|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Involuntary foreskin amputation, the analog of which corresponds in females to labial reduction, is a gender issue. An argument to somehow show that gender and gender bias have nothing whatsoever to do with routine infant circumcision would be impressive indeed. Such an argument would somehow have to surmount the fact that infant boys but not little girls are singled out for this procedure, and that glaringly obvious form of gender discrimination is only the first of many problems the argument would have to overcome.
My mother once had an abortion. It was her body. But by having my brothers and myself involuntarily circumcised after we were born, she denied us the right to our bodies.
Many women who assert that they have a right to their own body will think nothing of denying their newborn sons the right to THEIR bodies by having their foreskins involuntarily amputated. I have no anti-abortion agenda. My point is that this irony is possible due to widespread anti-male bias.
Many of the most adamant advocates of circumcision were themselves victims of parental abuse. The sheer numbers of women who insisted that the important men in their lives get circumcised gives lie to the notion that women cannot oppress men, despite the fact that routine infant circumcision was invented by men and is generally something that men do to each other, although that is not a reason for tolerating it.
The anti-male bigotry that condones male infant involuntary foreskin amputation but condemns involuntary female genital reduction ought to be exposed. Men should claim at least some of the rights that women have claimed for themselves.
There are gender differences in who is considered an appropriate object of violence in ths US. These differences contribute to the widespread prevalence of routine infant foreskin amputation. It is a good measure of our cultural blindness that we so often consider the decision to irreversibly alter a man's sexuality and body image at birth hardly worthy of consideration.
Most men consider routine infant involuntary foreskin amputation to be no big deal. Most men are therefore admitting that the right to their own bodies is be hardly worth their time and effort, so in effect men have already lost the gender wars. By relegating the anti-male violence of involuntary foreskin amputation to the backwaters of the mens movement, the mens movement has unwittingly given up on every issue of concern to them, from the pressure to be success objects to child support reform.
If the involuntary amputation of "vestigial" parts of their genitals is of no concern to men, then they condone the anti-male violence of involuntary circumcision, a practice that has no medical benefit and which interferes with normal sexual functioning.
The devaluation of men begins at birth through the removal of parts of their genitalia that are essential for normal sexual functioning. In this way, men learn the political lesson that their lives and their bodies are worth less than others, and their scars remain a constant reminder of their condition.
Involuntary circumcision contributes to feelings of inadequacy in its victims, especially as they learn about recent medical research, which shows that circumcision results in the removal of specialized tissues having at least the sensitivity of the lips.
The uncircumcised penis helps the vagina to retain lubrication, so that intercourse may be enjoyed for somewhat longer periods than is comfortable with a circumcised partner.
The procedure has a negative effect on the quality of the lives of its victims, who are victims precisely because they had no say in the matter of their own sexual development.
The practice of involuntary circumcision tends to reinforce anti-male bias, which both sexes harbor towards men (or towards one of the five sexes if you don't believe in the strict gender dichotomy presupposed by misogynists and misandrists everywhere). What anti-male bias? You see it in the media: men's genitals are up for grabs. It's considered a riot if one of Charlie's Angels kicks a man in the groin. The free and easy violence done to mens genitals in movies and television encapsulates the devaluation of men. We wouldn't do it to women. Men and women are well trained to consider the same treatment of women abhorrent.
Men are disposable. We dispose of parts of their sexual organs shortly after birth so that the political lesson is learned at the beginning and lasts a lifetime. In that way, men are prepared to have their paychecks, their homes and their children taken from them later in their lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the one hand I agree with these people: circumcision is passé and should be quietly retired as a bad idea.
On the other hand, I am sooo tired of every special-interest group in the country trotting out a Charter argument to further their cause. The Charter was created to stop serious discrimination and abuse of human beings by other human beings. Unfortunately, it's being used by special-interest groups as a lever to impose their agendas on the rest of us, and it's being used by the judges to reshape the country in the way that they think it ought to be.
Except in cases of serious discrimination, legal rulings on social issues should follow public opinion, not attempt to create it.
Humph!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you care to explain how this ISN'T serious discrimination and abuse of human beings by other human beings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One man's abuse is another man's ritual.
I don't intend to have my sons circumcized (should I have any). Nonetheless, I don't see circumcision as this cut-and-dried issue of obvious abuse.
