|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 06, @12:28PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It's a just little boy's body being mutilated... it's not like it's a girl.......
I really hate articles like this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid unnecessary, gratuitous self-righteous dismissals from feminists who fly off the handle when any comparison between circumcision, routine or otherwise, female genital mutilation (note that the female term deserves an evaluative description, since it is called "mutilation") is that circumcision corresponds to labial reduction in females. Nevertheless, women would be outraged and incensed if anyone were to suggest that involuntary labial reduction might have some medical or aesthetic benefit.
The feminist outrage has only one purpose: to maintain the status quo that men, not women, are the appropriate target for involuntary genital reconfiguration. This is what they want, and it can fairly be called disgusting. Moreover, it gives lie to the hallowed feminist shibboleth that only men oppress women. Too many women--millions--dismiss the male right to bodily integrity when it comes to circumcising their infant males to take victim feminism seriously. Given what we now know, it is fair and appropriate to consider routine involuntary infant circumcision sexual abuse. All the excuses have long since evaporated in 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Makes sense to me. Maybe she's never seen one uncircumcised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not even gonna read this, because more and more, I find that every time I read this sort of trash, I want to start mixing explosives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't read it... it's exactly what you think it is. Just one more "jeeze... slicing up a guys privates is NOTHING like FEMALE GENITAL MUTILIATION... I just don't understand why men insist on saying their dirty little things are as important as our 'V'".
Truly pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're just trying to keep me from mixing my explosives, aren't you. Well, it WON'T WORK!
>>>Just kidding, guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and I'm supposed to be one. :P Anyway - what most people refer to female circumsicion is bad and wrong. HOWEVER, there are three types of it, all of which are illegal to preform on children in the US, last I heard. Removal of clitoral hood, which is basically the same as male circumsicion, some decreased sensitivity, but not that pleasure or life threatening. I have heard of some women voluntarily undergoing it to revive sensitivity, I don't know how that goes over for them.
Removal clitoris, which I guess would be removal of testicles or the head of the penis for a male.
Then full removal of outer and inner labia, clit and whatever else, everything then sewn back together, save a hole for urination, until marriage.
I'm not positive about this, but I'm pretty sure the third is much less common than the first and second. It's a favorite tactic of feminists to lump all three together, however.
Even more:
My mother is a maternity nurse, as well as her friend at the same hospital. They both say to parents who want a circumcision "Now your doctor has explained to you about the benefits and risks, right?" the couple will stare at them "What risks?"
I'm also wondering how this journalist acts to her doctor, if he suggests she goes on a low-fat diet, does she spend the money to consult three nuitritionists before doing so?
It's four A.M., you've just had a baby, your doctor comes in and askes "So, you want him circumsized?" "oh, gee, I don't know... is it safe?" "Oh, of course it is. A million are done a year. it's a very minor procedure, and he won't be at as much risk for penile cancer or uretha infections later in life." "Oh, all right."
Then she reads up on it, finds out it's not all it's cracked up to be. Becomes an advocate against it. Then decides to sue to bring national attention to the issue - is that so very wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote to Rebecca Zak and asked her how she would feel if it was her daughter that had the hood of her clitoris removed at birth, same thing, different gender. Another woman that is mezmerized by her own words, and insensitive to humanity at large. She expounded about the ignorance of the mother of the child for being enlightened, for having to pay for an unnecasary operation on an infant to provide the doctor with extra income. Who is the ignorant person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering that Rebecca Zak doesn't even know how to script a proper title, we needn't bother considering her education beyond third grade (where one is supposed to have learned this-- even I can remember that one normally capitalizes not only the first letter of the initial word, but also all non-articles and non-conjunctive words.)
However, I had to simply love the casuistry (bad logic) employed my Ms. Zak in the following statement:
Flatt is alleging that she was not adequately informed about the consequences of circumcising her son before she signed the consent form for what she is now calling "male genital mutilation." J. Steven Svoboda, the director of the group Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, is trying to claim that that circumcision is an issue of violating an infant's bodily integrity.
Svoboda's group makes an entirely spurious and misleading claim that circumcision is akin to female genital mutilation. Opponents of FGM quickly point out that a male equivalent of FGM would involve the removal of the entire penile shaft and, in some cases, the testicles as well.
While I've never once heard of the female ovaries being removed in such a procedure (for some reason, the ovaries aren't even considered part of the female "genitalia"), but this "female surgical procedure" doesn't reduce the ability to perform sexually,or secondary sexual development, or related subsequent ability to reproduce, as would removal of the penile shaft and testes.
