Circumcision is in the news now that San Francisco, California will vote on a referendum in November to criminalize the practice, even though it’s a religious requirement for Muslims and Jews, and common in the general population. Foreskin-free has been the norm in the US since the mid-20th century, although there’s a vocal minority in the US who regard it as cruel and sadistic. The medical establishment largely agrees that while medicallly unnecessary, circumcision is not abuse, does not cause harm and may even convey some health benefits. Neither government nor law enforcement has ever tried to interfere with what’s ultimately a decision made by parents for religious or medical reasons.
The real problem here is the way some Californians think they can put their fellow citizens’ religious (and/or medical and parenting) decisions to a vote. But I confess, thus far I haven’t waded into the debate because it’s moot; if the ban passes, a court will strike it down for violating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Here’s where I got angry: when the debate slid into ugly ethnic hatred. Even though circumcision is far from an exclusively Jewish practice, the anti-Semites showed up to the party. Somehow opposition to circumcision took a wrong turn and landed in Nazi Germany:
Look! It’s a big, blonde, muscular hero taking on that ugly, malevolent, bearded Jew! Where have I seen that before?:
From an anti-Semitic German children's book.
Oh, right. We’re glad we have that Aryan hero because everyone knows that sneaky, evil Jews pose a threat to innocent children:
From another children's book--the perverted Jew is giving poison to little Aryan children.
The “Foreskin Man” cartoons are the creation of Matthew Hess, president of a San Diego group, MGM Bill,* which is gathering signatures to put a similar anti-circumcision measure on the ballot in Santa Monica. Hess denies that he’s an anti-Semite, saying ”…we’re not trying to be anti-Semitic,” he replied. “We’re trying to be pro-human rights.” Human rights are surely the reason he created this grotesque caricature of a mohel***:
which bears more than a passing resemblance to this:
A poster for the famous anti-Semitic "documentary" commissioned by Joseph Goebbels.
Hess’s mohel page also claims that the rabbi enjoys drinking the child’s blood—the “delicious metzitzah b’peh” he refers to is the ancient practice of using suction to stem the bleeding. It’s no longer done in mainstream Jewish circumcision rituals, and is never used in Muslim or secular ones. But no good Jew-hater ever passes up an opportunity to make use of the medieval blood libel about Jews drinking babies’ blood, so thanks, Matthew Hess, for keeping it real.
Hess’s claims not to be an anti-Semite fall even flatter when you look at his cartoons—none of which have similar caricatures of Muslims, or pediatricians or anyone else who performs circumcisions. No, the disgust and violence and hatred is reserved for Jews and the glory for the Aryan-looking heroes who save babies from them. There are legitimate objections to circumcision, but not by Hess and his group. They’re pushing straight up propaganda of the most time-honored and despicable kind, and it has nothing to do with circumcision at all.
*It’s also practiced by indigenous tribes in Africa, Australia and the South Pacific, although usually as a coming-of-age ritual for adolescents.
** MGM stands for “Male Genital Mutilation” as though male circumcision was the equivalent of FGM, a sure sign we’re dealing with some men’s rights bullshit.
*** In Judaism, the mohel (rhymes with “oil”) is a special practitioner trained to perform the medical and religious duties of circumcision.
The religious imagery is completely gratuitous and sickening. Did this Hess guy perhaps have a relative name Rudolph?
Here’s what puzzles me: if removing the foreskin really had serious detrimental effects on the ability of circumcised men to enjoy sex, would they do it to each other? Seems unlikely. But hey, I’d be happy to let the menz fight over this one-if they stayed the hell out of the abortion discussion.
Besides, Foreskin Man is the dumbest superhero ever. What’s his super power supposed to be, flashing?
@mischiefmanager
The same question could be asked of female circumcision, which is usually older women initiating young women into adulthood.
I agree with you and Becky, though, about the anti-semitic imagery in this cartoon. WTF? I’m against routine circumcision because I don’t think children’s bodies should be altered in cosmetic ways before they are able to consent … but I also see that this is a religious issue for some folks and a private family decision. Mostly, I would advocate for doctors to quit practicing male circumcision routinely and pressuring families to do it for (mostly over-glorified) health reasons.
Anna, that’s true, although the argument can be made that the women who do this are acting on behalf of the male establishment.
We had our son circumcised by a mohel without a thought. But our daughter has raised this question with us, and it seems to me that a symbolic pinprick would do just as well. Some sources argue that in fact, the original ritual was just that, and the full removal of the foreskin was initially mandated by the Roman empire and we just kept it because we’re contrary that way.
@Anna: I’m against routine circumcision because I don’t think children’s bodies should be altered in cosmetic ways before they are able to consent
I agree with that, and I question circumcision for that reason all the time.
The thing about circumcizing the foreskin that makes it completely different from FGM is the motive. Male circumcision, like most forms of ritual scarification, is a cultural signifier. It shows that the boy/man belongs to a certain tribe or has a certain status (as with tribes that do it to signify adulthood). FGM is intended to destroy women’s sexual function in order to maintain male control over female sexuality. For that reason, male circumcision seems relatively harmless to me.
I am honestly not sure if I would circumcize my sons. On one hand, I don’t think that anything physical is what makes me a Jew, so having a physical signifier to me seems primitive and unnecessary (especially as women have never had one anyway, and it didn’t make us less Jewish). On the other hand, circumcision has symbolized our history of being separate from mainstream society, both willingly and unwillingly. The fact that my ancestors carried the mark knowing that it prevented them from ever safely blending in, and that revealing it might result in persecution and death has some meaning to me. So…yeah. Undecided. Maybe I’ll just have girls and not have to deal with it.
