Tuesday
Aug252009
Should tradition trump reason? Circumcision and more...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
In the past, people did a lot of things that we now know are dangerous or harmful. People drove around in cars without seat belts or car seats for their kids. People drank alcohol while pregnant. People started feeding babies solids at 6 weeks. Schools used harsh physical discipline to keep students in line. Parents dressed their children in fire retardant chemical laced pyjamas. Just last year we were all sipping happily from our BPA-laced plastic bottles and now they are on the verge of being banned in some jurisdictions.
We learn from our mistakes. There isn't a lot of point in dwelling on them. In feeling guilty for past mistakes, especially when we didn't know better. But should we really be continuing to perpetrate those mistakes, over and over and over again in the name of tradition?
Circumcision has always been a hot issue. For a while, infant boys were circumcised routinely. But since 1975 the Canadian Pediatric Society's neonatal circumcision policy has been that there is no medical indication for male neonatal circumcision. In 1971, 67.5 % of boys were circumcised. In 2005, only 9.2% were circumcised (see Canada Circumcision Statistics) -- edited to add: I have since found other statistics that suggest the rate might be around 32% (see page 267 of the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey) as of 2006/2007. It appears as though the first number may reflect circumcisions done in hospitals only, whereas the second number reflects total circumcisions. In Canada, generally neither public health care nor private health care will pay for elective infant circumcision. It is not considered a necessary or advisable medical procedure and parents have to pay for it themselves.
But male circumcision is a tradition, people say. A religious tradition. Something that has been done for thousands of years. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't even make it okay. Traditions are fine and well when they are about singing songs, celebrating holidays, making traditional meals, wearing specific clothing. But when traditions involve physically altering or harming another human being, I think it needs to be questioned. Perhaps the conclusion is that it is okay. But we cannot simply say that something is okay because it is a tradition.
Are any of these acceptable? No. But they are traditions. Rather than blindly continuing a practice because it is a tradition, I think the world's religions have a responsibility to progress, to remove discrimination, to remove harmful practices and to ensure the dignity of all.
Personally, while I recognize that circumcision is a choice that parents have the right to make, I don't think it is a choice that should be made by the parents. I put it in the same category as a piercing or a tattoo. It is a cultural tradition perhaps, but one that should be chosen by the boy when he is old enough to weigh the risks and benefits and make the decision for himself.
You may feel differently. All I ask though is that you think about it. Do your research. Don't just blindly circumcise because it is a tradition.
Want more information? Read:
Side note: On the reason that circumcision came up again today, it appears that the CDC is considering a blanket recommendation that boys be circumcized in the United States due to possible lower HIV transmission rates among circumcised men (which many researchers say are exaggerated claims). Sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face. Why not start with universally mandatory sex education in schools in the United States?
We learn from our mistakes. There isn't a lot of point in dwelling on them. In feeling guilty for past mistakes, especially when we didn't know better. But should we really be continuing to perpetrate those mistakes, over and over and over again in the name of tradition?
Circumcision has always been a hot issue. For a while, infant boys were circumcised routinely. But since 1975 the Canadian Pediatric Society's neonatal circumcision policy has been that there is no medical indication for male neonatal circumcision. In 1971, 67.5 % of boys were circumcised. In 2005, only 9.2% were circumcised (see Canada Circumcision Statistics) -- edited to add: I have since found other statistics that suggest the rate might be around 32% (see page 267 of the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey) as of 2006/2007. It appears as though the first number may reflect circumcisions done in hospitals only, whereas the second number reflects total circumcisions. In Canada, generally neither public health care nor private health care will pay for elective infant circumcision. It is not considered a necessary or advisable medical procedure and parents have to pay for it themselves.
But male circumcision is a tradition, people say. A religious tradition. Something that has been done for thousands of years. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't even make it okay. Traditions are fine and well when they are about singing songs, celebrating holidays, making traditional meals, wearing specific clothing. But when traditions involve physically altering or harming another human being, I think it needs to be questioned. Perhaps the conclusion is that it is okay. But we cannot simply say that something is okay because it is a tradition.