Likewise, her calling "spurious" Svoboda's claim that circumcision violates bodily integrity, indicates that she simply doesn't have a clue about the meaning of the word "integrity" (in any sense- bodily, journalistic, moral or otherwise, it seems), since she is, literally, stating that nothing is removed during circumcision! (It seems that education is no cure for ignorance... although political science is perhaps the largest oxymoron in academic history.)
As I wrote in a letter to the "Daily Trojan" (a name which is not in itself without suggestion), the most likely reason for Ms. Zak's militant stand on pro-circumcision, given her age, background and experience, is for her own (i.e. female) convenience in egagement in casual sex, in order to reduce her revulsion over the possibility of encountering "smegma" (while she, of course, is free to be as "unfresh" as she pleases, possibly in order to use oral sex as a means of manipulation against men ala "Monica")--
she certainly didn't pass those courses on her academic merit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 06, @06:19PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
A quote from the article:
"Flatt is obviously just digging for gold. Hopefully she will just find a lump of coal where a woman's heart should be."
I have never heard of a newspaper talk about a bogus sexual harassment lawsuits where a female employee gets millions because someone said something that she felt was offensive. Where would the concern for her “heart” be in this case?
Also, if these were a politically correct lawsuit do you think that the women would be attacked in the papers like in this article? A resounding NO is the answer…
I am generally against lawsuits; they often are socialist tools used to redistribute wealth without merit or real validity.
Feminism is sexism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... as follows. Go ahead, let her know how you feel. Perhaps she may just grow a "compassion" appendage as a result...
----
Dear Ms. Zak:
I read your essay at http://www.dailytrojan.com/article.do?issue=/V148/ N10&id=02-circum.10v.html and was disappointed at the tone and content.
Assuming that the baby's mother is merely interested in making money off of the genital mutilation of her child is perhaps due to a lack of information, first-hand or otherwise, on the topic of circumcision. Because it has been a traditional and wide-spread practice does not mean it has been a good or defensible one. History exemplifies this in many other contexts, including, as you mentioned, female genital mutilation, of which circumcision may not be as egregious an offense, but is genital mutilation nonetheless.
May I suggest you do more research on the topic of male circumcision before dismissing it as merely the removal of "a small piece of skin". It is not so much the skin itself as the purpose and location of it that makes the act of circumcision the human rights offense that it is. Those of us who have been circumcised, without our permissions when we were infants, have in fact quite a bit to be unhappy about. All I can suggest is that you use your imagination to try to gain some understanding of how circumcision is not something the average uncircumcised man seeks out, for a variety of reasons.
Sincerely,
Matt Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I happen to live in Fargo (city where the hospital is) and I'll let you know if I hear anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"May I suggest you do more research on the topic of male circumcision before dismissing it as merely the removal of "a small piece of skin". It is not so much the skin itself as the purpose and location of it that makes the act of circumcision the human rights offense that it is."
I agree with this, since both eyelids together are no bigger than the foreskin, however few would argue their importance (although feminists might argue against the importance of MALE eyelids).
However, many women are pro-circumcision for the reasons of their own sexual convenience in avoiding "smegma" (while again they reserve the right to be "unfresh" without mandatory corrective surgery at birth despite equal or greater risk of infections etc); one of the most notable proponents of circumcision was no less than the Happy Hooker herself, Xaviera Hollander, who wrote extensively about the inconvenience of uncircumcised "clientele" and dismissed all arguments against it, claiming that "neurologic tests proved no difference in sensitivity."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...if you can refute this Zak person better than I (I'm not well-versed on the topic) is send a letter to the editor of that school newspaper. I've run off several (too late, probably), about a columnist who endorsed women slapping men when they were angry as a way to lead to passionate "make-up" sex, afterward. They probably won't print my letter, but at least they've heard from me now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, the letter I sent was not to USC, but to UCSB, and I only learned about it via a search engine. (I'm the last person who would be reading a sex column, normally, since I'm not sexually active and don't care to be.) Let me know if you'd like me to print that exchange here.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Here it is. Maybe I'll print it again in a more prominent place so it can get more exposure.)
