I've changed the subject header since I just can't
stomach this discussion as 'the grass is singing." I
don't think circumcision of newborn boys is as
culturally routine in the US as it once was, the
figures in 1996 were about 60% nationwide, though some
regions--like the West--were below that; the Northeast
has the highest rate. I didn't want my son circumcised
and was glad to find that it was no longer a routine
practice, that it was an 'option' that had to be
requested, even though it was a rather podunk
hospital. 

It should be noted, I think, that the advocacy for
routine circumcision in childhood began in the 1830's
with English doctors advocating it as a cure for
masturbation, that even the health concerns of
phimosis was considered a problem because it resulted
in 'excessive' fondling' and that this was expanded to
be a 'cure' for various nervous disorders connected
with sexuality. Also any number of doctors from then
on (also in the US about the turn of the century)
suggested female genital mutilation on the same
grounds.  

Mark's right, I think, in that people who engage in
these practices in other cultures do view them as
analogous. But I'd suggest that even Western thought
views them as analogous, all the way back to Philo of
Alexander in the first century or Maimonides in the
12th, there has been an emphasis upon male
circumcision as a way not only of controlling male
sexuality but female sexuality.
 
"The sages, may their memory be blessed, have
explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom
an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to
separate from him." In my opinion this is the
strongest of the reasons for circumcision. Who first
began to perform this act, if not Abraham, who was
celebrated for his chastity." Maimonides

Noteworthy, I think, that often in these tracts, there
is much anxiety about the relationship to women, that
male circumcision is valued as a way to protect the
virtue of man from the sexuality of woman. Even
anthropologically speaking, among tribes that
circumcise boys at the age of 10-12, (and it's not
just tribes, I remember being appalled by  a
documentary that was filmed in a stadium where Turkish
fathers had arrived with their boys of this age to be
circumcised) it has to be noted that this marks the
point at which boys are taken from their mothers, no
longer 'belong' to them or are under their power. Male
circumcision gives boys  to the world of men or access
to a male god; female gential mutilation, even when
carried out by women, gives girls, as suitable wives,
to the world of men. Since the power exchange in both
cases is in the same direction, it does seem to me it
can be called patriarchal and that in both practices
there is a deep anxiety to control female sexuality
and power. 

Best,

Rebecca 

From:         Joanna Boulter <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Help! The grass is singing

I understand that circumcision of newborn boys is
culturally routine in the 
USA, regardless of religious affiliation -- I don't
think I've got that 
wrong, but I'm sure all sorts of people will correct
me if I have.

My daughter lives in Maine, having married an
American, though she has 
retained her British passport.

When she was pregnant she announced her intention of
refusing to have the 
child circumcised if it turned out to be a boy, saying
that this was 
unnecessary mutilation. If, she added, she could find
a doctor who was 
prepared *not to do it automatically.

A great deal of pressure was then brought to bear on
her, mainly from female 
(Catholic) family members and friends. One of these, a
young woman of my 
daughter's own age, said 'But you must -- think of his
poor wife!' (A piece 
of reasoning which I fail to follow, by the way.)
Anyway, Susannah as her 
usual pigheaded self stood out against all pressures,
and perhaps 
fortunately the baby turned out to be a girl.
Fortunately, that is, in a 
western culture.

Male circumcision bears no comparison, I hope, to
clitoridectomy in terms of 
mutilation and lifelong pain and discomfort. But if it
would have been that 
difficult to go against the norm in a modern, western
civilisation, how much 
more difficult is it going to be to get clitoridectomy
first controlled and 
then please God a thing of the past in less (how else
to say it?) modern 
countries?

joanna

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Help! The grass is singing


> Jeez, it's been a long time since anybody's called
me an optimist. I fully 
> expect enormous environmental calamities (leaving
out the more dramatic 
> events, simply the destruction of the seas and the
lack of drinking water) 
> to kill off huge numbers and alter human societies
in unpleasant ways well 
> before genital mutilation becomes a thing of the
past. I do think that 
> what hope there is comes from social change--laws
that a people don't 
> support are simply ignored.
>
> As to "I don't believe it is seen as analogous to
the circumcision of 
> boys.  I really don't.  The mutilation of women is,
I believe, bound up in 
> fear of women's sexuality," belief has nothing to do
with it. In many of 
> these societies female genital mutilation happens at
the same age as 
> circumcision of boys, and the members of those
societies consider the 
> practices analagous. One could argue, as Freud did,
that circumcision is 
> symbolic castration by the father. Pretty much
nonsense. Which doesn't 
> make it a good thing. I don't just believe, I know,
from the literature, 
> what many of these peoples think, and I also know
from physiology that 
> they're wrong. To change behavior one had better
address not what one 
> believes oneself but what those whose behavior one
wishes to change 
> believe. It certainly doesn't help to assume that a
behavior if practiced 
> by a demented Christian or Jew in New York or London
would have the same 
> meaning in another culture.
>
> Maybe I am an optimist. If the problem is "fear of
women's sexuality," and 
> if that fear is widespread, I don't see any way to
intervene.
>
> That said, if environmental degradation doesn't do
us all in before then, 
> the practice will probably end as village economies
succumb to 
> globalization. I'm not proposing that we all sit on
our hands--that kind 
> of change will take a couple of generations, and it
will also require a 
> lot of education. But education, about this as about
anything else, 
> doesn't work if it ignores the cultural context.
>
> Mark

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com