- Female circumcision is tradition
- Stoning people to death is a tradition
- Honour killing is a tradition
- War is a tradition
- Forced marriage is a tradition
- Corporal punishment in schools is a tradition
- Foot binding to stunt girls growth is a tradition
Are any of these acceptable? No. But they are traditions. Rather than blindly continuing a practice because it is a tradition, I think the world's religions have a responsibility to progress, to remove discrimination, to remove harmful practices and to ensure the dignity of all.
Personally, while I recognize that circumcision is a choice that parents have the right to make, I don't think it is a choice that should be made by the parents. I put it in the same category as a piercing or a tattoo. It is a cultural tradition perhaps, but one that should be chosen by the boy when he is old enough to weigh the risks and benefits and make the decision for himself.
You may feel differently. All I ask though is that you think about it. Do your research. Don't just blindly circumcise because it is a tradition.
Want more information? Read:
- The Case Against Circumcision by Dr. Paul M. Fleiss (yes, he is Jewish) as published in Mothering Magazine
- The circumcision post by my friend and fellow blogger Amy from Crunchy Domestic Goddess (also has more resources at the end)
- Doctors Opposing Circumcision: Genital Integrity Policy - fully referenced with scientific studies attacking the false claims about the benefits of circumcision and talking about the risks of circumcision (thank you to @IntactbyDefault for the link)
- Intact America - an organization working to protect babies from unnecessary, risky and painful circumcision surgery.
Side note: On the reason that circumcision came up again today, it appears that the CDC is considering a blanket recommendation that boys be circumcized in the United States due to possible lower HIV transmission rates among circumcised men (which many researchers say are exaggerated claims). Sounds like cutting off the nose to spite the face. Why not start with universally mandatory sex education in schools in the United States?
Reader Comments (144)
Jake and Rashel: I meant in the U.S. (because this is where the CDC recommendation is proposed). Worldwide, certainly it could be the case that women of color are disproportionately affected by the disease. In the U.S., it's still gay men, but women of color are the fastest growing population in new cases.
In either case, the studies cited don't claim that circumcision lowers the HIV rate for either women or gay men. Actually, another recent study showed that men who are circumcised are slightly more likely to infect their partners.
(I blogged on it today.)
Ah, then we agree. I'll have to go over to your blog. :)
I took my first HIV discrimination case in 1989, back when it was called the "gay plague" and few lawyers would represent people with AIDS. My clients were largely middle class white men driven into poverty by illness. My first case in fact was a suit against a health insurance company refusing to cover one of the first effective treatments for an AIDS-related opportunistic infection. Given the ages and nationalities of my clients, chances are good that the vast majority of them were circumcised.
We need education, condoms, and more research on microbicides (see http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/molecular_condom_aids_prevention_women_and_men_wont_even_know ). We don't need more circumcision.
Great post. I would like to add, though, based on comments - don't be so quick to shy away from comparing it to FGM. Even some of the groups working with FGM as their focus see (and are horrified by) the similarities. http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.php
I agree @Leah. I brought this up at an FGM conference for gender lawyers and barely made it out of the room alive. I thought someone was going to hit me - I was told (loudly) I was trivializing FGM by comparing it with male circumcision. Very good to hear not everyone feels that way.
I actually mentioned the link to the cosmetic industry to my husband today. His reaction was disgust and horror. Although we have a little girl and no plans for another pregnancy anytime soon, I'm positive we're in agreement on no circumcision when a baby boy comes into our lives, because if he forgets, I'll just bring up the cosmetics thing again!
I am horrified by male circumcision. I am horrified by female circumcision. I think they are both awful. But I just don't have enough information to feel comfortable comparing the two. However, I do agree that there are a lot of similarities in the attitudes and rationales given for doing both. The link that you provided illustrates that very well.
