Re: Circumcision Male vs Female and Religion
Just regarding the previous post about circumcising being banned. Some people mentioned hygeine aside, there is the religious aspect. What about religions that promote female circumcision? We view this as barbaric, yet some forms of Islam promote it, as well as some Etheopian jews, and various African tribes still practice.
Just playing devil's advocate, why is one religion's ceremonies viewed as more horrific then others when both are circumcisions, just different sexes? If you say it is because one is less invasive and painful than the other I understand. However some doctors are doing sterile FGM (female genital mutilation - let's call it what it is), there is even a new procedure that is basically the same as male cir, it's where they take off the clitoral hood and that appeases the family but doesn't have the lifelong repercussions of the traditional FGM.
I am against both circumcisions and DH is not circumcised (he's from Norway and doesn't know of any Norweigan's that do it). When I mentioned it to my MIL (when we didn't know if we were having a girl or boy) she thought it sounded crazy.
Re: Re: Circumcision Male vs Female and Religion
Bar tab = $156,000, Bus to Foxwoods = $0, Puking in the Stanley Cup = Priceless
Wow. Just wow. That's some hell of a devil's advocate you're playing.
I do not know anything about Ethiopians but in Judaism, there is NO female circumcision and it shouldn't, IMO, be compared to the religious ritual called a Bris (male circumcision).
https://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm
I could not adequately argue FOR Brit Milah and how important it is to my faith. But I can link an article from aish.com which goes into the many reasons FOR circumcision (a Bris) and goes into the biblical history.
https://www.aish.com/jl/l/48959461.html
Bronx Zoo: Summer 2013
To read my blog, click on the giraffe pic below!
This
I will admit I don't know the religious significance for male cir, and I do understand what you all are saying about the the reasoning behind the female version. I just think if you put religion as an argument for it, you kind of have to consider it from all angles. FGM is so embedded with alot of cultural and religious significance for some people in other parts of the world, however wacked and wrong that is.
I think there is nothing wrong with choosing to have your boy circumcised, just not a choice I would ever make. What about the studies that show uncir experience more sexual pleasure, is that a factor at all?
Oh and the Jewish people of Etheopia who practice FGM ar definitely not in mainstreem judism.
I agree with what you are saying. Just be aware there is a movement of doctors trying to perform female circs where just the clitoral hood is removed and it is done in a hospital (wibiotics and anethesia). One one hand, yes it is better then a crazy person with a 10 year old razor blade in a hut holding down a terrorized girl. On the other hand, and scariest to me, is this new movement to legitimize female circumcision.
My DH's aunt is a women's health advocate with the Norweigan Association for the Rights of Women. She says the largest argument against banning FGM is that it would be "ethnocentric". It's almost laughable that the pendulum has swung so far the other way that groups like that have to be careful not offend cultures that practice it still. Crazy!
My husband has no problem experiencing sexual pleasure. However; if you were to cut my clit off brutally, not in a hospital by a doctor, I would not be able to. There are a great deal of women who feel pleasure only through clitoral stimulation. That is completely gone for them. It's not less - it's none.
Have you every watched a documentary on female mutilation? It's just as bad as backyard abortions.
YOU think it's a form of mutilation. I do not. I believe it is part of the covenant between the Jewish people and G-d.
You are certainly entitled to NOT circumcise a baby boy and personally be against it. But those who do feel that circumcision (male only) is an integral part of their religion should not be made to stop this because someone else disagrees. The religious reasons do legitimize the practice and there shouldn't be laws banning it (re: other topic).
IMO a lot of these posts are very anti-Semitic in nature.
All of that being said, I am extremely against cultures who demean or mutilate women those practices should not be compared to a Bris.
Bronx Zoo: Summer 2013
To read my blog, click on the giraffe pic below!
There is no medical reason to circumcise a boy either. Studies have proven there is no medical reason for circumcising as a baby (when boys are older, if there is a reason then that's different). My brother is not circumcised and said he would never do it. Most of his friends are not either. DH is, but would never do it. Canadian Pediatric Society advises against it, and it is considered plastic/elective/cosmetic surgery and not covered by OHIP/provincial healthcare or insurance companies. Both are barbaric.
This is based on the studies you have researched. I have also done my research and they do have valid medical reasons.
I am at work, but here is the quickest link that shows the benefits from infants to elderly men. It is a quick link and I haven't done my research on this exact article, but it is very similar to the research done when I had LO.
https://www.medicirc.org/
The difference between female mutilation and male curcumcision is still an apples to oranges comparison to me. For men it's almost cosmetic like an ear pearcing. For women it's taking off the whole ear.
CPS doesn't advise against it, rather they don't recommend routine circumcision. There is a difference in those statements. They can't find enough evidence to recommend all males to be circumcised at birth, but leave it up to individual parents to decide for themselves.
