might want in later life if they even knew such experiences or knowledge existed, or would be acceptable to their families?

Why is it that somehow, many of the same folks who defend absolute freedom for parents to limit their childrens' lives, also seem to be the people determined to keep every zygote alive, and believe that real, live women, adults have no rights over their own bodies, or their reproductive health? Why is complete incursions into privacy and freedom in one case o.k., but in another is not?

I don't know.......but I hear what Peggy is trying to say. I'd feel much better if everyone were able to have access to all the information and be able to make informed choices, and if that choice was to enter a religious group with very rigid ideas was chosen freely with all information, maybe not a problem. But the fact that most of these kids have no way of even knowing what COULD be for them, not to mention the exclusion and shunning should they make a "wrong" choice, DOES mean that they don't have an opportunity to MAKE an informed choice, which I find sad.

I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do hear what she is saying, as well as hearing what the rest of you say, as well.

What is your alternative? Should we all turn our children over to the collective for proper orientation on the off chance that some may not approve of our lifestyle or choices?

I don't know, Alan......should women turn over their rights to their own reproductive freedom and choices because certain peoples' religious and moral views seem to dictate that they should?

Should we concern ourselves far more with microscopic zygotes' rights than the rights of real, live children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

I would expect a farmer to know about farming. That's his business. Pretty much the only business along with related 'business' , fixing the farm equipment, animal husbandry, carpentry. think the girls know all that? Or maybe just 'girl' things like cooking and sewing, and milking.

---

You *do* realize that farming represents a rather complex and diverse realm of knowledge?

There seems to be some sort of assumption that farming is "lesser" somehow than, say, yoga instructing... My own farming, which is only a handful of crops, is quite challenging, managing an entire farmstead would require all sorts of skills and knowledge and experience. Especially if done in a sustainable, permaculturish fashion.

Quote:

---

Do you think those good Amish parents are teaching their kids ... any foreign language besides english, or programming, or all the other bits of education you all take advantage of knowing and using.

---

Almost every Amish person I have met spoke multiple languages, generally English and at least one German dialect. I suspect they are more multi-lingual than your average "main stream" American. I was raised in a German-speaking household myself, and our Amish neighbors understood my German, their own German dialect, and English.

Sitting around a table with Amish folks, you'd figure this sort of thing out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

should women turn over their rights to their own reproductive freedom and choices because certain peoples' religious and moral views seem to dictate that they should?

Should we concern ourselves far more with microscopic zygotes' rights than the rights of real, live children?

---

If by reproductive freedom and choices you mean abortion, it seems the rights of the "microscopic zygotes" become more important than the host at some point. When you have competing rights of two beings, it seems that morals must come into play. Religion and morals are two separate issues.

Quote:

---

If by reproductive freedom and choices you mean abortion, it seems the rights of the "microscopic zygotes" become more important than the host at some point. When you have competing rights of two beings, it seems that morals must come into play. Religion and morals are two separate issues.

---

From a practical point of view, the hosts will still have to raise those microscopic zygotes when they are born, or at any rate although they could give them up for adoption, they will probably end up raising them. You can maybe make it harder for the hosts to get rid of the microscopic zygotes but you can't make them actually want to raise them. Problematic ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

From a practical point of view, the hosts will still have to raise those microscopic zygotes when they are born, or at any rate although they could give them up for adoption, they will probably end up raising them. You can maybe make it harder for the hosts to get rid of the microscopic zygotes but you can't make them actually want to raise them. Problematic ...

---

If we can agree that birth control is ok (one end of the spectrum) and infanticide is wrong (other end of the spectrum), the answer lies somewhere in the middle respecting the rights of both. If the host is worried about the consequences of raising a child, they could choose to intervene nearer the birth control end of the spectrum.

Unless the local PP is closed - do I hear Texas? - and that's the only place one can afford contraception. Texas has nearly re-entered the 14th century, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

You too Gregg?