This was a HUGE discussion during my pregnancy since my partner is Jewish and I am not. Initially I wasn't too bothered by the idea but like Jill once I read up on it and realised the old' it's more hygienic' argument is mostly based on hearsay rather than fact I decided against it. Every time we discussed it my partner would end up shouting - it was such an emotional issue for him. My rationale was that (a) I didn't want to do that to my son, and (b) we had agreed to raise our child in a non-religious household so to start his life off by snipping off his foreskin in a nod to Jewish tradition seemed a bit wrong. But he couldn't get past it so in the end because it was a much bigger issue for him than for me I told him he could decide - and that if he wanted to do it he'd be the one taking him to the doctor!
So anyway, it was never mentioned again until his Jewish parents came to stay and inevitably raised the question. My partner explained that as I had given him the freedom to make the choice he didn't feel he could take away my freedom to choose not to have it done. Score! He's taken some flack from it from his family but no worse than choosing to be with a non-Jew in the first place!
I am so glad we didn't do it. It is one of those things that people have a knee jerk reaction to because, as you say, it's embedded in cultural or religious traditions. This was very clear from the way my partner could not discuss this without getting angry for such a long time. It brought up a lot of stuff for him and it was hard to get past that and simply ask himself why we were going to have it done.
Just a note about circumcising later for "medical reasons": my third son had a number of UTIs in his first year. After several test determined that there was nothing wrong, the "last resort" was circumcision. Our pediatrician told us that circumcised boys have *slightly* lower UTI rates *in their first year* and that after the age of one there is no difference (I never researched these stats myself, this is just what the pedatrician told me).
At the time my son was 8 months old and there was NO WAY I was going to permanently disfigure my son for "slightly" lower rates for a few months (until he turned one) and I am shocked that this reasoning is used to justify circumcision. Amazingly, this is a standard recommendation for boys who have unexplained UTIs.
Our son never had another UTI after about 8 months and is still intact, along with his two brothers.
Sort of like formula being a standard recommendation for breastfeeding difficulties. Or induction being a standard recommendation for a pregnancy that goes longer than X weeks.
my experience is almost identical to Keelie's - DH is jewish, i'm not. we are not planning on raising our children in any religion. they can choose to convert to judaism when they are adults, and our son can choose circumcision at that time if it is important to him.
after much discussion in our household about circumcision i do still have some sympathy for those who do it for religious reasons - and with an experienced mohel. i am sure it's still traumatic for the baby, and of course leaves him bereft of some foreskin for the rest of his life, but everything i've heard about brises sounds much kinder and gentler than the videos i've seen of it done in hospital. i acknowledge that for some people the compacts of their religion are so strong that they want to mark it on the body... in my researching, i found that the more radical style of circumcision done among jews now is a reaction to jews in ancient times trying to pass as gentiles due to very minor circumcisions - and considering what horrors jews have been subjected to as a people i can see how the thought of accepting that your child could be divorced from his history and tradition and pass as a gentile is pretty repulsive, too.
so i think i have some sense of the cultural context that traditional jewish infant circumcision happens in, but i still can't accept that permanent alteration of an infant's body when there is no medical reason and the child gets no say in the matter. i'd like to think if i were jewish and having a baby boy i would mark the occasion with a ceremony of dedication to my religion and welcoming my child into it, but leave the permanent body alteration up to the choice of my child when he reached adulthood. i feel the same about HIV prevention, too, since there are other good options for preventing and reducing the risk. just to bring up another hot-button topic, i have chosen some vaccinations for my kids, and i know those are lifelong choices i've made for their bodies that may or may not have medical benefit, but the alternatives are not as clear cut to me, pardon the pun! so i've chosen vaccination in a number of cases.
Loss of penis is not a side effect of circumcision. Using David Reimer as an argument against circumcision is patently dishonest and disrespectful of the man, his family and what they had to live through.
Reimer lost most of his penis after the doctors performing the operation on him used a new instrument NOT intended for such purpose. Loss of the "remnants" were largely due to the influence at the time of Dr Money, whose "research" led him to believe that sexual identity/gender was not in fact biological, but rather social.
Reimer's tragic life was a result of medical incompetence, not circumcision itself.