I feel like this is one of those issues where the underlying principle, that standing up for human welfare should or shouldn’t be the exception to cultural and religious liberty, is more interesting than the issue itself. I just don’t think male circumcision is that big a deal and I have never met a dude who thought so either except for this older guy who looked like Santa Claus who used to hang outside the University of Chicago bookstore with posters of mangled dicks and prosthelytize based on his own botched circumcision. Poor guy.
Also, besides just being morally awful, Triumph of the Willy here has the worst comic art I’ve seen in a while. It’s what I imagine Helen Thomas’ Superman fan fiction would look like.
Leni Riefenstahl and I applaud you for that one, BearDownCBears.
Obviously the racism in that comic is disgusting, but I disagree that male circumcision doesn’t have any risks. All surgeries have risks, which is why we shouldn’t perform unnecessary surgeries, especially on infants. Also, circumcision removes the most sensitive skin on the penis (it has the most nerve endings). It’s not harmless. It’s not the same as female circumcision, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay.
There’s also some problematic elements in Western feminism being so strongly against female circumcision (which those other people do over there), while considering male circumcision (which we do) a non-issue. It’s not nearly as risky or done for the same reasons, but it seems extremely hypocritical to say “our unnecessary surgery on infants’ genitals is okay, but yours is barbaric.”
There’s no real health benefits to circumcision. You’re less likely to get penile cancer (which is very, very rare anyway) because you have less penis, but that’s true of anything you remove. The only other “health benefits” would be if the person never washed themselves properly.
The minute we were told our baby was male, me and the SO knew that this was gonna be an issue. My biggest struggle was how to tell the SO, who is Jewish, that personally, I didn’t want my son circumcised. Honestly, I think I was still sorta in the mindset that 1.) this is a male issue and one the father should address (which is wrong) and 2.) because I’m not Jewish, I didn’t really have standing to tell him otherwise, since his beliefs vest so much in it.
I lucked out in that the SO refused to consider it as well. His decision was based on the fact that he’s a Mizrahi Jew. I did not know about the divide that still exists between Jews of Arab descent and other jewish groups. As he explained it, choosing to not circumcise his son is his way of expressing that Mizrahi Jews are still discriminated against (especially in Israel) and that they should not have to assimilate to gain acceptance. And I respected the decision.
The biggest problem with the comic is that I don’t see the NEED for it. There are plenty of excellent arguments against circumcision. And the comic presumes that all Jews engage in the practice – but there is a lot of discussion and dissent going on about whether the practice is necessary among Jewish groups. It reeks of patronizing when a real conversation could be going on.
And a quick aside – I hate when the term “mutilation” is used to describe any change made to one’s body – it really dilutes and dismisses the term. Every tattoo and piercing I have could be termed mutilation – they’re permanent changes to my body – that I did consensually and by choice. Mutilation suggests a grotestque change done by force against one’s will that basically makes you unable to function – I think referring to circumcision that way really misses the point, and belittles those who have have actually suffering mutilation.
@Danika, I agree with you that dismissing the problems with male circumcision while making female circumcision a major political issue is very problematic from a feminist perspective.
I am the most troubled by the way that we consider pain and non-consent to be a negligible issue because the person whose body is being altered is an infant.
@Danika: It’s not nearly as risky or done for the same reasons, but it seems extremely hypocritical to say “our unnecessary surgery on infants’ genitals is okay, but yours is barbaric.”
I very strongly disagree with this. FGM destroys female sexual function by removing the clitoris and often the labia. Women can die and often suffer permanent and irreparable harm. Culturally, FGM is done in order to prevent women from feeling sexual pleasure so that the Patriarchy can control women’s sexuality.
Male circumcision is entirely different. As I said upthread, it’s a ritual scarification as an identifier. It is not meant to be a means of controlling men’s sexuality, and, in fact it does not prevent men from experiencing sexual pleasure or create any permanent sexual dysfunction at all.
I get very upset when people conflate the two the two. The differences are vast, both medically and culturally.
@Danika: Would you say the same thing about, say, tribal scarification? Cutting carries health risks too. I’m not disagreeing with you necessarily, just asking. Human cultures have been known to do all kinds of body modification as a means of in-group identification, some riskier than others.
The most interesting part of this post, to me, is that this comic has a really screamingly obvious antisemitic slant/bias. I think Becky points that out very clearly in the title.
If you want to make a case against circumcision there is a really careful fine line to walk, since antisemitism rages in the world and in our community.
If you don’t pay careful attention to that issue, then you’re either ignorant of a large part of our history, or you don’t care.
Either way, I find it hard to hear your argument, once you start down this path.
My husband and I went back and forth a lot before deciding to circumcise our son. As for Becky, the symbolism of Judaism and the links back to our ancestors and their sacrifices is important to me. My husband is circumcised, and (a)never cared or minded and (b)thought it would be a little easier for both of them if our son’s penis looked like that of his primary male role model. But I’m open to arguments against circumcision, which is why I think we should be having debates and their should be more education about the matter. This seems like an issue that could be solved through cultural change, and it seems to me like there’s time to do that without resorting to laws that will be struck down anyway and tell portions of the population that their religions don’t matter.
I understand that there are times when our respect for other peoples’ religions is outweighed by human rights violations. But this just doesn’t seem that urgent to me.