Many cultures have rituals in which babies, children, or adolescents are somehow scarred or marked as being "part of the tribe." I saw a reference recently to Austrailian Aboriginal rituals like this, and I just recently heard a radio spot on foot binding of girls in China. Of course, all of the "correct" people see this as abuse, but I distrust these people: they always subjugate tradition and practical life to theory. Sometimes the theory turns out to be right, but in the context of social change I find this irrelevant.
Take legalized abortion for example. Whether you agree with it or not, look at how it was implemented in the U.S.: a majority of people didn't want it. What followed was a media campaign orchestrated by the people who did want it; when society took to the idea too slowly, the pro-abortion types weasled the issue through the courts and forced society to accept their ideas. What we have now is a lot of division and in a few extreme cases bloodshed, all because there are still too many people who disagree with social changes that were forced rather than consensual.
The same goes for circumcision. Despite Mars' assertions that there is no medical reason for it, there is still disagreement over that. There is certainly no general consensus among ordinary people as to whether circumcision is a good thing, a bad thing, or neutral. Add to this the possible ritual value and the fact that it touches on religious rights and you have a highly emotional cocktail. So what is this group trying to do? They're trying to weasel it through the courts and force society to accept their views. Didn't we learn anything from the first go around?
Someone mentioned that circumcision would be an excellent rallying point for men's issues, the way abortion was for feminism. Sorry, but I think you weren't paying attention. Abortion was absolutely not a rallying point for feminism. Rallying points for feminism were non-emotional, motherhood-and-apple-pie issues such as the right of women to be considered "persons" under the law, the right of women to work, equal pay for equal work, and freedom from discrimination. Few people were fighting on the "other side" of these issues, which is what made them rallying points. Abortion came only later, when feminism began to feel its power and no longer needed to soft-pedal its agenda.
No matter what you think of circumcision, it is, from a political standpoint, an absolutely terrible rallying point for the men's movement. It has all of the ingredients of a disaster: it is highly emotional; there is no consensus on it; the majority of people not involved in the movement don't "get it." It is exactly what abortion was back in the 20's and the 30's when feminists wisely left that issue alone. If the men's movement chooses circumcision as a core issue then the movement will fragment and be at war within itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statements that deny the legitimacy of moral principles in preference for tradition suggest that you and the men's movement are odd bedfellows.
Nevertheless, you seem to express a moral theory which finds repugnant the act of "forcing others" to tolerate practices that they reject. I assume that there are exceptions for thieves and murderers who would prefer not to suffer penalities for their crimes, so attributing to you a coherent moral theory is problematic.
How is "forcing" a child to have her feet bound anything other than an imposition of someone else's view on others? What is the moral basis for tolerating it? That it happens to be the norm at a given time and place? If so, why are you concerned with changing norms of behavior regarding the treatment of men?
Perhaps you would dismiss these "theoretical" considerations on political grounds. If so, what political grounds are they? You make certain sociologically substantive assertions that could be tested, such as the assertion that there is widespread disagreement within the medical establishment regarding the medical necessity of routine circumcision. In fact, there are no professional medical organizations in the world that recommend routine infant circumcision, so I am curious if you can formulate your objections with greater precision. Perhaps you overlooked the second to latest article posted to this site on sensitivity measurements of the foreskin.
The question of whether the right to one's own body includes the right to develop sexually without interruption is relevant to the men's movement. As the principle of body integrity is commonly invoked in reference to the right to abortion, one might ask why should women have the right to their own bodies if little boys don't have the right to theirs?
Invoking the wild card of political expediency will not make the issue of routine infant circumcision go away, nor will it obviate the need for cogent argumentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mars,
All good theoretical arguments, but that is where I see the problem. You theories ignore culture and tradition. They speak about sanctity of the right to one's own body, but they ignore context.
As well, you're playing the same card with me as most feminist organizations play with their members: "if you don't agree with me, you don't belong in the club."
In every forum in which I've been involved, when the subject of circumcision comes up there is always widespread disagreement and heated discussion. Actually the discussion we're having here is pretty tame by comparison to most. It's not so much that a large group of men are big on circumcision, but that they're uncomfortable with the idea of banning the practice. The fact that there isn't clear agreement on a ban, even among men, tells me that we have more work to do before we start passing laws. The fact that this group is trying to do an end run around the slow process of changing public opinion is what I find troubling. It's not a solution; it's a quick fix: sticky tape and bailing wire.