My son is currently waiting for a second (yes, second) circumcision, so I am more than aware that there are more serious side effects that "a bit of pain" (which is a gross misrepresentation anyway, even with anesthetics), but I think the debate should be kept at an honest level, with none of the scare tactics. Unless we all agree that tradition constitute a well thought-out argument.
Excellent post on a very hot subject. The maternity ward that I work does do circs if parents want to pay the fee and the appropriate person is available to do the slicing. In my 3.5 years there I have been around for 2 circs. Apparently our 'rates' of circs have dropped at our hospital. Both of the ones I was around for were so that the baby would match his father.
One of the pediatricians was trying to discuss her thoughts again circs with a family. Her approach was to sort of shame them but I found her point interesting. She said that when the boy grew up and was changing with his buddies in the locker room he would look like the odd man out with no foreskin. Did they want their child to be to be the odd one out and look different cause circs were on their way out.
I think slowly circumcision will fade out. Well, I hope so at least.
@Mama in the City: Curious...which country are you in?
@Marie: While I don't think one needs to mention David Reimer in order to make a case against circumcision, I do think it illustrates the risk that comes with any medical procedure. Something could go wrong in any case. You don't know how competent the doctor is. Whether the doctor got enough sleep the night before. Whether the doctor is dealing with something in his or her personal life that resulted in him/her using/taking something that could impair his/her judgment. Every single medical procedure has risks because doctors are human and humans make mistakes. So to go through a medical procedure for purely traditional or cosmetic reasons just seems like a stupid risk to me.
I need time to read through the comments but for starters, a question:
My hospital had a form that included one of the benefits of circumcision being a reduced risk of cancer. Any thoughts on this?
You said in one of your answers you do not feel pro-circumcision studies met your standards but if there are studies legitimate enough for hospitals to refer to them, I think they are worth including and then, if you can/wish to, refuting.
I have researched the penile cancer risk, and it is negligible. The risk of penile cancer is less than the risk of BREAST CANCER TO MEN.
The rate of penile cancer is .2 percent. The rate of UTIs in boys is 2 percent, and that is only in the first year. I wrote about many of the supposed medical "benefits" here:
http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/02/23/11-reasons-not-to-circumcise/
There is no reason a hospital or doctor should give you a medical reason to circumcise, especially as the AAP said the "Benefits are not sufficient" to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
Let's let our boys go through the feat of being born without having immediate surgery, shall we?
http://blog.thenatureschild.com/2009/08/circumcision-what-will-cdc-say.html
@Candace: I didn't include them because I do not have the medical expertise to refute them. However, one of the links that I did provide was to the Genital Integrity Policy of Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Their policy includes a page on the alleged medical benefits of circumcision and they refute each of them in turn, explain where those ideas came from, and provide evidence to support their claims (all referenced).
Here is the link to that specific page of their policy, which includes the cancer issue: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement03.html
I enjoyed this post but I must admit that I enjoyed reading the comments even more! (sorry Annie!)
@bananaramafoFin
No need to apologize Rosanna. I write with the intent of inspiring discussion and love it when the comments turn into an interesting conversation.
I also wish more people would think about Mama in the City has said. 30 years ago it was the norm for males to be cut at birth and the rare child who was intact was often teased and made fun of in the school locker room for being different. In the last 10 years or so (at least in Canada), as circ rates have dropped so that now the majority of born-males are intact, it will be the circ's boys who are going to be teased. Fathers may want their boys to look like them but they will no longer look like their peers.
Exactly! How many kids do you know anyways that want to look like their parents?? By the time they are old enough to care, I think most would prefer to look nothing at all like their parents!