As for the cartoons, they made me ill. The Monster Mohel cartoon is straight out of the past, and out of the nightmares of my ancestors. My great grandfather fled Russia and came to this country because the Jews in his village were accused of murdering a child who probably died of natural causes and drinking her blood. So thanks, Matthew Hess, for trying to start that again. Good times.
Well, it is true that at some point in the US, circumcision was done partly because they thought it prevented masturbation. But then again, they also through cornflakes decreased masturbation and libido too. So, I take it with a grain of salt.
Honestly, I don’t really get the consent argument. In my son’s first month, I consented to having his blood drawn, I consented to shots, I consented to lots of stuff on his behalf. I don’t doubt he found some of it very unpleasant – but I always assumed that part of the parent-child relationship was a duty to consent when they are unable to. If nothing could be done to a child who cannot vocalize consent, a lot of basic childhood proceedures could not be accomplished (I have never heard of a small child who gladly consents to a shot of anything).
I do think the anti-side has the right to question why cultural identification can’t happen through other ways or why this particular method is still necessary – I don;t equate asking the questions with racism or anti-semitism. I do think that when you do what this cartoon does – make blanket assumptions about motives without actually, ya know, digging deeper and trying to grasp history – you just fail on a multitude of levels.
Drahill, I’m sure you see the difference between drawing blood and making a permanent change to a child’s organs? And the difference between vaccinating a child and making a change to that child’s body?
Here’s my personal experience (not that it matters): My son is circumcised because of my husband’s cultural ties. My daughter has her ears pierced because of mine.
I don’t claim these two things are equivalent except in the barest sense: permanent modifications to their bodies, chosen by me, when they could not say no, for reasons I no longer consider valid. I consented to both, and I regret both.
So then, how would they feel about all of this?
Well, I would say that I see them as similar in that they are choices that parents make for their children based on their values. There seems to be a tendency to draw a very strong line between medical decisions and cultural identification decisions. However, the desire to associate with a group or faith or ethnicity can be extremely strong – stronger – than consent to a solely medical procedure.
Again, I brought up blood drawing because its one of the things my son has already had done. If his health required a more drastic procedure, something that would permanently alter his body, the most likely situation is that I would consent if i believed his life would be bettered by it. Its not an issue of “what level of modification is acceptable; or piercing is / cutting is not.” Its an issue of permitting parents to exercise consent for their children when the child is unable to.
Now, I am glad that my son is not circumcised – but that is simply because I was raised in a faith tradition that believes that religious identification should happen when one is able to freely choose it (I was raised a mix of Quaker and Church of the Brethren). But I have to recognize that I have a partner who believes that faith identification can happen from birth up.
I think my real issue is that people draw a very strong line between medical and cultural practices, like the two can never cross. To me, that is problematic because it tends to discount the histories of the people who practice things like circumcision. Physical identifiers are often borne out of persecution and a desire to make your identity permanent when other things are being taken away from you. I cannot be so quick to disregard these practices when I know the background and circumstances they arose from.
@Becky: I get very upset when people conflate the two [female and male circumcision].
I don’t see Danika “conflating” the two, Becky. In fact, she very specifically says in the quote you excerpted that she acknowledges that male circumcision is “not nearly as risky or done for the same reasons.” I think she’s raising valid questions about the cultural context of Western feminists condemning female circumcision while turning a blind eye on male genital alterations. No, they are in no way equal in terms of physical risks and effect on sexual pleasure (at least, if male circumcision is done correctly). However, male circumcision is *surgery*. Cutting the body always carries risks. And cutting the body in a place that carries so much nerve tissue is particularly risky. There’s a reason we don’t allow body piercing for underage individuals, and that tattoo artists are reluctant to ink genitals or other super-sensitive tissue.
I don’t think all of this necessary equals a ban on circumcision … but I don’t think that raising the question of why some feminist activists who are against female genital mutiliation might still support male circumcision is somehow out of proportion.
@Drahill, there’s a difference between consent to cosmetic elective surgery and consent to procedures that are necessary for the health of a child. I’m not saying that a parent can’t consent to a child having their gall-bladder removed! What I’m saying is that circumcision is something that can (and does) happen after a child has grown old enough to decide for themselves what body modifications they want. There is no medical reason to perform infant circumcision routinely, and there are risks (as there are with any cutting of the body). So why not wait until the child can choose for themselves?
I realize that, religiously, it’s like infant baptism … it signifies entry into a religious community. But that is a very different category of significance than making sure a child doesn’t die from a ruptured appendix or measles.
I mentioned consent because to me, consent is a red herring in the debate. Parents consent to behalf of their children all the time in a variety of contexts. So to me, when anti-circumcision activists talks about consent, I think they’re just distracting from the real issue.
To me, the real issue is whether cultural, religious or social identification rituals can ever justify performing a body modification on a non-consenting person (and I use this term with caution – because non-consenting can be anything from active resistance to inability to object to passive acceptance). I believe that male circumsion has no real medical benefits – at least any that you can’t get another way (like just using condoms to prevent STD transfers). Thus, to me, the issue is largely cultural.
I tend to be fall on the side of preserving cultural identifiers and beliefs, largely because I have a Sioux mother and I am extremely aware of the history of persecution and genocide that was carried out against my relatives and their tribes. I imagine for one who is Jewish, it is very much like that as well. When absolutely everything else is being taken from you and you are literally left with just your body to yourself, body modification might seem like a good idea.