Here's a piece from a columnist at UC-Santa Barbara that endorsed domestic violence toward males as a way to heighten later sexual pleasure, and below is my angry letter to the newspaper. The column did run a few months ago, but it can't hurt if you fire off a few, too.
www.dailynexus.com/opinion/1969/3884.html
And my response:
"Beth Van Dyke is a sexist hypocrite. In her November 13 column, she suggested that couples should get into arguments and shouting matches so that they could later have rough "make-up sex" afterwards.
She specifically condemned the act of a man smacking a woman around "like an inflatable doll", but she proved earlier that she has zero credibility, as she outright endorsed the act of a woman slapping a man, which is absolutely no different from violence the other way around, no matter how much the delusional Van Dyke may believe it so.
Van Dyke is under the impression that a man striking a woman is wrong, but that a woman striking a man is a real turn-on. Furthermore, she wrote that a guy who is slapped should "take it like a man", a worn-out, extremely misandrist phrase. NO ONE, big or small, female or male, should tolerate being physically assaulted. It appears that Beth Van Dyke sorely needs to learn that members of the male gender are also not to be treated like inflatable dolls."
Now, do your worst, gang!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to see circumcision of infant males outlawed in the United States, as it has been outlawed for infant females already. No one has any right to needlessly mutilate an infant, not even for religious purposes. The UK and the rest of Europe figured this out over 50 years ago, and the practice of circumcision is thankfully declining in the USA, Canada, and Australia.
Let's take a look at the reasoning that currently stands behind circumcision. Females are more likely to get breast cancer (what is it, 1 in 9?) than males are to suffer permanent damage from a urinary tract infection. By this reasoning, if all boys should be circumcised at birth, then all girls should receive a mastectomy at puberty. I won't even bother with penile cancer, since the risk is statistically insignificant. There is no sanctioned medical body in the USA that says that circumcision is indicated for all boys, and the idea that circumcision is going to make a person less vulnerable to STDs is silly.
Furthermore, the implication that mutilating little girls is wrong but mutilating little boys is no big deal does not hold water. You cannot pick one of two bad situations and say that because you think it is nastier, the other bad situation can safely be ignored. And it is a bad situation. There is a plethora of information at http://www.infocirc.org/index-e.htm concerning this.
These are the main reasons not to do it:
- Not medically indicated.
- Sexual sensitivity. The glans, left uncovered, keratinizes - its surface becomes thick and leathery and loses sensitivity as the years pass. I can personally attest to this. It was discovered several years ago that the foreskin contains nerve receptors that are routed to the pleasure centers of the brain, and the brain cells at the other end of those pathways will never fire once the foreskin is removed. This compounds the keratinization problem.
- Extremely painful for the infant. Adult men who have been circumcised reported that anaesthetics did not totally block the pain, and there is of course post-surgical pain. In some cases no anaesthetic is used at all. Infants are extremely sensitive to pain, as they have not yet developed the neurological and psychological barriers that adults have. Voiceprints and blood hormone levels have been analyzed and have shown that infant males can undergo extreme pain during circumcision. Some scream hoarsely, others withdraw into shell-shock.
- Lack of consent. Since it is not medically indicated, the parents have no ethical right to consent to it. The foreskin is the property of the infant, not the infant's parents. Slavery was abolished long ago, and personal sovereignty is decidedly the norm. This does not apply only to people who have a voice - it applies to everyone, even babies.
- Religion is not an excuse. We do not let Christian Scientists off the hook for letting their children die or suffer horribly because of their aversion to medicine. If a Jew or a Muslim wants to be circumcised, he is perfectly capable of having the operation performed when he attains adulthood. Furthermore, the ban on female circumcision that was enacted in the USA states specifically that religion is not given any account, so there is already a very relevant precedent.
When I was sliced up in the '70s, circumcision was accepted as the norm, but since then much has been discovered about it. We know better today. It is time to put this awful practice to a stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @08:27PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I would add 'all non-medical circumcision' before the 'should be illegal.' My son was circumcised at two because the forskin would not pull back. This WOULD cause major infections due to not being able to clean properly. So while we tried to not do the procedure, later we had no choice.
I agree that infant circ. should be illegal. Had I any clue I would not have done my first son. As someone said, after 24 hours in labor you really are not in the state to be able to make those decisions.
Someday we are as a nation going to be ashamed about this. And we pretend that Americans are so much better than everyone else. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen, I may have some disquieting news for you. I don't know how well-informed you are on this subject, so I may address some things with which you are already familiar. I don't intend argument, but education, as male genital integrity rights is my specific field of activist interest. That being said:
The prepuce of a two-year-old male child is not supposed to be retractable in the first place. It is sealed to the glans for precisely the same hygiene and health reasons given you as a pretext for his genital amputation.