You talk about "cogent argument", but you commit a grave error in your argument. You state that there is no medical organization in the world that recommends routine circumcision, and then use this to support an argument for banning the practice. There are two problems here: first, the notion that medical organizations reflect the opinions of all doctors (there are still doctors that perform routine circumcisions, so I assume that they must agree with the practice), and second the implication that something that is "not supported" should therefore be banned. There is a huge leap between choosing not to support something and wanting to have it banned. How many world medical organizations are calling to have routine circumcision made illegal? Ah, there's the rub!
As well, so long as we're tossing about insults about who should and shouldn't be in the men's movement, I could toss the same back at you. You believe in reason over culture. You believe that "rights" are more important than tradition. Well, then by the same argument you should be happy with many of the draconian changes that feminism has brought down over the last thirty years, since all of these were achieved by triumph of reason and argument over tradition. The problem, of course, is that all arguments are by necessity abstractions, and the devil is often in the details.
I would not circumcise my sons, should I have any. I don't see the point. However, I'm not going to demonize some man who does decide to do that because it has been a longstanding tradition in his family. I wouldn't do what he did, regardless of my family traditions (all of the males in my family are circumcized). Nonetheless, the traditions that connect us to past generations have some value. Are they valuable enough to warrant removal of body parts? Scarring? Pain? Well, that's what the argument is all about, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm playing a different card: you say that circumcision is passe, which seems to ignore recent medical findings that strongly suggest that circumcision is generally unnecesary and which lead to a loss of sexual function. What if it somehow became fashionable again? Do we turn back the clock on medical science, on changing attitudes to bodily integrity?
Do you have no theoretical ground for your interest in equal treatment for men? If you value culture and tradition over the application of universal law and principle so strongly, my question about your involvement in the men's movement is valid - it is not somthing that can be dismissed merely a card or a tactic borrowed from the feminists.
I do have thoughts about the history of circumcision, at least in the United States; they weren't included in my previous posts. Here are some of them. Feel free to ignore the "theoretical" expressions of the principle of fairness if these do not interest you.
At the turn of the 20th century, John Harvey Kellogg wrote: "A remedy [for "self-abuse"] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision . . . The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases."
Kellogg was the brother of the inventor of the cornflake. Arthur C. Clarke, author of 2001, A Space Odyessy, wrote that future generations of Americans will be mortified to learn that they been mutilating their sons on the advice of Kellogg, who was "obviously a sadistic lunatic."
It's not ethical to remove another person's body parts without their consent, especially when their lives and limbs are not at risk. For some reason this simple principle does not apply to male genitalia for many people. For the lack of any other obvious explanation, I suggest that we take the lesson of history seriously and hypothesize that since patterns of cruelty and callousness recur throughout human history, involuntary circumcision being among them, there are destructive impulses inherent in human nature that contribute to the prevalence of the phenomenon.
In the case of involuntary circumcision, we deliberately turn off our protective instincts towards infants. Through an act of will, an infant boy goes from being a person - a locus of rights - to a nonperson who has no right to his foreskin. We do not allow ourselves to suppress our protective instincts this way towards infant girls, which suggests that gender bias is involved in the decision to circumcise as well.
The same ability to suppress emotional urges through force of intellect and conscience (allowing us to defer gratification and resist temptation) also allows us to overcome our horror over the involuntary amputation of parts of an infant's genitalia and to persist in this barbaric practice on the pretext that it serves some medical or aesthetic purpose.
By now it should be common knowledge that routine infant circumcision interferes with the mechanics of sexual intercourse and may therefore impede sexual bonding, among other consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BusterB wrote "All good theoretical arguments, but that is where I see the problem. You theories ignore culture and tradition. They speak about sanctity of the right to one's own body, but they ignore context."
I have repeatedly referred to recent medical findings, though not specifically except in one instance where I referred to a recent article on this site on sensitivity measurements of the foreskin. Surely these findings count not only as scientific but as historical and cultural phenomena; as such they provide some of the context. There are tens of thousands of men who regret the loss of their foreskin, and they are at the least disappointed that they were not consulted. Some of them have experienced post-traumatic stress disorder when they realize what they've lost. You can add the phenomenon of foreskin restoration to the context.