However, I do not think that questioning circumcision or whether alternatives exist is inherently racist, anti-semitism, ect. I do believe its worth asking whether the practice is still necessary, whether alternatives exist, ect. Nor do I think its wrong to ask people to really examine why they want to do it. Those are valuable questions. However, this cartoon isn’t any part of a respectable dialogue – its an incendiary bomb. And unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of that going on.
@Anna: If we accept that the two things are completely different, then I see no problem with “Western feminists condemning female circumcision while turning a blind eye on male genital alterations.”
Even if I oppose circumcision, it’s for a completely different reasons than I would oppose FGM, because they are not same thing. I think we really head into what about the menz?! territory when we start discussing male circumcision as something that requires the same kind of condemnation as FGM.
And to your other point, I have witnessed a fair number of male circumcisions, and while it involves a scalpel and a cut, it’s not exactly *surgery*, and I think it’s a bit misleading to characterize it as *surgery*. Done correctly, it doesn’t bleed profusely, require stitches or significant aftercare treatment. I think it’s better that circumcision be performed with numbing agents, but on the spectrum of surgical procedures, it’s very minor.
I also agree with Drahill that the consent issue is a red herring. Parents consent to medical procedures for their children all the time as well as various cosmetic ones (I have seen a hell of a lot of babies/toddlers with pierced ears, for example).
@rodriguez – Vaccination does make a permanent change to a child’s body/organs, given how the immune system works by learning. The justification is one a lot more people agree (for good reason) but the kind of changes wrought upon the body by early immune system training are at least as significant if not moreso than circumcision.
Just thought I’d note that. Am following the conversation with interest, though!
To me, infant circumcision is pretty much a no-go. But then, so is piercing the ears of little girls. Both are cosmetic procedures and both are performed on a person who cannot be assumed to consent to them. I guess the question is whether parents are owners of their children’s bodies, and thus can do what they like with them, or guardians of them, in which case they can only do what is necessary to maintain that body until the child is an age that can consent.
Perhaps it is only because I am one of those nebulous White Americans with no strong cultural markers, but I find the cultural identification argument for cosmetically modifying the bodies of children profoundly lacking. It seems benign when the modification generally isn’t objected to by the subject when they get older, but not all culturally based modifications are hidden or benign and any modification carries risk. Would molding the skull of an infant be acceptable? Only if the parents belonged to an appropriate American Indian tribe? How great of a physical risk is acceptable? Who decides that FGM is a misogynistic mutilation instead of a marker of cultural identity?
This guy from San Diego may very well be a Neo-Nazi. They’re all over Orange County and San Diego County.
re vaccinations, that’s exactly why I brought it up, in sequence after drawing blood. A parent does and always has made permanent changes to a child’s body, hopefully, usually, with good intentions. I include circumcision in that category, reaching for the best, for the most part.
Some modifications might be ok, other might not, but I don’t think the division between ok and not ok is permanent in time, either. I think that we need to think on each case.
So to try to puzzle it out, I think Drahill’s division of modifications into medical ones and cultural ones is really useful. There should be different criteria for each class.
On the point of consent, and bringing in Drahill’s division, I disagree that consent is a red herring for cultural identification. I don’t think its ok to make these decisions for kids. I understand perfectly why people do it, having done it myself. I’ve come to believe that I was wrong, that there decisions were an abrogation of my kids’ autonomy.
I think MM’s comment way upthread is right to the point also, how do we feel about ritual scarification or tatoos for children who can’t opt out? As for me, I think that these things are not acceptable.
@JetGirl: And here I thought SoCal was so liberal-leaning!
@Nepenthe: I agree, the line on culturally based modifications can be very fuzzy. Certain modifications done by other cultures skeeve me out, but that’s because it’s not my culture/beauty standard/religious ritual. I do think that with FGM the reason we know it’s a misogynist mutilation is because it’s specifically intended to destroy female sexual pleasure in order to allow men to control women’s bodies and sexuality. To me, the motive for FGM is what distinguishes it from other modifications.
Now I am ignorant of most forms of Judaism, but I was under the impression that at least in the more conservative and orthodox denominations, circumcision is an essential part of the covenant with God – so, basically, circumcision is an essential part of a boy’s acceptance into the faith. I am not sure if the same can be said for Islam. But I feel empathy for any parents who, as they see it, want their child to grow up in their faith community. I can disagree with the act, but I don’t think the act should be divorced from what is really an altruistic and decent-hearted motive.
The issue of “how far is too far” is one without a good answer. I think, however, motive matters, like Becky noted. Circumcision, in a religious context, is about bringing a child into a faith tradition that the family wants to share – not nefarious at all. You can still believe it is wrongheaded or excessive now – but I do think that the conversation needs to be couched in respect for the traditions and history that the ritual stems from. when groups defend it or retreat from the conversation, I think a lot of it has to do with lack of respect.
I’m actually in transit now – so I will come back soon!
@Drahill: The tradition of circumcision in Judaism comes from God’s commandment to Abraham that he circumcise all males of his tribe as a sign of their eternal covenant with God. As written in Genesis 17, it’s quite a long and specific commandment, and it’s the first commandment God gives to Abraham, so it’s regarded as ultra-serious and non-negotiable. You’re right that conservative and Orthodox Jews regard it as an essential part of the Jewish community’s relationship with God—it both marks the boy as a Jew and confirms his parents’ participation in the covenent.
Even among Reform and other progressive movements, the command to circumsise is still taken pretty seriously, which I find somewhat surprising given that other Torah-based commandments have been abandoned or modified. If I were to tell my rabbis that I didn’t want to circumsise my sons, they would definitely try to dissuade me, probably with more of a cultural than a religious argument. It’s just a very, very strong cultural tradition.