One of the most prevalent and hard-to-correct medical/cultural myths about infant (and young toddler) male genital care is that the foreskin is supposed to be retracted for cleaning. This is categorically not the case. The care instructions for the genitals of the small male child are very simple: leave it alone!
All one does is wipe off the outside. That is why little boys have a synechially sealed foreskin in the first place: to protect the delicate junctional mucosa of the glans and inner prepuce from infection. And just as the hymen in little girls protects them from childishly innocent premature experimentation through pain, so too does the foreskin protect little boys from the premature exposure of their genitals.
Were you told to retract the foreskin for cleaning underneath? Did you attempt to do so on a regular basis? If so, it is very possible that this fradulent and incompetent instruction was the fundamental cause of your son's infections (another simple possibility is his individual reaction to bubble baths).
Furthermore, if your son really was suffering from phimosis (tightened foreskin) -- a diagnosis which is extremely dubious in the case of so young a child -- there are non-surgical means of curing the condition. The naturally elastic tissue of the foreskin is easily trained to widen through simple manual stretching, assisted if necessary with steroid cream and the use of plastic cylinders of gradually increasing size.
So surgery may not have been necessary at all, and you may very well have grounds for suit.
If you haven't been to the CIRP (Circumcision Information and Resource Pages) site, at
http://www.cirp.org ,
I highly recommend that you check there for confirmation of this. Also, I recommend the folks at the BabyCenter 'Choosing Not to Circumcise' board for personal support and answers to any questions you might have:
http://www.babycenter.com/bbs/1252694/
Tell 'em Ack sent you.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @08:38AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
This is very disturbing. I was told that by that age the foreskin should retract. In infants it is common not to be able to, but by two it should. I will check out the facts.
He had no problems at all, the family doctor sent us after a check-up. I was told the later the surgery was performed, the more painful it was, so I should have it done as early as possible. My son screamed in my lap for an hour afterwards,(the nurse came in to tell me to quiet him down and I think I said something like "F* you!) He now has an extreme fear of doctors.
Thank you for this info. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @05:09PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have any info on starting legal action about this? I think we were grossly misinformed about this, and subjected our son to irriversable surgery based on the information given.
Feeling like making bombs here too, Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional allopathic medicine operates on a basis of fundamental mistrust of the human body and its natural processes. The attitude is "Well, maybe it'll work without medical intervention, but probably not. Let us help. And oh, by the way, here's the bill." I too have had a very strong aversion to doctors all my life; not surprising, between the circumcision at birth and a series of vaccinations at age 6 for a trip to Africa, where my US Navy father was stationed in 1949-50. Fortunately, I've mostly been able to avoid them since then. I've been struggling with some serious health issues for the last decade (my health collapsed after I relived my circumcision at age 50 in 1993), but have been seeking relief through "alternative" means that work from trust for the body's own basic integrity and wisdom.
Each human being is unique; hardly anyone actually matches the statistical "average." I don't know the details of when the foreskin is "supposed" to retract, or when one might begin to think there might be some problem, but I'd be very disinclined to just follow the advice of a conventional doctor in coming to any conclusions. I just don't trust them.
For an alternative view from medical professionals, you might consult with Marilyn Milos, RN and founder of NOCIRC (National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers; scroll down the panel on the left of the page to get to the email), or my friends the Santa Fe Nurses. I particularly like the statement by Mary Conant, a spirited woman and dedicated nurse who was finally forced out of her job at the local hospital because of her outspoken opposition to the circumcision program. (In Barry Ellsworth's video she tells how she was reprimanded for making comforting noises to a screaming, just-circumcised baby. Even to acknowledge his pain was taboo.)
For a frankly alternative view of genital mutilation that pulls no punches, take a deep breath and visit The Sexually Mutilated Child. If after considering how you were "guided" to betray your son's trust, you wonder what you might do about it, you might check out Attorneys for Rights of the Child, who are presently pursuing legal remedies in a couple of cases, I believe (don't follow this news closely myself; it's too depressing for me to dwell on for long).
Your son screamed for an hour in your lap afterwards ... until he managed to bury the experience, along with a large portion of his ability to feel anything. Don't be misled; the experience is still there, and will affect him all his life. For one thing, I've noted that infant-circumcised men carry a subconscious fear of females (as well as doctors); most of us were done at or near birth, before we could make fine distinctions such as the difference between our mothers and the doctor who cut us: for an infant that age, everything is Mother. For your son, of course, at age two he can tell the difference between you and the people who cut him, but he's likely to carry a profound mistrust of the world in general as a result of this experience.