On the other hand, culture and tradition suggest that we should keep circumcising males without their consent. Is that what you want? More men whose sexual experience will be altered to the detriment of themselves and their partners?
To insist that my arguments have no context is fatuous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In response to your other post, I meant that your arguments ignore some context, not all context.
In fact, it struck me last night what it is that I'm on about here, or at least more of it, and it struck me what's missing from your argument.
You make an excellent argument on the medical front. In fact, I would say that you have that one all sewn up (no pun intended). Routine infant circumcision, at least in the sense that it is done unthinkingly for vague medical reasons, cannot hold under your argument. There we agree. I think that a strong public education campaign would convince most people who really don't care one way or the other to care. This would be a good thing. However, what of the parents who, for reasons that have nothing to do with medicine, feel strongly that they want their infant sons circumcized? Jewish parents who look a long tradition of circumcision; other parents who want their sons to "look like them." What do we do with these people?
The problem I have with the idea of banning circumcision is that it runs roughshod over the ability (I'm not going to say "right") of parents to raise their children the way they see fit. It has a cold, fascist feel to it: we don't care what you believe about this ritual; we're going to prevent you from doing it to your sons because we know best. I have watched with more than a little apprehension as "experts" have taken away parents' ability to morally educate their own children. Now there is talk about banning spanking. Now perhaps we want to outlaw circumcision? On the one hand I agree with you: taking a scalpel to a baby is heavy-duty, serious stuff, much more serious than spanking. On the other hand I see yet another attempt to regulate parenting and the loss of freedom that that entails.
Of course, one can throw up all sorts of straw man and slippery-slope arguments surrounding this, like why then don't we allow parents to have sex with their own children, if parental control is a sacred right? Apart from being silly, this ignores the fact that there is a social sanction against incest, whereas no such social sanction exists (at present) against circumcision.
So is this practice barbaric enough that it merits restricting parents' behaviour? That, for me, is the crux of the issue, and I also think that it's where the anti-circumcision movement will meet the most resistance. I believe that the men's movement in particular will be instrumental in eventually convincing people that cicrumcision is unnecessary and indeed barbaric. However, "eventually" is the important word there. I also believe that before we go wil-ye-nil-ye stripping power from parents (yet again) we had better be damned sure that it's a good idea, and the only way I know of to be sure is to let the issue stew in the soup of public opinion for a while to see if it survives. In the end, I also believe that that would result in a more lasting, permanent solution. If you convince people to do something (or stop doing something) of their own free will, they tend to be more cooperative.
Letting a couple of judges disempower parents based upon some point of law—appealing to the courts just because you think you can win—that I don't support, no how, no way. I don't support it because I think that it's a band-aid. A quick fix that won't last. You talk about the fear of this coming back into fashion, but do you not think that the courts and the laws have become as faddish and fashionable as anything else? What can be enshrined in law can be revoked, particularly if it runs against the grain of public opinion. On the other hand, if we (assuming you would be so kind as to allow me to include myself in your camp) do the the legwork and actually convince people that this is an unnecessary and invasive practice... well, it would be pretty damned difficult to change everyone's mind back again, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are estimated to be tens of thousands of men in the United States who are attempting to restore their foreskins using self-applied non-surgical techniques. These men invariably report significant gains in comfort and sexual feeling, and improved sexual relations with their partners after having restored their foreskins. This phenonomenon counts as part of the historical and cultural context in which I argue against involuntary routine infant circumcision.
Look up foreskin restoration on the web if you haven't done this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BusterB wrote, "On the other hand, if we (assuming you would be so kind as to allow me to include myself in your camp) do the the legwork and actually convince people that this is an unnecessary and invasive practice... well, it would be pretty damned difficult to change everyone's mind back again, wouldn't it?"
OK I agree with that - as a practical necessity an attempt should be made to sway public opinion so that legislation protecting the right of infant boys to their own body can be enacted. I also think an appeal to legal principles such as equal treatment under the law can be made.
i disagree that such legal reform constitutes "judicial activism"; rather i see it as an attempt to insure that certain pre-existing legal protections are applied consistently for each gender. I'll attempt to explain why I think legal activism might not be an appropriate characterization, and why the application of utilitarian principles may be justified in this case, not only as something more than a band aid, but as a natural extension and correction of pre-existing legal theory and practice in response to scientific progress.