I’m not an expert on Islam, but I do know that their requirement to circumsise does not come from the Qu’ran (it’s not mentioned there at all) or from religious commandment. I believe it has more to do with the tradition of the Prophet, who was circumsised and had his sons circumsised as infants. In some Islamic cultures, circumcision is done when the child is much older (which strikes me as less desirable because the older you are, the more painful the procedure and the longer the healing time). It’s also not a requirement for men who convert to Islam, unlike men who convert to Judaism.
@BeckySharper: “It is not meant to be a means of controlling men’s sexuality, and, in fact it does not prevent men from experiencing sexual pleasure or create any permanent sexual dysfunction at all.”
It removes the most sensitive tissue of the penis: it affects the experience of sexual pleasure. Also, there are different kinds of FGM, and not all “prevent” women from experiencing sexual pleasure entirely. Again, I am not saying FGM is acceptable at all or debating that they’re the same, just that male circumcision not being as bad as female circumcision does not make it acceptable.
“I think we really head into what about the menz?! territory when we start discussing male circumcision as something that requires the same kind of condemnation as FGM.”
Again, it doesn’t require the same condemnation, but it makes me really uncomfortable to say that this is just a “what about the menz?!” issue. If we were discussing FGM and someone said, “But let’s stop talking about that, let’s start talking about male circumcision!”, then yes, but not in this case. Altering someone’s body without their consent is worth at least a discussion of ethics regardless of the sex of the person involved.
@mischiefmanaged: I oppose all surgery done on children before they are able to consent. Obviously different surgery and cutting hold different risks, but anything that permanently alters someone’s body should not be decided without their consent unless medically necessary.
@Danika: I hear what you’re saying but I just want to correct one thing: the foreskin is NOT the most sensitive tissue of the penis—the glans is. The reason that circumcison results in some desensitizing is because the foreskin covers the glans and protects it from being chafed or overstimulated. When the foreskin is removed, the glans gets a lot more stimulation than it would if the foreskin covered it. Over time, this tends to desensitize somewhat, but it’s because the sensitive tissue is more exposed without the foreskin, not because the foreskin itself is so rich in nerve endings (it’s not).
That said, lack of a foreskin doesn’t prevent men from being aroused or orgasming (and having slept with plenty of men both with and without foreskins, I’ve never noticed that men with foreskins appear to be significantly more responsive or enjoy the experience any more than men without them). The Patriarchy never would have sanctioned or a maintained a custom for thousands of years if it caused any real harm to their precious penii.
@BeckySharper,
I think we probably just have a fundamental disagreement here about where to draw the line vis a vis appropriate use of parental consent for altering children’s bodies. I don’t necessarily think the best place to handle this is the law, but I do think that even things like ear piercings aren’t necessarily something parents should be deciding for their kids.
I admit this comes from my own experience as a child in a very non-interventionist household, where even vaccinations were kept to an absolute minimum until we were old enough to participate in the decision-making process.
Anna, you’ve brought up an angle we didn’t discuss at all yesterday, the fact of implementing this ban in the law.
I can’t help but feel like this referendum isn’t so much about circumcision as much as it is about chasing away Orthodox Jews. There doesn’t need to be a vile comic book to make that meaning clear.
I’ve got weak google fu this morning. I couldn’t find the text of the proposed referendum.
I am so disappointed.
I read this blog on a daily basis and up until now I have whole-heartedly agreed with almost everything that you ladies talk about.
But today, after reading this, I am sad.
I completely agree with you that the imagery used is horrible and the “artist” is doing a huge diservice to the discussion on circumcision by portraying these disgusting cartoons.
I also agree that legislation banning a person’s right to practice any form of religion should not go into affect and will likely be over-ruled by an appellate court.
However, there is a difference between banning religious rituals for the common good and actually stepping on a person’s religious rights. There have been many times in history when a religious ritual has been banned and the practicioners of said religion have argued “against the 1st Amendment”. But because these laws are neutral and only secondarily impact a persons right, they have been upheld. Dual marriages in the Mormon Church. Islam women wearing face coverings in their driver’s license pictures. The slaughtering of animals in a NYC apartment by a man whose religion he claimed required ritual animal sacrifice. Etc. I think circumcision is a ritual, a completely outdated ritual I should add, that if banned will not at all infringe on a Jewish person’s right to practice judaism.
I also do not agree at all with the flippant attitude about circumcision being a “man’s rights issue”. That would imply that routine circumcision is done to men against their consent. This is not the case. Routine circumcision is done on INFANTS who are not able to make an informed decision. It is not the parents right to make a decision about their son’s body that will forever damage an ORGAN. Make no mistake, the foreskin is NOT simply a piece of skin that is meant to be cut off. It is not cleaner. And you say yourself that Dr’s agree that it is NOT medically necessary. The only reason they say it’s not abuse is that there is such a strong belief in this country that it is necessary, cleaner, which is being perpetuated by posts like this one.
This is a human rights issue. Our male infants cannot stand up for themselves while doctors and parents sit by and say “Well, that’s what’s been done in the past, so it can’t be all that bad”. This is an issue that needs to be addressed in a more informed manner by adults who understand the consequences of cosmetically altering a vital male organ.
I have two sons both of whom I brought home intact from the hospital because I refused to have genital mutliation performed on them. I am a mother. And I used to think I was a feminist. But if I have to agree with this post and the idea that circumcision is a man’s rights issue, then maybe I’m not as feminist as I thought.