I made the "but he won't look like his father" observation to my circ'ed non-Jewish mate prior to our first son's birth. Suffice it to say my kids' father was the first person I heard call male circumcision "genital mutilation" - he was far better educated on this pre-kids than I was. As soon as I saw what little boy penises look like, I had to laugh at ever having been concerned about this. It was many many years before my boys considered that their penises could look like daddy's and now they think daddy's looks odd. The first time my then-three year old saw a child's circ'ed penis (his best friend was having a diaper change) he screamed, "Who cut his penis off!" An intact penis is not such an odd thing to see for boys of my kids' generation (ages 9, 12, and 15), even in the U.S. When my eldest needed one of those "how you're body is changing" books for adolescents, I was pleasantly surprised that the book's assumption was that penises were intact and had a sidebar for those who had been circ'ed.
@phdinparenting
Well, I am in Vancouver Canada!
Good point! And how many years will it be before a child has a penis that looks like dad's, like an adult's anyway?
I guess I lucked out - my children's father is intact. In fact, almost every man I knew in the city of Guelph was intact. Must be in the water ...
I thought you probably were from Canada or somewhere outside the United States. I would have been very impressed if you worked at a US hospital and saw so few circumcisions.
You know why fewer boys are circumcised in Canada? It must be that damned national health care and the crazy waiting times. Y'all could just come down here to get those cut off...like you supposedly do for everything else! ;)
Doesn't it get tiring to watch America's antics?
When I had my son's tongue tie clipped the doctor asked if I wanted anything else clipped while I was there. I said "no thank you" and I am very glad I did. Turns out he botched up the tongue tie clipping and we had to have it redone 7 weeks later. Wouldn't have been impressed if he had botched up my son's penis.
I respect your opinion but beg to differ on the point that it is considered elective and not medically necessary by the government, therefore this supports your argument that it is not required (paraphrasing you I know). See the very recent arguments in Ontario re: in vitro. That has not been typically covered and it now being reconsidered very seriously. I just want to underscore that simply because our health care system doesn't fund something, that should not be seen as an endorsement as to whether it is right/wrong or necessary or not. Other very important medical devices like birth control pills, IUDs etc. are also not covered which doesn't make too much sense either.
Personally, after a lot of thought and discussion, we did circumcise. I was persuaded by the HIV argument and thought that even if there was a small chance of preventing my son from getting or spreading HIV, I should make that decision.
Ranae:
Routine circumcision is not medically necessary. If a problem occurs and circumcision is deemed to be the answer, I think it should be covered. I also believe that in vitro should be covered in the case of a woman that is not able to conceive without it. But I wouldn't recommend routine in vitro for all women because some women have trouble getting pregnant. I just don't see the parallel at all. Infertility results from a disability. Treatment for that disability should be covered.
With regards to birth control, I live in Quebec and it is covered under the provincial drug plan. Anything that isn't covered under the provincial health plan would be covered under my private insurance that I use to top up what the government provides. I am glad that it is covered. There is a clear medical benefit to birth control, unlike circumcision.
So, the place that I work 2 people do circs. It used to be 3. 1 OB, 2 GP's. One day the GP did such a botch job on a newborns penis that she was left shaking and said she would never do another circ ever again and she never did. Who knows how the penis is now. Still botched probably.
In Ontario, birth control pills and all prescriptions are covered under the Ontario Drug Plan, on an income basis. Fill out a form, and from that point on, you just show your OHIP card to get free prescriptions. The deductible varies depending on income. 25 K per yr? everything is covered. 150K per year, you pay the first 10 grand of prescriptions, except for catastrophic cancer drugs, etc...
As to the comparison to in vitro? Ontario did cover it for years, fully funded it, drugs and all, until 1990, when it was delisted for budget reasons except for women with blocked tubes. It was never considered medically unnecessary.
I could really get infuriated at the comparison, actually. But I'm gonna hold back for now.
More people need to hear what really goes on - Thank you for giving us behind-the-scenes side-effects (ie. botched circ's) Mama in the City.
I was not really arguing that foreskin wasn't needed. It was supposed to be a tongue in cheek comment, albeit a poorly written one on my part. We need an emoticon for "tongue in cheek". My husband made the decision to circumcise our son based on his personal experiences with the issue. It is hard to swallow that being compared to other traditions, no matter how loosely compared.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO POST THIS BLOG ENTRY!!!