By the way, infant male circumcision is one subject on which women from all across the political spectrum, from Dr Laura to NOW, are perfectly in agreement: they're 100% for it. I consider it the first great success of the modern feminist movement, predating even Prohibition, the other feminist solution-by-force to What's Wrong With Men. Infant Male Circumcision is the pre-emptive, surgical first strike in the War Between the Sexes, which, of course, women cannot lose--though neither, I believe, can there be any winner in this insane jihad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You say you relived your circumcision. I have heard vague information about people being "rebirthed." How did you do this? I might be interested in something like that for myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You say you relived your circumcision. I have heard vague information about people being "rebirthed." How did you do this? I might be interested in something like that for myself.
Well, it wasn't by way of any kind of deliberate process like Rebirthing; I've heard some about the latter over the years, never looked into it myself, though from what I've heard I expect it might very well bring the circumcision to the surface along with other parts of the birth experience.
In my case the "reliving" was more or less spontaneous, though I understood it as part of a process I'd been working with for most of my life, a kind of "archeology of consciousness," attempting to determine what buried experiences in early life resulted in psychological complexes that have negatively affected my life. In all, I've had a rather unhappy life experience, and have always wondered why. A kind of self-psychoanalysis, perhaps, in which my tools have been extensive use of psychedelic and other drugs in my youth, followed by long-term meditation practice, as well as a naturally introspective and analytic turn of mind, a lot of reading, etc.
As some may be aware, in the early 1990s a group of about two dozen maternity nurses at the community hospital in Santa Fe, New Mexico (where I live) stood up and refused to participate any longer in the routine infant male circumcision program there (see link to their website in my earlier post). This generated a good deal of publicity, even to the point of a conference being organized here to which came various "experts" from around the country to discuss the issue. (One of these "experts" was a female rabbi who became nearly hysterical, accusing any and everyone who even questions circumcision of promoting "anti-Semitism.")
Like most American males, I grew up not knowing there was anything unusual about my genitalia; I've never even seen an intact human male. It wasn't until I was in my 30's that I really thought about the issue, and then was only annoyed that someone had cut off part of my body without asking, as I feel instinctively that all its parts are there for a reason. I do not share the common view of the human body as "inherently flawed" and in need of human intervention; I consider this like so many human attitudes to be outrageous hubris.
So the issue was brought to my attention again when it appeared in the local papers, and, after the suspicion had been growing for a decade or more that what I'd always been taught regarding matters of what is now called "gender relations" might not have been on the level, I found myself taking it more seriously. When an article appeared in the local paper about how in Canada, our so-enlighted northern neighbor, routine circumcisions were being "improved" by use of an anesthetizing cream, I boiled over. I wrote a letter to the paper, asking if a rapist would be let off if he could prove that he had anesthetized his victim first: "Your honor, she didn't feel a thing--honest!"
The letter was printed, and one of the nurses called me. She said I was the only man in town who'd come out in public in support of them. She brought me some things to read, including Thomas Ritter's Say No to Circumcision! I read the book and other materials, and went into shock. I suppose I was already in a vulnerable state due to some very stressful experiences I'd recently been through. All I remember is falling into a severe depression for a week or so, wandering around my apartment half-delirous, bowlegged as if I'd spilled boiling water on my crotch.
At one point I also watched Barry Ellsworth's video The Nurses of St. Vincent: Saying No To Circumcision (see also review), which ends with footage of the ritual itself, including the endless, desperate screams of the baby; I began watching this sitting in a chair, and next thing I knew I "awoke" on the floor in a foetal position. This was not only unpleasant, but a little bit scary; clearly there's more to this than "a little bit of skin" and a brief, forgettable surgical procedure.
So when I say I "relived" my circumcision, I'm not referring to the usual idea of seeing a kind of video in the mind, with the various events, faces, etc., unfolding in chronological sequence. It was more an emotional reliving, but not trivial. Actually, I suspect that a newborn baby is probably not "seeing" the world in the same way we do later in life, as a combination of discreet, identifiable objects. That way of seeing has to be learned.