Katie, I don’t think that you are justified in casting aspersions like you did in your last paragraph: I used to think I was a feminist. But if I have to agree with this post and the idea that circumcision is a man’s rights issue, then maybe I’m not as feminist as I thought.
There’s no monolithic feminism represented here that you need to agree with in to get your feminist card, and the “men’s rights” position that you are seeing in this post is not as you imagine it either.
We understand the subjects are infants. That’s why the discussion has centered on parenting decisions, even though the original post proposed another line of thought altogether.
Nobody has said that we continue this tradition for tradition’s sake either. It’s a little different: we have been talking about why people feel the need to propagate those traditions for tradition’s sake. For example notice that the ones with the most at stake culturally have been totally willing to listen to the arguments against circumcision, and some agree.
You feel strongly and that is useful for this discussion, but I’d rather hear your strong ideas, not the other strong reactions.
So if you think we shouldn’t legislate against circumcision, then that means there are only cultural remedies. What do you think we should do?
@Katie: But if I have to agree with this post and the idea that circumcision is a man’s rights issue, then maybe I’m not as feminist as I thought.
SRSLY? Since when did agreeing with me or anyone else on this blog become a requirement to identify as a feminist? We—and I—have always made it very clear that we believe feminism isn’t monolithic, that no one issue is a feminist litmus test, and that there are no ideological purity tests for anyone who wants to read or comment here.
Other people in this thread have different and dissenting views about circumcision. Yet no one but you has suggested that I’m requiring them to agree with me, or threatened to pick up their feminist marbles and walk away if they don’t.
Also, what Rodriguez said.
Within reason, parenting styles should no more be subject to legal control than the practice of religious rituals in private settings. There’s a wide range of ways to raise kids, and we all know that there is no guarantee that great parenting will produce great kids or vice versa.
As a practicing Jew, I am open to the discussion about modifying the way we do circumcisions. I am not open to non-Jews trying to change my religious practice from the outside without a compelling reason. As Becky said above, circumcised men seem to function sexually quite well. So I see no compelling reason for any laws to be passed on this issue.
I think MM said it very well. As a non-Jew, I am still aware of the raging circumcision debate among many Jewish parents. They are trying to work out solutions *within their own cultural framework*. Many other groups are doing the same. Legislating from outside that framework is not going to help the situation, and I think it is a place of unacknowledged privilege to look into another groups’ cultural practices and say “hey, that is NASTY! We have to ban that!”.
The foreskin is not a vital organ. Do you think men would be chopping it off if it was? Some cultural traditions do circumcision as a coming of age ritual. Done by other men.
I am the mother of two boys. Who were both circumcised for reasons that are irrelevant to this discussion. I was active online on parenting email groups at the time. The debate was very heated. I still don’t think legislation about circumcision is the way to go, looking back 13 yrs since the whole debate became a family issue.
I don’t think it is at all inappropriate to ask these questions. As I understand it, Jews are encouraged to question things. This is one thing I have always loved about the faith and the culture.
@Becky you may not have noticed less sensitivity in circumcised men, but that does not mean they don’t. My husband, who is cut, is very aware of the sensitivity he has lost and is adamant about leaving any future sons intact. Growing up in a Jewish family this was hard for me; I always figured I would circumcise. But now, I find myself largely agreeing with Lesbrarian.
A few things changed my original assumptions:
A practicing Jewish (raised modern orthodox) friend was pregnant with her son and did a lot of research. After watching videos of both, she did convince me that a bris is more humane than medical circumcision but questioned the covenant between G-ad and man (‘s penis). Why are women excluded from this? Do we still need that to be close and committed to G-d?
I had a friend in high school who chose to be circumcised at age 16, and I think it was a powerful (yes, painful) process for him. Can you really say it is “less painful” for a newborn? How do you know? He cannot rate his pain for you.
And I do agree with the importance of recognizing some sort of parallel with FGM. (insert disclaimer: obviously different, not on the same level etc) However, to say our intent is different and better than theirs sound so insular to me. Yes, to my western ears, the intent of FGM is barbaric. But it is impossible to understand it from within the cultural context. Again, I’m not supporting the practice, but asking, I wonder how our practice sounds to outside ears. Of course, coming from the inside, it sounds fine to us. But FGM sounds fine to many many “others” on the “other” inside.
That said, legislature is not the place to control this. Circumcision is absolutely within a parents rights to decide. I do not believe the government should be involved in medical decision making, to a point Kids do need to receive medical care. Also, please do not fool yourself, minor it may be, but (coming from the medical field) it is definitely surgery.
@HurdyGurdy: Nope, I think it’s good and useful to raise these questions, and to do it the way you did. But I think that the answers are going to fall on a continuum, as most of the responses here have.
I think the whole issue of why women are excluded from the bris covenant is a very worthwhile way of looking at the issue from a Jewish perspective. The commandment to circumcise is meant as a sign of Abrahamic patriarchy and is exclusive of women. Women have never needed an outward signifier to be seen as Jewish, so…I’m not convinced that men need to either.
It’s my understanding, from male friends who have been circumcised as adults (they were converts to Judaism) that cutting an adult foreskin leaves requires stitching afterwards, which it does not on a newborn. That’s why I think it’s more painful. And in my experience, babies are very good at telling you when they’re in pain, and you can tell by the sound of their cries whether it’s low-level pain or excruciating pain…they sound entirely different.