FGM and male circumcision are not comparable. But, I get what you are saying (OP) about condoning one cultural/religious rite, but not another. These are not superficial questions/thoughts, and I suspect I'll be doing quite a lot of reading on this stuff later
Um, rude much? And no, my research is not biased. Just because it finds a different outcome than yours, doesn't mean it is biased. The CPS doesn't recommend it (which is preety much the same as recommending against it, just not stated as bluntly). And, the research I have done in the past, indicates that those studies that show circumcision = lower correlation with STDs didn't take other factors into consideration (condom use, socio-economic status, access to clean water etc - many studies were done in poor villages in Africa). So, many of those studies were set up to be biased. ywia.
I'm sorry but I hate this comparison. A bris is a big deal in my religion. Just as a baptism is in Christianity. Are you not "forcing your religion" on your child when you baptize them? I agree with Robyn. Your argument is Anti-Semetic and insulting. It seems like a "my religion is better than yours" argument because you don't practice the "barbaric" things that we do. I think you should keep your opinion to yourself.
My 365 Blog
I didn't read the responses, but often it is done when they are 4-5. So not teens.
Can I pull the "all my friends are Jewish" argument before I say what I'm going to say?
only half kidding
But seriously. You can hardly compare a baptism which isn't permanently scaring to a medical procedure (even if done by a religious figure) which is.
That being said, I don't judge those who do so because so their faith.
Lol.
I'm not comparing it in terms of procedures. I'm comparing it in terms of forcing a religion on a child and the importance of the ceremony in that religion.
My 365 Blog
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like my religious views are being demeaned/attacked in some way. A Brit Milah (Bris) should not be compared to female mutilation.
Bronx Zoo: Summer 2013
To read my blog, click on the giraffe pic below!
I'm not Jewish and I'm offended. I don't have much to add to the argument, just in agreement with the pp's that say these two things should not be compared.
Look, I am neutral on the subject of routine male circ. But it is an entirely false analogy to compare it to female circ for reasons I have stated that you ignored, and it is therefore extremely rude to call Jews barbarians, which you absolutely implied. My other main assertion in this argument is that you said definitively "no" health reason in an infant, and I gave one very clear and indisputable health reason in infants, and as for the adult circ African studies, it is acknowledged as a potential (not gospel) health benefit, so to say there are NO health reasons is inaccurate and the reason I called your research biased and incomplete.
To add to this: CPS clearly states that the benefits and risks of circumcision are evenly matched, therefore no recommendation to do routine infant circumcisions is made. Key point here: there are benefits to circumcision (possible health reasons), they just do not outweigh the risks.
btw: I'm neither pro/anti circ.
um, no. My son had a bris for conversion, and that practice was not even remotely barbaric. it was a beautiful ceremony where he was accepted in the Jewish community. It is a ceremony deeply rooted in tradition, and was full of meaning for my husband and his family. My 'barbaric' FIL held him, as the mohel quickly and carefully circumcised him, before passing him to my 'barbaric' husband, and then to each member of the family in turn, symbolizing his place in our family, in our community. Our 'barbaric' rabbi said a lovely prayer and our 'barbaric' cantor sang a song that still makes me tear up.
I cannot even fathom a warped brain thinking that this was synonomous with a female circ, done for the express reason to limit sexual pleasure.
I am not Jewish, but you are clearly anti-semitic.
I am extremely anti circ for either genders except for religious regions. I do have a problem though with the WAY the female is circumcised in some of the African cultures....It's very barbaric and done to much older to the girls. They remember it and it isn't done always by choice (neither is most male circs) but in this case the females are old enough to speak for themselves. Also the effects of their circ literally leaves them unable to enjoy sex and leaves them with a lot of emotional and mental trauma....It's generally not the same with men but there are always the few exceptions
And I agree with Pirsquared comparing a circ to a baptism is redic but FYI Mormons baptize at the age of 8 and they are completely explained what baptism means and what it entails and the children are asked if they are willing to go through with it. Nothing is done forcefully or without their consent/approval and knowledge. I would love it if every religion practices this...I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing but I understand that it never will be like that.
I have to say, I don't think the OP's question was anti-semitic at all. Health reasons aside, there are groups of people all over the world that perform circumcisions for religious reasons.
The question the OP posed, was...why then is it acceptable for males and not females in terms of religious faith?
Do not get me wrong. I know and get that female circumcision is barbaric and horrifying and I feel blessed not to have been born in a culture that supports that. I also get the VAST differences between the two circumcisions.
HOWEVER --- if you use religion as an explanation as to why it should be legal for male circumcision, then why is that EXACT explanation not good enough for female circumcision?
I think it's a fair question and world-wide, it should be addressed (although it is largely a moot point here in the U.S.A -- although there are some immigrant groups who still practice this in the USA, believe it or not).
