The c-word.
January 26, 2009So in this latest Momversation video, I seem to be the lone parent who delighted in the mutilation of her child.
I must say, in the pre-edited footage Maggie was pretty neutral on the topic—she basically said she didn't want to circumcise her son, but she could see the arguments either way. In the editing process she turned all anti-circumcision, and as a result it looks like I'm being ganged up on. Which works for me, because now I get the sympathy vote. Also, weirdly, they made it look like I've got a shirt on. Computer magic!
This was a particularly difficult topic for me, because in addition to anticipating the hate mail I would receive (anti-circumcision crusaders, I've found, really want to make other people feel terrible about their decisions), I was defending a stance that's sort of, well, not mine. As I say in the video, Scott felt really strongly that his son should be circumcised, and I agreed on that grounds. Of course if I were really violently opposed I would have put up more of a fight, but neither was I entirely gung ho on the procedure. So being put in a position to defend circumcision feels odd, to say the least.
Maggie made a great point in the original footage; basically she said, why do we feel that in order for our opinion to be right, we have to make sure that everyone who feels differently is wrong? And I think that pretty much sums up the fights about co-sleeping and breastfeeding and circumcision and crying it out and pretty much every single topic in these tiresome, endless mommy wars. In the end, we each do what we think is best for our families. What place does anyone else have to pass judgment?
Reader Comments (273)
I think when one partner has a strong preference that they care deeply about, you respect them. That's just what you do. And it would be nice if people extended that respect to other parents, no?
Sigh.
Excellently put. The Mommy wars make me sad. For all of us.
i am consistently amazed by all the vitriol surrounding this issue, and am tired of all the judgement-passing by the ones who call themselves 'intactivists.' SERIOUSLY. it's amazing.
I'm sure I'm supposed to say something intelligent about circumcision, but I really don't have anything to say. I just totally love your hair.
Long time reader, first time poster. I am truly upset by the way that some posters (Jane) handled this topic.
Ditto all the positive things people had to say. You made a perfectly valid choice that you should never have to defend. (And, btw, the exact same choice I would have made if my daughter had been a boy).
I really like momversations, but I hope that it will continue to explore issues in a way that is more a discussion, rather than a criticism, of different perspectives.
Love your blog! Keep up the fabulous work!
There's so many bigger things we can mess up on as parents, that discussing a little itty bitty piece of foreskin is a waste of time.
Thanks, Alice.
Ultimately, I left this up to my husband, and he chose not to do it. I support that decision wholeheartedly, and would have made the same decision myself.
I'm sort of glad we're starting to get away from the idea of removing body parts, but that's just me. I don't know -- I figure nature made him a certain way and I prefer not to mess with that. If the kid grows up and wants a circ, I will support him. I'll also support him if he pierces his foreskin for fun.
But maybe he won't choose to tell me about that last thing.
BTW, I LOVE that she "flounced". That was awesome. As was the door hitting her on the ass as she went.
Love ya, Alice!
But that's the decision we made. I wouldn't even consider questioning someone else's decision - it's not my kid.
For me, it's like immunisation. It's unpleasant, there's a slight possibility of complications, but it provides protection against things I don't want my kid to get. And I really do just laugh at those who say they'll teach their son to clean it and not have sex with skanky girls. Seriously people, that's all good when they're four, but let me know how that works for you when they're in college.
And we do all know that STD's are on the rise don't we? And that being circumcised reduces the risk of getting an STD as well as passing it on to someone else. The World Health Organisation thinks all boys should be circumcised to help prevent future epidemics.
Personally, I understand why people don't want to circumcise their sons. They have valid reasons and I respect their choices. But I hate it when they completely disregard the entirely valid reasons to circumcise. Like you said, one side doesn't have to be wrong because the other is right.
P.S. You look great by the way.
The forms of female circumcision practiced in places like Malaysia and Egypt are nothing like what happens in Somalia. That is way worse than male circumcision. In many countries though, female circumcision is performed by surgeons in operating theatres, not much gets removed, and there's actually less damage than the usual form of male circumcision.
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Extreme forms too. Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in US medical literature up until the 1950's. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield covered clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Innocence-Genital-Mutilation-U-S/dp/1878411047/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225215175&sr=8-3
The "current" thinking about male circumcision is strongly influenced by the fact the most of the doctors doing the studies are circumcised themselves, so they think it's normal. If no-one had ever been circumcised, there's no way people would go looking for reasons to defend it. People tend to think that the foreskin is a bit like an earlobe, when in fact the inner foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, much more sensitive than the glans.