I’m totally open to people making cases against circumcision. Where I have a real problem is statements like Katie’s, above: I think circumcision is a ritual, a completely outdated ritual I should add, that if banned will not at all infringe on a Jewish person’s right to practice judaism. That’s fine if she is anti-circumcision. But saying “we can ban this because I don’t think Jews need it” is repressive and outrageously presumptuous.
Hi everyone. I’ve been finding this discussion really interesting. I am jewish, but not practising, as I am an atheist. I also struggle with the patriarchal aspects of jewish tradition.
Before I had children I was not in favour of circumcision for many of the reasons already expressed. My partner, who is not jewish, is circumcised (we are in New Zealand, which continued routine circumcision much later than North America). When we discussed whether we would cut our children he said he had no problem with it, and didn’t see it had affected him in any negative way. My family would of course have been hurt by my views. As it turned out, we’ve had two daughters and so we’ve avoided the whole issue!
In reponse to Katie, I would say that banning circumcision would most definitely restrict someone’s practice of Judaism, since the brit milah is a key practice.
For me, I am against it on principle, as I am against ear piercing a child who is too young to consent. I think we should limit interference with children’s bodies to that absolutely necessary.
Thanks for the discussion.
Consider that, in both Canada and the US, even a *pin-prick to draw blood* is banned, if done on a girl.
And in that case, it’s clear it’s done symbolically, with no intent to affect her sexuality. Yet it’s still banned, and no cries of “but what about their religious right!” People would reply to those that they can just go back to wherever they’re from where this is allowed and condoned. No pass at all.
And it’s rather funny that a country where roughly only 1% of the people are Jewish, has extremely high rates of circumcision, for tradition reasons for the most “to be like daddy” and “to not be taunted in the locker room”.
And why they said Corn Flakes prevented masturbation might have to do with Kellogg himself recommending circumcision in the 1800s. They also had all sorts of weird contraptions meant to prevent masturbation. It’s an instruction in torture and weird thought patterns (of the people of the times) to go read about them.
[...] comments to the earlier version of this post, Danny linked to a piece at the blog Harpyness, which included images that I didn’t see on the Foreskin Man website. These images included a [...]
[...] comments to the earlier version of this post, Danny linked to a piece at the blog Harpyness, which included images that I didn’t see on the Foreskin Man website. These images included a [...]
Reading this thread, I’ve seen so many comments from parents who did/didn’t have their children circumcised, and no comments from men who were circumcised as children. The demographic of people who are actually effected by this issue is completely absent from the discussion.
Now, I’m sure there are multiple reasons for this – this being a feminist space, I doubt that many men are liable to come here and stick around, much less drop comments. But the exclusion of the people for whom this argument is actually important seems really telling of the entire attitude around the issue.
Now, I don’t have a penis, so the issue of circumcision was never brought up for me, but I do want to say things about subjects with which I am familiar.
Firstly, the issue of consent as a red herring, because parents consent to life-saving/improving things for their kids all the time and also ear piercings so it’s all cool, apparently.
There is a *huge* difference between consenting to procedures that are going to save/improve your kid’s life and authorizing a procedure that is almost entirely cosmetic. Which, as I understand it, circumcision is. I’ll try and explain it as well as I can.
Basically, parents have a responsibility to ensure that their child grows up as safe, happy, and healthy as is in their power to do. They have this responsibility because, at least for the first several years, they are in a position of absolute power over the child. An infant is almost completely helpless and, as many have pointed out, incapable of giving consent to these procedures. So it is the responsibility of the parent to authorize these procedures on the child’s behalf, knowing that they will contribute to the betterment of the child and that, years down the line, that child is not likely to begrudge xir parents for making those choices and in fact will probably be grateful for them.
However, parents also have a responsibility not to go too far. Where this issue is related to circumcision, it goes far beyond religious practices, and where this issue is related to religious practices, it goes far beyond circumcision.
I would like to talk about circumcision first. The comparison to having a baby’s ears pierced, I think, is pretty apt. As I understand it, it is an entirely cosmetic procedure, and its supposed benefits to the future health of the child are negligible to nonexistent. Whereas having your child vaccinated, operated on, etc. has tangible future benefits, the only thing you earn for the child whom you circumcise is societal acceptance. Generally speaking, people are allowed to choose whether they want to do something optional to earn the respect of their peers, but regarding circumcision it seems okay to just assume that the baby will want to be as accepted as possible down the road, so go ahead with it.
I don’t think that’s appropriate, any more than getting your child’s ears pierced before “she” is old enough to tell you whether “she” wants it done. Assuming your vagina-bearing child (I’m going to assume that no penis-owning children are subject to this behavior, since it wouldn’t be considered appropriate for a boy to wear earrings) is actually of the female gender, she may decide that she actually doesn’t want to go around with holes in her ears. And if the child should turn out to have a male gender, he is likely to be completely horrified by this invasive, nonconsentual imposition of a female gender marker.
Basically, when it comes to lifesaving medicine, parents can be reasonably sure that they’re making the best decision for their child. When we’re talking about a cosmetic procedure, there is no such certainty.
Now as for religious practice…
“Circumcision, in a religious context, is about bringing a child into a faith tradition that the family wants to share – not nefarious at all.”
Not nefarious, maybe, but it can be incredibly damaging to a child to be adopted into a religion before xe has any idea even what that religion is about. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about circumcision, baptism, First Communion, anything – it shouldn’t be done. I’m going to get personal here, because my parents decided to bring me up in their religion.
Firstly, I believe – and I think this is something that we can all agree on – that religion should be a personal choice. People should be allowed to practice whatever religion they see fit to practice, as long as by doing so they do not cause harm to other people, etc.
