here we go again...

[redfox]

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...

[herbgeek]

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.

[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.

[peggy]

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.

[Zoebird]

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.

[poetry_writer]

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.

[peggy]

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.

[Alan]

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?

[Zoebird]

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?

[redfox]

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