Let me be clear about something: I am a Christian with a Jewish background. Acccording to Jewish law, I am considered a Jew (my mother's grandmother on my mother's side was jewish). I was brought up with some jewish traditions, and as a reader and believer of the Bible, I am aware of God's law in regards to male circumcision. I believe parents have the right to circumcize their male child as a choice (regardless of reason). If I have a son, I will choose to circumcize my child, as it is my husband's choice (and my decision to leave it up to him).
BUT -- given all that, I think a rational and intelligent discussion on the line between religious beliefs (any of them) and what is generally considered "wrong" is a useful and reasonable discussion.
People who want to sway others to their side of an argument need to realize that trying to do so by being ridiculous just makes your whole position look inane.
Argue that circumcision isn't necessary. Fine. Argue that it's too often done without thought. Fine. Say not enough people are educated about a decision they make for non-religious, non-medical reasons. Gotcha. I'll even
But once you start to compare it to a brutalizing practiced forced on women in countries where women are less important than livestock and rape is more common and less questioned than domestic violence is in the US? That's when I stop listening to everything you're saying. Everything. I don't care what merit your argument may have had before, you are now just a crazy person with a "Repent! The End is Nigh!" sign railing at people in the park. You are someone sending forwards about how "OMG! Barack Obama isn't even an AMERICAN!" You're a tinfoil hat-wearing nutjob warning about how the government is putting listening devices in our dental work.
If you believe in your argument enough that you want people to listen to it, have more respect for what you are saying.
It was not the OP that was anti-semitic, it was the blanket barbaric statement
Oh. oops. My bad.
This question was repeatedly answered here. What part of it are you not understanding?
What if it was made illegal with a religious exemption? (which I would imagine this law would have to include eventually anyway. I can't imagine it would get past the SC on that one)
I'm not advocating that, but would most people in this post then be ok with it? (since everyone seems to be up in arms about the religious part)
This thread is full of presumptions about FGM and the people who do FGM which are culturally insensitive and hypocritical. Not all FGM is done to harm women, many people believe they are protecting their daughter from many negative things and are being loving responsible parents by grooming her genitals to conform to societal expectations. These girls would be harmed more by the social prejudice against uncircumcised women than they are by the insignificant cutting of a little bit of extra genital anatomy she will never miss. Don't try to tell those women they are sexually damaged, they won't believe you. They think they are cleaner, more beautiful and better off by being in the status quo- their feelings about their own circumcision and their desire to give that same benefit to their daughter is no different than an American man's approach. This dynamic is identical to the situation in the USA where parents feel they must circumcise their son to make him socially acceptable, to avoid teasing, to make him sexually desirable and to conform to the expectations of other people who have had this done to them. Children born in any society which harbors deeply ingrained beliefs against the natural human body need protection, it does not matter if they are male or female. The degree of cutting and the motivation of the people is not taken into consideration in the protection offered to females, yet the degree of cutting and the motivation is utterly ignored in terms of male genital cutting. Many Muslim people believe that FGM is an uplifting matter of hygiene- it is not done to oppress women but to elevate them. If you oppose FGM, does that make you a hater of Muslim people?
The vast majority of FGM is not the most extreme version used here to dismiss any parallel. Likewise, the many men (circumcised in similar conditions to the most severe forms of FGM) lose their lives or their penises to overwhelming bloodloss or infection. Every year in South Africa many young men die in the prime of their life and even more lose their entire penis during the Xosha circumcision season. Refusing to acknowledge the victims of cultural cutting because of their gender is sexist.
https://www.ecdoh.gov.za/press_releases.asp?keywords=Initiation%20school
https://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=179486
Here is a female circumcision in a medical setting (in the USA this would be illegal- females are protected from all cutting, even nicks and pinpricks to draw ceremonial blood):
https://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
Here is a male circumcision in a ritual setting (males not protected in the USA):
https://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DdYLeVsafzfY%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded
This video is amazing, the mohel breaks the foreskin adhesions free from the glans with a violent tug outward, slashes off the foreskin so fast you can hardly see it happen, he sucks the wound using a glass tube (this is a modern device but some mohels are still doing this blood sucking by mouth- babies have died from contracting herpes and TB because of this) he then pushes back the raw edge of the cut foreskin to join the raw edge of the cut shaft skin- his ungloved hands fumble quickly with the slippery bloody skin sleeves- he quickly applies a bandage to hold the two raw edges together without observing for bleeding (babies have died from blood loss and infection) and rediapers the infant- all this in under ONE MINUTE.
If this was a female child, I don't care how loud they were praying over the sound of her cries, I think you would call this a violent crime against a child- not "a beautiful ritual" You may think that questioning this is anti-semitic... I think NOT questioning this is sexist.