It might sound like legal activism and an attempt to legislate morality (but laws do that to some extent anyway) but I believe in the case of routine infant circumcision the situation is that science has determined that a certain procedure performed on individuals of a certain gender that was previously thought to be beneficial or at least benign turns out to be detrimental.
In this case there are laws protecting patients from unnecessary procedures regardless of gender.
Now raise the following question. Do we wait for public opinion to change along with scientific opinion, or do we instead apply the laws that we already have in the light of scientific findings?
Imagine if the situation were reversed: if girls routinely had their labia trimmed at birth, while boys remained intact, and then medical science discovered that the procedure schouldn't be done to little girls, then the outcry would be deafening. Just because a guy named Mars and some Feminists would be screaming discrimination without arguing their point doesn't mean that one couldn't apply legal protections against malpractice that were already in place, or change the wording of some laws to reflect the new findings in a manner consistent with constututional law and prior rulings on
ethical medical practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So again: would you care to explain how this ISN'T serious discrimination and abuse of human beings by other human beings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it discriminatory? Yes, but that argument is weak because it relies on the listener being blind to cultural context. Playing the "discrimination" card with respect to male infant circumcision, at least in North America, ignores history and tradition, and you can do that if you like, but it's not terribly convincing.
If you want to come up with a really good argument against male infant circumcision, then you have to address the tradition and the history squarely and unflinchingly. Airy theoretical arguments won't cut it because you will come smack up against tradition, in particular religious tradition, and your argument will go down in flames. I'm not talking here about convincing me... I already know that I won't be circumcizing any sons I may have. However, if you want to convince the general population, you have to address their objections.
Tossing the word "abuse" around is a cheap argumentative tactic. The Native Americans used to send their male adolescents into the bush for several months to fend for themselves. If they survived in the wilderness alone for the allotted time they could return to their home as men. Was this discriminatory? You bet! Was it abusive? You could come up with the argument. Was it therefore valueless? I don't think so.
I believe that the Maori have coming-of-age rituals that either did or still do involve scarring of their youths. Is this abusive? You could say. Does it have no value? I think it does.
My point? Abuse is what you define it to be. Culture and tradition, the value of passing on a sense of belonging and history to our children, where does that end, and abuse begin? When is the damage so grievous and debilitating that it trumps the value of tradition? If you can argue that point, you can win.
There is one high card that has already been played here: that babies have no choice in the matter. However, never forget that the idea of personal freedom and individual choice are our cultural icons. If you were to try to convince, for example, the population of China that they should abandon tradition in order to enhance personal choice, you may not get quite as far.
Incidentally, it might help you understand my point of view if you knew that I also have mixed feelings about female circumcision along the same lines. Is it a brutal practice that should be stopped worldwide? Or is going to some other country somewhere and killing off one of their traditions nothing more than cultural imperialism in some other guise? At what point do we declare ourselves smart enough to tell other cultures how to live and how to treat their children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 15, @03:49PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I think you've opened up a can of worms here - you've basically defeated the purpose for demanding equal rights for men, because it really has been a tradition to keep men in positions of powerlessness, ie having to fight wars, being breadwinners, and the like. What we are doing, at the most base level, is questioning and attacking traditions about men and masculinity that are harmful to men. And circumcision is one of these traditions. You can't have it both ways, or maybe the closest way is what Scott said, to make circumcision illegal when a child cannot make the decision for himself. Ititiate men in the most brutal ways you want, just don't force it on all men - some might not be ready, and for others it might not be appropriate at all. Give men choices, that's all I'm asking for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BusterB changes the subject from reform in Canada to reforming the known universe, writing "Incidentally, it might help you understand my point of view if you knew that I also have mixed feelings about female circumcision along the same lines. Is it a brutal practice that should be stopped worldwide? Or is going to some other country somewhere and killing off one of their traditions nothing more than cultural imperialism in some other guise? At what point do we declare ourselves smart enough to tell other cultures how to live and how to treat their children?"
We're not discussing what other cultures should do. That is a complete non-sequiteur and has led to the spurious introduction of moral, cultural and historical relativism into the discussion.