I am sorry for shouting but I am, on behalf of all boys whose parents choose to mutilate their genitals without consent, eternally grateful that you put into words the thoughts that I repeat over and over and over again in my prenatal classes.
One poster suggested it doesn't hurt. Words like that read like wishful thinking and a guilty conscience to me.
Our children need to know that we love them, care for them and will PROTECT THEM FROM HARM! When we remove body parts because we don't think they are esthetically pleasing to look at or in the name of some "higher power" who might pass judgment on them someday then that is SICK! How can our children learn to trust us and feel safe with us when we breech that sacred connection within hours of their birth?
Ear lobes are not cartilage, they're soft flesh. Not to mention that the majority of people who pierce their babies'/young children's ears have it done with piercing guns which are totally inappropriate for piercing holes in skin and are bloody painful. I am as against piercing children's ears as I am against circumcision (luckily I live in the UK where it's the circumcised penis which is 'weird' and 'other') - they are both the causing of unnecessary pain to a human being who has not given informed consent for the procedure, and should be done away with.
My MIL left her boys intact in a time when circumcision was routine, and she breastfed all her kids too even though formula was promoted as healthier. Just wanted to make a shout out to my MIL who for some reason never considered herself all that radical.
Simply put, medical or religious or personal views otherwise, the baby boy was born with a foreskin for a reason. That's the way his genitals are supposed to be.
How come we never think twice about a baby girl's genitals? All that "flappy skin" there that has to be cleaned all the time. There isn't any reason to have labia, right? Might as well lop them off to make things look less flappy, eh? Of course not. The labia are there for a reason.
So why do we do that to baby boys? Their foreskin protects the penis, just like the outer and inner labia protects the vagina. It is like having an eye without an eyelid. There is a reason for the foreskin.
People say it is like tonsils and appendixes; they're useless and have no medical or health benefits. But yet we're born with them so they're there for a reason. How come don't we just remove the tonsils and appendixes of all babies? Same principles.
I've never understood any reasons or rationale for circumcision on baby boys. It is a purely cosmetic thing, and all the studies being done on it saying it prevents HIV, STDs, cancer, etc., have you noticed where they're doing the research and the sexual activities of the men in the study? They never seem to do those studies in Canada, Scandinavia, Japan, China, or Australia. It is like saying if all women take birth control pills they will have less chance of getting ovarian cancer, but then factor in other health risks like increased risk of breast cancer or strokes and really, it doesn't benefit one way or another.
Another thing, they never point the finger at the women, it is always the guy's fault regarding HIV and STDs. Anyone ever stop and think the vaginal environment has more bacteria than the mouth? When it comes down to it, safer sex is what prevents HIV and STDs, plus less sex partners, not the lack of a foreskin.
Circumcision should be a cosmetic procedure like breast augmentation, face lifts, tattoos, and genital piercings. Let the boy decide when he's reached the age of majority whether he wants to fiddle with his penis.
Ok I only read about half way through the comment's so I don't know if I'm rehashing MPOV but here it goes.
There is only one real reason to preform a circumcision. Religious.
-runs off to find links to articles supporting my POV-
-google-
-huh?-
-no way-
But wait... now I owe you big. I was completely ignorant. I guess there was a covenant that called for the mandatory circumcision of all male children but I just learned that the covenant was made null and void when Christ came. In fact if you have your son circumcised you are blocking him from god's grace. (If I'm reading right)
I always assumed that when I had my children it was obviously a no brainer. I wanted to keep that covenant with god... now I believe I will be rethinking that decision seriously.
Thank you for the eye opener.
[...] Should tradition trump reason [...]
Just something to think about based on your "tweet" from yesterday. Circumcision is not "simply" about TRADITION for Jewish people, it's about IDENTITY. You need to understand that before making claims about barbarism, etc. You can't be a pHd in everything. This is very offensive.
Carly: As is female circumcision for the cultures that practice that.
I used to be a regular reader/twitter follower. I'm totally turned off right now. You have no idea what you're talking about. No hard feelings. Say what you want to say.