When I say that infant circumcision has major negative effects on the baby's relationship with his mother, and by extension with all females throughout his life, people point out that the operation is usually done (as in my case) by a male doctor. I have to laugh: do they really think a newborn baby is making such fine mental distinctions? Next he'll be balancing his checkbook, fergodsake. After nine months in the womb--which must be experienced by the child as a kind of eternity--everything in the baby's experience is Mother until he learns otherwise--which actually takes up most of his first couple of years of life outside the womb.
All this happened just before my 50th birthday, in September, 1993. The revelation of this deep, severe trauma in my own psychological being gave me a lot to think about, as did the collapse of my physical health shortly after. I've been struggling with "chronic fatigue," severe, often suicidal depression, and various physical difficulties in the years since; each day has been an ordeal to survive. But I've learned a great deal, and seen and understood a lot that I probably would have remained blissfully ignorant about--like most people--without the experiences I've been through.
So no, I can't really offer any advice regarding how to "relive" ones circumcision; nor would I necessarily recommend it. If it happens to you, you'll know it, I assure you. Like any severe trauma, it's still there, buried in the deepest levels of your psychological structure, affecting your whole life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read a while ago that the foreskin is physically connected to the glans, and can remain so for many years, even until puberty. I am sorry they told you this, but I have a suspicion that they were wrong. :(
There are a number of stories of doctors and nurses who see an uncircumcised child and try to convince the parents that the child must be circumcised "for his own good" or something similar, even making up stories, or relying on second-, third-, or fourth-hand "information" that says it should be done or something bad will result.
An extreme case: A man was circumcised a few years ago while unconscious after surgery elsewhere on his body, because the nurse needed to catheterize him. (!!!??!?!?!?!?!?) Seriously. Like she couldn't pull back the foreskin. I think there are a lot of people in Europe and elsewhere that read stories like this and think Americans are all crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh... by the way, I have it on good authority that the best way to clean in there is to shoot a little clean water in there, without soap. Apparently some parents out there are cleaning under the skin with soapy water, which causes irritation, and one family's doctor said that the only way to handle the problem (which was not known then to be the result of soapy water) was to circumcise.
Circumcision is the lobotomy of our time - it is hailed as a beneficial cure-all, but with any luck, in fifty years' time, those who performed lobotomies will be reviled as sadistic villains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminist outrage at any comparison between FGM and routine infant circumcision serves essentially one purpose: to maintain the status quo that men, not women, are the appropriate target for involuntary genital reconfiguration. This is what feminists want, and it can fairly be called disgusting. Moreover, it gives lie to the hallowed feminist shibboleth that only men oppress women. Who could take victim feminism seriously when so many women--millions--dismiss the male right to bodily integrity by authorizing the involuntary circumcision of their infant males? Given what we now know, it is fair and appropriate to consider routine involuntary infant circumcision sexual abuse. All the excuses have long since evaporated in 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 09, @10:23AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
JenPlease remember that if all fathers spoke out against this it would be a much harder thing to promote. Fathers routinely circumcise their children as much as mothers.
I imagine in countries where FGM is still practiced, the mothers support the procedure as much as the fathers. It is cultural.
The medical industry was male run for many, many years and circumcisions were done then too.
I think instead of focusing on how to blame feminism for this one, maybe education would be more appropriate.
Has anyone looked at Lamaze classes, other birthing or parenting classes as ways of distributing information out to would be parents? I still firmly believe this one issue is a cultural one based on misinformation. Are there ready made info packets to download for distribution? Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please remember that if all fathers spoke out against this it would be a much harder thing to promote. Fathers routinely circumcise their children as much as mothers.
I'm with you on this, Jen. Years ago, I went to a circumcision of a child born to two friends of mine. (It was horrible and a real eye opener.) The procedure was performed by a male rabbi, as part of a religious ceremony, and attended by myself, my wife, both parents, an aunt, and an uncle -- four men and three women, and the male rabbi performed the mutilation. Letting men off the hook on this is simply unjust.
I think instead of focusing on how to blame feminism for this one, maybe education would be more appropriate.