We're attempting to improve men's lives in our culture. We hope to do so elsewhere, but as a practical matter we are starting here, in our culture.
The rhetorical question "At what point do we declare ourselves smart enough to tell other cultures how to live and how to treat their children?" seems to suggest that it's wrong to do this at any point (now there's a man with a theory of ethics!) but the answer is easy: at any point we wish. That it would be better to be informed rather than merely opinionated goeas without saying. Who or what is stopping us from speaking our minds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My argument about forcing our will upon other cultures also applies to forcing our will upon others in what is essentially a multicultural society.
If you live in the United States, you might argue that America has one culture and one set of values that applies to all of its citizens, but we stopped arguing that point here in Canada some time ago.
If I have a Jewish neighbour who insists on circumcising his son, where do I get off telling him that his traditions are barbaric and that he's an idiot? You may be willing to do that, but I'm not.
I'd much rather discuss with him the lack of medical necessity and the regret that often accompanies circumcision later in life. I'd rather try to win him over to my point of view. If I succeed, so much the better; if I fail, then I at least gave him something to think about.
If I work to ban a practice that I (as part of a minority) don't agree with, then I have little cause for complaint when some other minority, with whom I don't agree, ram their moral standards down my throat.
Are those who are willing to use the courts to ban a widespread practice without having first done the hard work of getting the public on side willing to sit quietly by when some other group uses the same tactics to advance some other agenda? I very much doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So a third time: would you care to explain how THIS ISN'T serious discrimination and abuse of human beings by other human beings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the second time: a perfectly reasonable person might consider this abuse, while another perfectly reasonable person might consider this a valuable cultural tradition that ought to be continued.
I'm not going to say it isn't abuse because I don't believe that it is in no way abusive or discriminatory. Whether you think so or not, I do see the point.
However, neither am I going to say that it is abuse because your question is a rhetorical trap. You're trying to limit the scope of the discussion to only "discrimination" and "abuse" because you think that on those grounds lie your best chance of winning. It's equivalent to the lawyer's instructions to the witness to answer only with "Yes" or "No." You don't seem to care to do the hard work of convincing people that circumcision is a bad idea; neither do you seem to care about nuance and debate; all you seem to want is to corner me and force me to accede to your point of view.
In my particular case, I'm immune. If I were susceptible to this tactic then I would also be buying into all of the bullshit that N.O.W. puts out. This is, in fact, exactly how the feminazis strong-arm others into going along with their plans. They trot out the big guns like "abuse," "rape," "discrimination," "deadbeat," etc, etc and then refuse to bend unless someone proves them unequivocally wrong. I don't buy this nonsense when it comes from N.O.W. Why should I take the same tactics any more seriously when they're applied to men's issues?
Although I don't share the strength of Mars' convictions on this issue, at least he works hard to get his point across. As a contrast, this whole "stand and deliver" thing is tiresome. Who says that just by saying so you get to limit the debate to your terms?
P.S.: By saying all of this I'm not implying anything about you personally. I like debating issues like this (to the best of my ability), but none of it gets up my nose. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't need to work hard to get my point across. My point is made every time you fail to directly answer my question. Furthermore, you were the one who limited the terms of the debate in the first place, as follows:
You said originally, "The Charter was created to stop serious discrimination and abuse of human beings by other human beings." Your argument necessarily rests upon the unstated assertion on your part that ensuring the equal protection of male minors from this genital mutilation is a misuse of the Charter.
By your own statements, for that to be true, this genital mutilation of male minors must somehow NOT be serious discrimination and abuse of human beings by other human beings. He who avers, must prove; thus the repeated single question.
So, for the fourth time: would you care to explain how this ISN'T serious discrimination and abuse of human beings by other human beings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK... one last kick at the cat.
It isn't serious discrimination and abuse of human beings by other human beings because there is still a sufficient number of people out there who disagree with that statement to make it not true. In other words, it isn't serious discrimination until we prove to a large enough group of people that it is.
So morality is determined by public opinion? Certainly, and in fact who else is going to determine it? Me and thee? I'm willing to admit the possibility that I am bitter and biased, and so my ideas of what is ethical and what is not are tainted. I am no more trusting of judges. However, if during my lifetime I manage to convince the bulk of the people I meet that circumcision is a bad idea and should be outlawed, well then I have some assurance that I'm not merely a lone nutcase, and I really have something going.