Unlike female circumcision, Jewish/circumcised men, are not pleading for help and action. VERY different.
That's but one of MANY differences between the two practices, of course. I'm done now. Have a nice life.
I'm sorry to hear that Carly. I believe that standing up for issues I feel are important is more important than pleasing everyone all the time. Unfortunately, that does mean that people get offended or turned off sometimes.
I think people like Carly who use religion as a way to explain male genital mutilation should re-read the original Qur'an / Bible / Torah. For example, in the Qur'an there is no mention that all women must wear the hijab or burka or not be educated or allowed to drive or this or that. I am positive at the start of civilization and writing down the "laws and doctrines" of the world circumcision was not practiced until some old men decided it was a fabulous way to cause undue pain to males while ensuring females continued to be subservient to males. Religion doctrines have been misconstrued over and over, and circumcision is just one of many mistakes done in the name of religion.
Annie,
I understand what you are saying and if we weren't Jewish I would probably agree with you. BUT since we are Jewish we felt that we had little choice in the matter because without circumcision our son would not be considered a Jew and under the circumstances it was more important that he had the choice to embrace, connect or ignore our religion/ethnicity then the circumcision. We are not religious in slightest but we are still part of a group of people that have been persecuted, and killed for our religion and the only way to stand up against persistent anti-semitism is to stand up and say I am Jewish. So, while my husband and I always try to question tradition and we did not circumcise without considerable thought (and we did not do it at a Bris as a celebration but quietly at the hospital) we did it so that our sons would feel part of a group that is larger than themselves. Hopefully, by the time they have children the laws of circumcision will be revamped in Judiasm as well. But we are a "turtleneck" free house...
Emma:
Is there any place in Judaism for Jews to take a stand and insist on a different, more humane way of defining who is a Jew and who isn't? I don't understand why any community would consider non-medical circumcision to be an acceptable practice, but I especially do not understand why a group of people that has been persecuted and killed would accept the continuation of a ritual that involves harming their members. You mention your hope that the laws of circumcision will be revamped in Judaism, but what would the process be for making that happen? Would it not be an increasing number of Jews standing up and saying we will not do this and we will not accept you telling us that we are not Jews because we refused to do it? This is an honest question. I don't understand how things get changed in religion, but in general in life I'm not one to sit around and hope for change. I try to push for it.
That is a good point and I'm glad that you are such a strong advocate for change. But we didn't feel that we could ask the boys to take on the burden of being advocates for change. We can push for change on behalf of future generations but if (and I say this with dread) either of the boys wanted to be religious then circumcision would be a pre-requisite. (hmm...when I say it like that maybe it was the wrong decision) But if they are not defined as Jewish by the general consensus -- it could impact who they could marry, if they wanted to move to Israel etc., and more importantly their general sense of self-definition within a Jewish family and culture. It would be making a decision for them about who they are and given our history we decided that we wanted them to be defined as Jewish without a question mark. And while I undestand your point that we made a decision about mutilation for them instead, I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Judaism is complex, that is for sure. Onliest thing I know about it is that there are a lot of schools of practice and belief, but that the pull of orthodoxy is strong-- in any religion, there is a tendency for the "liberal" branch to become sloppy and decadent, which makes people pull back in the direction of the more "fundamentalist" branch. And I get the impression that that is what has happened with both Judaism and Christianity in the last three decades.
But there are more North Koreans than Jews on the planet, so I have no idea why people care so much about them. Er, relatively speaking, of course. Circumcision is bad, I suppose, but much less bad than mass starvation, say.
But most Americans don't circ for religious reasons; it's a fairly superficial kind of cultural issue. Most of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers weren't cut, most of our husbands were, many of our sons aren't, and more of our grandsons won't be, either. Verily, it is a blip on our collective cultural radar.
I've talked a few people out of it by dispassionately explaining that the rates are dropping fastest among our most-educated and affluent classes. Status-striving is a serious motivator. Who wants your kid's genitals to reveal his low-rent origins? ;)