If people think HIV is a reason for male circumcision, then they should have their daughters cut too, as female circumcision seems to make more of a difference in Africa. Male circumcision doesn't actually work that well or else there wouldn't be six African countries where the circumcised men are more likely to be HIV+ than intact men.
If circumcision is such a great idea, why are so many circumcised men choosing not to have their sons cut?
drops in male circumcision:USA: from 90% to 57%Canada: from 47% to 14%UK: from 35% to about 4% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)South America and Europe: never above 5%
Almost all the men in Europe and South America are intact, and they're not exactly queuing up to get circumcised. Given the choice 98-99% of men don't get circumcised, so why should the choice be taken away from them? It's their body after all.
It also sort of made me not like Daphne very much. But maybe I'm just jealous of her ability to be so sure about an issue that listening and thoughtfully considering the other side as experienced by someone who has been there before is unnecessary. Of course, it's entirely possible that she was edited that way too, and now I'm the judgmental one.
However, your hair did indeed look cute, and Henry seems like a delightful child, so good for you!
I totally agree with you on this Alice...I don't understand how people can be so flipped out by others choices. We made the choice to circumcise our son for personal reasons but am I getting in anyone else's face about what they choose to do or not do regarding their son?
No.
we circ'd our son. i did all the research & was against it. my dh read the same info, & still wanted to. in the end i left it to my dh to decide, because they had the same plumbing.
My husband is Jewish, and I am not, so when we found out our second was a boy, I was REALLY conflicted. If my husband wasn't Jewish, I would have never considered circumcision. I have three brothers who are not circumcised, and I saw no reason to do it. (And I did my research and was not convinced that the benefits out weighed the risks). But because circumcision is part of my husband's religious and cultural heritage, I didn't feel like I could say no. I was really torn up inside over the idea of cutting my newborn baby, but marriage takes compromise, and I felt like I had to bend on this. I can't ever really understand what it means to him to be Jewish, and so he had final say on this.
However, where I didn't feel like I needed to bend was on how it was going to happen. I felt really strongly that if we were going to do this, we were doing it for religious/cultural reasons, not for medical ones, and therefore we would do this in the religious way, not the medical way. If we were going to do it, it was going to be done by a mohel, in our home, in front of family, after the little guy had been dosed up with some wine. And my husband agreed . . . at first.
But the closer I got to term, the more conflicted he got. Though culturally Jewish, my husband has become an atheist as an adult. I think that when the mohel gave him the list of things we'd have to have (both first aid supplies and religious stuff) he began to feel like a hypocrite for planning to do this thing to his son as a sign of a covenant with a god that he doesn't believe in. We talked more, we cried together, and he decided not to do it.
It was HARD for us to figure out what was right for us. But only we could do it. And had he decided that he did want to do it, I would have cried when it happened (and probably afterward too) but that wouldn't necessarily have made it the wrong thing to have done.
I read up, thought about it, still had no idea if there was a best. I tend to be a path of least resistance person (aka kinda lazy) so I knew I wanted to breastfeed, for instance. That was a winwinwin for me -- more food for me, free food for the babies, and no bottles, formula, measuring, keeping track. But here? Both paths were pretty unresistant. So I punted to my husband. And remembered the two stories of which I knew personally -- of the kid circ'ed at about 8 (and it was horrible) and two (military again) guys circ'ed later (described as most horrible).
And we did it and honestly...I can say nearly 18 years after the first one (and 6 years after the last one), it was another of those seems like a big deal at the time, but is not so much an issue sort of things.
And yeah -- if this were just a 19 century concept? But, it's not, it's been going for millenia.
And...I worry for the first blogger. Because when you get right out there and announce that you are right and everyone else is wrong? That's when fate/karma/destiny comes to get you. I knew I was not, except in case of extreme emergency, going to have drugs when I delivered, but I always played it reallllly cool when I talked about it, because I found that it was always the adamant-talkers that ended up with the hideous birth stories full of pain and drugs and side-effects and the like.
I have VERY strong feelings about this issue, too, but guess what? I am not sharing them, because (and, whoo! I know this sounds CRAZY), I actually respect that moms decide what is best for them and their child's weiner. The LAST thing I would do is go on to someone's blog and shit on them regarding some nonhitty, nonstabby parenting choice.
Next, you will tell us you don't feed your kid the exact same foods I do or follow my god! HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF?!