Let's say that these judges do decide that circumcision is serious discrimination and abuse, and they decide to outlaw it. What they have done, for the people who don't agree, is arbitrarily redefined the meaning of the words "discrimination" and "abuse". I maintain that these words have no meaning independent of the moral standards of society. If society says that something isn't "abuse" then it isn't... until someone manages to convince the bulk of the people otherwise.
The way to permanently solve a problem such as this is to toss one's ideas into the crucible of public opinion and work hard to sway people to one's point of view. The more expedient and sensational one's methods, the quicker public support waxes, but then with less staying power.
Although it may seem repugnant to hang morality on public opinion, in the long run I can see no other litmus test for what is ethical and what is not. All other methods fall short, or are prone to fascism. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government conceived by the mind of man... except for all of the other ones."
If you want an example of this in action, look at abortion. Is abortion moral just because some Supreme Court judges in Roe v Wade said it was? If some other judges later decide that it is immoral and restrict it or ban it, does that now make it immoral? I claim that there are so many people on each side of this question—about 50% each, by my count—that the morality of abortion is effectively in limbo.
I would rather see the immorality of circumcision made certain by the slow, arduous footwork of persuading parents not to cut their sons. Then, when it is a "no-brainer" we can go to the courts and have it outlawed. If we were to do this, there would be no moral ambiguity: it would simply become "common sense."
The problem with tossing the Charter at things that not everyone agrees are discrimination and abuse of human rights is that while such efforts sometimes produce laws, they also produce resentment and an eventual backlash. I would rather that that not happen to circumsision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not clear to me why public opinion has to win over medical judgement. In this case one has a law that presumably protects both men and women from unnecesary medical procedures.
If medical opinion changes so that what was once considered a beneficial or neutral procedure is now considered detrimental, what is wrong with going to court to attempt to revise the law to refect that change without postponing action until "the long hard work of changing public opinion" in alignment with medical opinion has been accomplished?
It's a long leap from implementing medically informed adjustments and extensions of pre-existing law to fascism. One need not call circumcision "abuse" in order to ban the practice in the absence of any medical indication (any part of the body can become diseased, injured or deformed and require amputation, so I include the caveat of medical indication). Medical findings only have to determine that what was previously considered to be a beneficial or benign practice is in fact detrimental. It is, in principle, a violation of the charter to carry out detrimental medical procedures.
I have further remarks on the admissibility of criticizing the practices of other sub-cultures within multi-cultural societies.
An attitude of indifference toward some other cultural group that is violating the rights of its members is probably a form of prejudice. This is relevant when the other cultural group is part of some larger, inclusive culture in which the violated rights in question are presumed to hold throughout society.
In that case, if the inclusive culture has enacted a law such as the Charter, one might question whether various sub-cultures within the larger one repect the right of each individual to his own body without risking the charge of imposing or projecting our values on some culture isolated from our own by virtue of geography, history or both.
You did raise the question of what gives you the right to question other cultures. I am attempting to address it. The question of how to change their opinions without offending them is another matter.
Allow me to spell out another philosophical presupposition of mine. I am in full agreement with the dialogue Crito of Plato: If you are a citizen of a nation, then you have an implicit agreement to live and die by its laws. Given that, if you break the laws, then you have an obligation to pay the consequences. Those considerations apply to the Charter.
I should also mention that I agree with Kipnis that conflicts between men and women are conflicts of culture, so for me it is appropriate to consider each sex as its own cultural group (notice how rapidly I've incorporated this insight into my own arguments :).
Now to illustrate why an attitude of indifference toward some other cultural group that is violating the rights of its members indicates prejudice.
One feminist responded to my thoughts about circumcision by stating that circumcision was something that men invented and that men do to men, and that women were consumers and not producers of circumcised babies. Ideology to the rescue!
Consider what happens when we substitute some minority group for "men" in the slogan that "circumcision is something that men do to men". For example, if we were to say that "circumcision is something that only blacks do to blacks" and draw the conclusion that since we are white, we're not morally responsible for doing anything about it, and (worse for us and them) they deserve what they get. That sounds like racism to me, especially if we consider black and white culture as subcultures within a larger culture.