Education is certainly appropriate, but I wouldn't let the feminists off on this. The feminists continue to screech that they want equality, then object to FGM without also objecting to, and in fact while often promoting, MGM. The feminists currently have the attention of society and are, therefore, guilty of impeding progress on this extremely serious matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're not letting men off the hook. I want to take the opportunity to expose a glaring hypocrisy in feminism concerning the routine infant circumcision of males. Men are responsible too, but so are millions of women, and they are the mothers of those children, the mothers who say, "my body, my choice." Those same women say, "his body, my choice" when it comes to their own male infants. That's where the hypocrisy lies: in the selective application of the "my body, my choice" principle. No one is letting men off the hook. We're exposing a shameful barbaric practice that gives lie to victim feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most women do NOT know they really have a choice on this, and women are not the only one making this decision. Most parents are told, as often as not by male doctors, that circumcision is necessary. I do not believe this cause is being helped here by any sort of blame. This was going on LONG before feminism was even thought of. Not every injustice is directly caused by feminism.
I do not blame any one group for this, it is an across the board cultural problem. I think the blame game takes away from the real issue, which is HOW to get INFO out to those parents who will be making this choice. So is anyone doing grass roots efforts to get this info out? As I asked before, are there info packets available? Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most parents are told, as often as not by male doctors, that circumcision is necessary. I do not believe this cause is being helped here by any sort of blame. This was going on LONG before feminism was even thought of. Not every injustice is directly caused by feminism.
Jen,
I'm glad you've gotten your own handle.
Please, please, pleeeeeeeease keep posting here. The insights and contributions of open-minded women like you (and crescentluna) are a heartfelt addition to this site, the value of which can't be exaggerated.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to overstate how much the men's movement needs good women today, and how desperately women need good men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's true, the docs or nurses come in real nonchalant-like when the mother is still recuperating and full of drugs and say "Oh, by the way, here are the circumcision papers. It's just a little snip and he won't even feel it! Teehee!" and she signs it just like she and/or her husband signed 50 other things to get her admitted to the hospital for delivery. So they accost the mother, while she's in a state of mind that would be sufficient to get a contract thrown out had she signed it right then, while dad is conveniently out on the patio handing out cigars. Then they look at you all funny if you decline.
I also agree that while sexist feminists do have something to do with the marginalization and perpetuation of this issue, the practice itself has been going on for thousands of years, whereas feminism hadn't even started until the 19th century. It is fair to point out that feminism has a part in this, but sometimes people on this site have a tendency to blow the feminist aspect way out of proportion. Men and women are both to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, I have to say Kudos to you for clear thinking. I am being serious, I am impressed. This issue is a difficult one at best. I totally agree feminists are doing their best to stall any progress on this issue. It is very frustrating when I discuss this and peple tell me, 'what's the big deal, you should have had him done to begin with' GRR. Especially family!
Tonight after practice I am going to start searching for info to put together a packet of plain info with no "agenda", to give out to parents who are expecting at the hospitals. I thought maybe the hospital would be more accepting if there was only medical information, not ethical info. I could include links to this site and others if parents were interested in looking further.
I am also going to contact the birthing center where our youngest was born and ask what they have. They didn't even ask if we wanted him done, in fact Dave and I were the only ones to hold him while we were there! So they're very progressive.
Thanks again for your responses. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Jen for your kind words and your support of an issue that many of us hold dear. It is inspiring that you are interested in helping spread information about this to those in need. Good on you!
Tom
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please remember that if all fathers spoke out against this it would be a much harder thing to promote. Fathers routinely circumcise their children as much as mothers. ... I think instead of focusing on how to blame feminism for this one ....
Please note that I never use the term "blame." I am not the least bit interested in blame, which concept I regard as both meaningless and counterproductive. Blame is extra, an emotional load dumped on the situation that is totally unnecessary for understanding, and in fact will impede understanding, because as soon as "blame" appears, everyone will be so busy trying to avoid it that there will be no time or energy left for simple understanding. "Blame" is a useless hot potato, which solves nothing and makes a problem a lot worse than it would be without it.
I am interested in facts, in cause and effect. I am interested in preventing suffering, thus in determining who has the power to do so in any given case. Whoever has the power to prevent suffering in a particular situation, but does not do so, is reponsible for the suffering in that situation. That's just a fact. "Blame" is unnecessary.
If you step on a rake, you are likely to get clobbered in the face by the handle. There's no "blame," it's not anybody's "fault"; it's just simple cause and effect. There's no need to add anything more to the picture. If you curse yourself, or curse the rake, you're wasting energy that could be better used paying attention so you won't step on the next rake.
If you want to prevent suffering, it is necessary to understand whose power is primary in a given situation, because if you put your effort into persuading those who do not have the real power to change it, you are wasting your time.