Yet every generation, without fail, billions of children are denied that choice.
There was no “well, we are Christians, and you can be one too if you want” with my family. For as long as I can remember I was told “you are a Christian, and that’s that.” From the time I was old enough to comprehend it, I was forced to partake in the rituals, told that I would face an eternity of gruesome punishment if I was not 100% into it, and taught bigotry and intolerance in the name of love. My parents abused me, forcibly stunted my emotional development, and made nearly every major decision I could ever make regarding religion on my behalf, all in the name of doing right by their kid. They made the rules and I was to follow them. There was zero respect of my autonomy, my right to make my own decisions, etc.
Not every child is as forcibly induced as I am. Yet millions are, and millions more are more subtly coerced. Parents often say that it’s their child’s choice, and then pressure their child into making that choice as early as possible and never, ever straying. Or make comments like “You can be anything you want, but if you ever become an atheist I’ll disown you.” You know, little things.
Some people might see this as okay. I do not. I see it as an abuse of privilege, an act of forcing one’s will onto another human being that would be considered unacceptable if not actually illegal if it was one adult doing it to another. Yet because it’s children we consider it okay. Because it’s children, whom we are taught cannot make decisions for themselves and need to be protected and guided by their parents (and I’m not saying that they don’t, to a degree) it is peachy keen for the parents to impose their wills, their desires, onto this kid to shape xem into whatever they think xe ought to be.
This is wrong. This is sickening, ageist claptrap. Children are not personal property, they are a responsibility. When you have a child, it is your job to take that tiny, fragile, innocent baby and do your darned best by xem not so xe becomes the person you want to be, but so that when xe is an adult and ready to become an autonomous human being, xe is equipped to make choices that are responsible, that do not harm others, and that are going to further xir own happiness, health, and safety. That is all. Now, I know that there’s nothing easy about being a parent, and that the emotional ties that you forge with your children will make you feel like you must do everything you can ever think of to give that child the best possible future – and for many parents that means inducting the child into their religion, bringing them safely into the fold before something terrible can happen. But as painful as it is, and I’m sure many of you realize this, this does not extend to making every major life decision your child needs to make on xir behalf. Your child has a born human right to defy you, to do things that don’t make sense to you, even to screw up on an epic level that makes you want to scream and rip your hair out.
And that is a miserable thing, watching a loved one screw up, especially someone whom every fibre of your being is ordering you to protect. But your emotions, your desires, do not trump your child’s rights. Nor does the law. And here’s the thing: these rights I’m describing aren’t legal. Not for children. In the eyes of the law, children are essentially the property of their parents – until they turn eighteen, or are legally emancipated, the only things their parents cannot do to them are send them to work, sexually assault them or commit any kind of assault that causes physical damage, neglect their basic physical needs (as well as a list of state-mandated “needs” that exist mainly to punish the poor for breeding), and kill them. Everything else – including behaviors that would be rightly considered abusive if they were committed against another adult – is peachy keen.
Yet most parents will agree that they have a responsibility not to do them. They have a responsibility not to tell their child stories that will cause lasting trauma and terror. They have a responsibility not to authorize bodily modifications that the child might later regret (this is an especially big concern whenever a parent authorizes transitional processes for their transgender child). They have a responsibility not to beat their child into submission. Etc. Those responsibilities do not suddenly vanish when religion is concerned.
(Of course, part of the problem is that emotional abuse is often not considered real abuse – but that’s a subject for another time.)
As for the comic… well, you never secure one human being’s rights by denying them to someone else. Ever.
Thanks, William H. It’s rare that we get a comment at least twice as long as the original post.
Dear William H:
It sounds like you had a nightmarish childhood, and no child deserves that. Your parents failed you terribly.
I would like to point out, gently, that the things your parents did can be done by adults with any, or no, religious ideology. Abusers will use any excuse to abuse. Politics, ethnicity, neighborhood-all kinds of stuff can be the basis of indoctrination and harmful behavior.
We brought our children up in our religion (Judaism) because we believed, and still believe, that it provided a strong moral structure and a history and culture that would help make them into good, caring, responsible people. We always knew that they might not choose to stay Jews as adults. But once the kids are grown, decisions like that become theirs to make. It would be difficult for us if our kids converted, but they would still be our kids and we would still love them and welcome them.
This is just to say that a religious upbringing does not have to be toxic. And a secular upbringing does not guarantee good parenting.
I send my love and healing wishes to you. *hugs*
MM
awesome comment William H., please comment more!
@High Arka: You can read about our commenting policy in our FAQ, but here’s the relevant bit:
We reserve the right to delete your comment if we find it offensive or boring, regardless of your First Amendment right to be a boring, offensive internet jerk. These are, of course, subjective standards.
We welcome different opinions on this site, and you can see from the thread that there was a lot of disagreement over this post, so it was not your anti-circumcision stance that kept your comment from being approved. The fact that you chose to be hostile and arrogant and personally attack another commenter was the problem. I see that you have posted your comment on your own blog instead, so you’ve been able to make your feelings public without us having to provide a platform for them. If you want to comment here in the future, please bear the commenting policy in mind.
I just have to quickly comment on William H’s comment about how it wouldn’t be appropriate for a boy to get his ears pierced. Really? REALLY? I should have stopped reading after that comment.
Great post by the way! I’m linking to it from my blog. Awesome investigation skills.
[...] Very interesting. Check out her excellent blogpost here: When Debating Circumcision Isn’t About Circumcision [...]
[...] FORESKIN MAN! [...]