---

Wooooo ahhhhh peggy. We've been having fun together long enough that you can be sure I wasn't gunning for you if I didn't quote you. I really am interested in, for complete lack of a better word, alternative cultures, including the Amish, and their methods and just wanted to jump in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

I think it's sad that Amish kids have less opportunity in THIS MODERN WORLD than your kids or my kids.

---

That is the perfect statement and perfect emphasis (seriously, no sarcasm). Brings up a lot of questions, huh? First, what difference does that make if Amish kids aren't going to live in this modern world? Is it a form of abuse or a statement of love to shelter kids from this modern world? If any parent teaches their kids the skills they need to thrive within their own culture shouldn't we offer them a huge :+1:?

If an Amish kid would be better off learning modern skills doesn't the same logic say an Aborigine kid living in the outback of Australia or a Toulambi kid in the Amazon would also benefit? Would our kids be better off if we taught them how to use a butter churn? A blow gun? Are our kids neglected because we have not taught them how to use a loom? The real question there is who gets to decide what represents "better off"? Who do you want to decide for your kids?

IMO, the real downside is that one of those Amish kids could be the one that would write the great American novel, discover the cure for cancer, golf better than Tiger Woods, get us out of debt, unlock zero point energy, be the next Rembrandt... Yes, the world would suffer to miss out on that, but it still doesn't give us a right to impose our values on others.

And maybe that is the crux. The right of some to dictate the choices of others. On the one hand, many think it perfectly all right that if an adult woman becomes pregnant ,either from failure of contraception, even rape, etc., although said woman has free access to all information about pregnancy and childbirth, she should be forced to......... Undergo counseling, wait for 24-48 hours, undergo an invasive probing of her vagina, complete with showing her the pictures of the zygote, complete with listening to its heartbeat, in order for her not to make a "wrong" choice, etc. Yet many of the same people who want to make sure women have ALL the information before they choose to complete a pregnancy, seem cheerfully willing for large numbers of already born children to make important choices that will affect their entire lives after being systematically prevented from experiences and knowledge THEY would need to make an actual informed decision.

Maybe it the ludicrous quality of this that stymies me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

And maybe that is the crux. The right of some to dictate the choices of others. On the one hand, many think it perfectly all right that if an adult woman becomes pregnant ,either from failure of contraception, even rape, etc., although said woman has free access to all information about pregnancy and childbirth, she should be forced to......... Undergo counseling, wait for 24-48 hours, undergo an invasive probing of her vagina, complete with showing her the pictures of the zygote, complete with listening to its heartbeat, in order for her not to make a "wrong" choice, etc. Yet many of the same people who want to make sure women have ALL the information before they choose to complete a pregnancy, seem cheerfully willing for large numbers of already born children to make important choices that will affect their entire lives after being systematically prevented from experiences and knowledge THEY would need to make an actual informed decision.

Maybe it the ludicrous quality of this that stymies me.

---

And on the flip side, many folks seem to be of the opinion that a 'zygote' remains simple tissue until it's transformed by a live birth. That it's mother has the right to execute it at any time without even the courtesy of looking it in the eye (or even an image of it's eye) beforehand.

I agree with Midwest's remark that there is a middle ground between a collection of cells and a human. I'm not sure where that is, but to listen to pro-abortion folks, it doesn't matter. The language of pro-abortion doesn't allow words which may challenge the preferred orthodoxy, which seems way too self serving for my comfort level.

I'm stymied by the ludicrousness of it as well.

Thank you LC. You have put in words exactly my concern. I think these folks are closer to your example of the fundamentalist family than the hip, modern, savvy, connected people zoe keeps trying to convince us they are. I find limited opportunity for young people sad for them as well as any disadvantaged youth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

It is popular these days to strip the unborn of their humanity through language. The ultrasound image may be the first time some women realize that there's a baby in there.

---

Fine. But in that case, an external ultrasound will give an adequate image. To mandate a transvaginal ultrasound for this purpose is nothing more or less than intimidation - it really does feel very akin to rape to have this test, very invasive and highly uncomfortable as well.