Even if we agree (I don't) that the vast number of women who have given their consent to have their son's genitals reconfigured shortly after birth in no way leaves them accountable for their decision (they were merely consuming a male product, namely circumcised babies), on the basis of the foregoing remarks, the attitude that "the male culture is responsible so they deserve what they get" can fairly be called sexist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 13, @08:17PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Mars,what's your E-mail? I came across something you might be interested in,involving this issue. It's something that we should discuss in private. Intrested?
Adam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 14, @12:03PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Circumcision and the all male draft are good rallying points for the men's movement because they are effective at helping women to see their blatant hypocrisy. Those two issues will be great for consciouness building. In essence, the issue should end up getting framed in such a way that it asks women to oppose the all male draft and circumcision or to regard themselves as sexist.
Since those two issues are most obvious, they'll be useful in convincing women to check their premises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not averse to political considerations as BusterB wants you to believe; on the contrary, I believe that the medical evidence is in, and it is fair and appropriate to enact legislation to ban the practice of infant circumcision in the absence of any medical indication.
There might be allowances for those who want their sons circumcised for religious reasons, although we don't make that allowance in the case of female genital mutilation. I have reservations about this, but because I believe in the application of utilitarian principles - the greatest good for the greatest number, even if this goes against tradition, I would prefer progress. I want to see quality of the greatest number of men's lives improve. I don't despise small successes, so if there are religious groups who lack the faith that their sons will out of religious conviction get themselves circumcised when they reach the age of consent, then I'll leave it at that for today.
I see no reason to prevent any man from deciding, once he reaches the age of consent to undergo circumcision. Routine infant circumcision is the practice that I find unethical. I believe that the principle of informed consent ought to apply in all cases, and that parents who are planning to circumcise their newborn sons should be informed of the risks involved and the possible effect that their decision might have on the quality of their son's lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to point out three items.
The first is that, contrary to BusterB's assertion that the "discrimintion card" is weak because it "ignores cultural context", I refer you once again to our previous remarks on differences in the treatment of infant girls and boys with regard to genital integrity, and differences in which gender is considered an appropriate target of violence. There are laws banning the practice of female genital mutilation, but no such laws exist protecting infant boys. At the risk of pedantry, may I point out that such laws are historical and cultural phenomena forming part of the context in which the issue of discrimination is being raised.
The second item is to respond to the charge that I committed a grave error; namely that I proposed an argument that I did not make, which was to assume that because no medical organization recommends routine infant circumcision, it follows that the practice ought to be banned. I didn't make that argument; I was attempting to correct the impression that BusterB seemed to have that there was widespread disagreement among medical professionals regarding RIC (routine infant circumcision). I was attempting to point out that medical opinion was changing and that now no medical organization recommends the practice. There may be a legal disincentive for such organizations to recommend abolishing it altogether, as such a move might set off a wave of lawsuits. Additionally, indeed there are medical organizations in Australia and New Zealand that recommend against RIC (in the absence of any medical indication).
Finally, on the subject of philosophy, I'll say that on matters of public policy I would prefer utilitarian principle - the greatest good for the greatest number - to tradition and public opinion.
BusterB is right when he says that history cannot be neglected. I also think philosophy is important for the men's movement - differening philosophies have apparently led to the fragmentation of men's movement into various opposing factions. Because I want play a constructive and not a divisive role, I am attempting to learn the history of the men's movement. I recommend reading a History of the Men's Fathers' Rights Movement by Richard F. Doyle, whose breadth of experience and perspective greatly exceeds my own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're not being pedantic at all. In fact, you're absolutely right. You are also right that the tide of medical opinion is turning and that fewer and fewer doctors recommend routine infant circumcision. Soon only quacks will recommend it.
I do not, however, believe in utilitarian public policy. Not that I'm any philosophical genius, but utilitarianism of this flavour makes everyone slaves to either the parliament or the judiciary. Who decides what is best for the greatest number, if not the people themselves?
Thank you for the book reference; I'll put it on my reading list.
And, in the end, I suppose that all I can say is that I don't disagree with you in substance. My outrage, if there is any to direct, is directed at those who would to do an end run around the whole, painful, slow process of changing public opinion and culture by tring to get a quick fix in the courts. I'm tired of judicial activism; the long way is slower, but surer, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
