Challenge the status quo.

Some things that have been ingrained into our systems have been good, are good, and always will be good. Like looking both ways before we cross the street, or that making an effort to eat at least a few veggies is good for us.

Some things we take for granted aren't good for us though. I wish more people would stop saying "Of course it's good! That's how it's done!" and get out and educate themselves.

I want to tell you at the very beginning here that I am not out to make you believe what I believe. I don't want you to be a blind follower. I want you to get out there and ask your own questions and form your own opinions. Read studies, compare philosophies, take what you deem good and reject the bad. I've cobbled together my own idea of what's right from a lot of different sources, but I'm quick to reject any part of a philosophy that doesn't jive with my research or my common sense.

In the tips I'm including some examples of opinions I've formed and some of the information behind them. I don't want you to just accept what I say (I could be wrong and I don't want that kind of power!), or reject it. I want you to say "huh, I wonder?" and go find out things for yourself. You might come to a completely different conclusion that me. And that's fine. But you will have gone out and actually made an informed decision that I can respect. I can't take seriously the opinion of people who blindly say, "but that's normal." Just because it is doesn't mean it SHOULD be.

Tips:

1. Studies can help you get more solid proof than just people's opinions. However, studies CAN be skewed to get desired results. When reading studies, look at who was included, how many were included, what factors were controlled for, things like that. A blatantly skewed study from the seventies concluded that home-birth was dangerous. If you actually look at the study itself, you find that their definition of home-birth was any out-of-hospital birth. Included were planned hospital births that didn't make it on time, unattended home-births by drug addicts and such, and even MISCARRIAGES!!! A different study from the 70's that compared the perinatal mortality rate of 1,046 planned home-births to 1,046 planned hospital births, all the mothers from both groups being low-risk, concluded this: "'The hospital-birth women were more likely than the planned home birth mothers to have had the following: five times more likely to have high blood pressure in labor, nine times more likely to have a severe perineal tear, three times more likely to have had postpartum hemorrhage, and three times more likely to have had a Cesarean.' The babies born to the hospital birth women also had a higher complication rate than the babies born to home birth women. In the hospitals, the infants were six times more likely to have had fetal distress before birth, four times more likely to have needed assistance to start breathing, and four times more likely to have developed an infection. There were no birth injuries at home, but thirty infants in the hospital suffered birth injuries." - quoted from Birthing From Within by Pam England CNM, MA, and Rob Horowitz PHD.

2. Compare both sides of an argument. Really listen. Ask questions. Who has concerns about valid problems? Can those problems be minimized by certain actions? Is either side supported by good information? Is someone just using opinions? Is someone using scare-tactics? Are those scare-tactics well-researched and warranted? Or are they just throwing out a few rare examples? Does either side have a vested interest in a specific outcome for political or economic reasons? Is either side ignoring or obfuscating important evidence against them? Be willing to switch sides if you find you're wrong, or find a balanced middle ground between both camps if your research takes you there. My Mom believes in homeopathy. I don't. I believe in some parts of naturopathy, but not homeopathy. I haven't found any good evidence for it or against it really. I do find that homeopathic companies tend to make rather outlandish claims about their product on what seems to be a whim. This makes me feel that they are snake oil salesmen and I don't trust what they're selling. I am welcome to receiving better information for or against. I think it's a wonderfully cool idea.

3. Take a look at the history and science behind something, in our own culture and others. For example, the routine use of modern circumcision techniques on boys was started in the Victorian era to prevent masturbation. (it doesn't). The original Jewish circumcision only removed the loose tip of the foreskin that extended beyond the glans. Modern circumcision involves forcibly peeling the entire protective foreskin from the mucous membranes of the glans (to which it is naturally adhered to at birth, separating later as the boy matures), turning a sensitive area into a large open wound, and then cutting off the entire foreskin, which normally functions for the glans kind of like the eyelids for the eyes. The cons of this procedure are the risk of infection and surgical error possibly resulting in permanent dysfunction or even death, and to be perfectly honest, you just cut off an area that when intact is responsible for a great deal of sexual pleasure, and the procedure can often reduce the mature size of the penis. (Yeah, they don't know what they're missing, but is it fair to deny them the opportunity to find out?) As for the pros: over the course of the years people keep throwing out ideas as to why circumcision should still be performed. None of the ideas have been substantiated, and almost all of them have been repudiated. Female circumcision (the removal of the clitoris) is done in some third world countries and hailed to be an incredibly cruel and barbaric act by us enlightened societies. I can't see that male circumcision is all that much different. America is the only first world society that still does routine circumcision on boy babies.

Feel free to add any tips I may have missed in the comments section!