I find it amusing how, after decades of listening to women complain about not being taken seriously, when I do take them seriously, in an arena where it is clear to me that their power incontrovertibly rules, suddenly it's all about how powerless they are, how everything is someone else's--i.e. men's--fault. Sorry, I don't buy it.
After all, if women have the "right to choose" to terminate their child's life, do they not also have the right to "choose" to cut off part of his body? Can't have it both ways. I say they do have the power to do both, but that's not the same thing as a "right."
But this sort of thing, endlessly repeated, is why in the end I find I simply cannot take feminism seriously. They say they want to be regarded, and treated, just like men, but when it comes down to any real situation where the consequences might be even slightly less than fun, suddenly they're using all their ancient power to avoid just that. They bat their pretty little eyelashes and whimper, "Poor little me! I have no power here! It's all those male doctors!"
Similarly, after agitating so hard to have the choice of joining the military, during the Gulf War most of the females somehow suddenly, mysteriously became pregnant and had to be sent home. Oh, gee gosh, I wonder how that happened?
I'm in favor of living in Reality, because only if we're dealing with the real world--not some fantasy in our minds--do we have a chance of preventing what suffering is preventable. Women do not belong in the military, for the simple reason that the military's job is to protect women. Any baboon troop that put its young females in the defensive ring on the perimeter would soon be an extinct baboon troop. It's ridiculous. Only in a decadent empire, where there's no real risk of losing a war (or so people believe, just as they did in Rome toward the end) would such an idea be considered.
Nevertheless, all the men fall for it. As we must. I don't mean just the men in this forum; in a decade of occasionally speaking out on the issue of circumcision, I've received far more resistance and ridicule from men than from women. Though this is painful, I understand why. The Prime Directive for males of all species is: Please the Female. Which is why I do not hold men, including fathers, ultimately responsible for the Infant Male Circumcision Program. It's not our "choice."
The medical industry was male run for many, many years and circumcisions were done then too.
Of course, the medical industry is still mostly "male run." But at whose behest? Doctors are hired hands, service providers. If they do not provide the service their customers want, they will be out of business. The circumcision program began with "modern medicine" providing something that 19th-century, Victorian women wanted: "scientific" proof of their suspicion that there is something fundamentally "wrong" with men, and something modern, scientific and efficient to do about it. The Infant Male Circumcision Program came out of the same "hygeinic" thinking that also birthed Eugenics and, eventually, the Nazi programs to "improve" the species "scientifically."
(Of course, it is interesting to note that as more and more women become doctors, the circumcision rate is not affected--though, unlike the male doctors, they have not been subjected to it themselves. So what's their excuse? I'm sure they will have one.)
This is why doctors offer women the "choice" of circumcising their sons. And it is a choice. Any woman can "just say no," and her son will remain intact. I know several women who did just that. This is fact. Where power lies, there also resides responsibility. Like the sign on President Truman's desk: "The buck stops here."
Most women do NOT know they really have a choice on this, and women are not the only one making this decision. Most parents are told, as often as not by male doctors, that circumcision is necessary.
And why do women "not know" they have a choice? Because they haven't taken the trouble to research the issue. And because apparently the idea of cutting off part of their sons' sexual organs seems to them entirely normal. Why? I'd bet if the doctors told them it was necessary to circumcise their daughters, they might give the question just an eensy little bit of thought before signing on the dotted line. And, increasingly, women are making this decision on their own, in this age of "single-parent" families. Fathers are, after all, redundant.
Note how the hospital responded in the Flatt vs. Kantak case: "The mother chose the procedure." They're right. She's challenging the issue on the only grounds she has: that they misinformed her. Which, if it works, might blow the whole issue open. But the question still remains: why did she not question further at the time, since it was her choice, and her responsibility? If she had had a daughter, and the same choice had been offered, are we to believe she just would have gone along with it, without question? If not, why not?
This was going on LONG before feminism was even thought of. Not every injustice is directly caused by feminism.
Well, actually, I use the term "feminism" to refer not only to the modern "movement" dating from 1848, but to the age-old operation of female power of which what we now see is only a recent, ridiculous--though very effective--manifestation. And of course, very few "injustices" are directly caused by feminism, or female power; usually women use men as tools to rearrange the world as they want it. But that's what they do, have always done, and always will do, so long as there are men in addition to women.
What is the quickest, most efficient way to provoke a man into murderous anger? Cast aspersions on his mother: e.g. "Your mother wears old Army shoes!" Everyone knows this. Any circumcised American male who questions the infant circumcision program is going up against the greatest, most powerful, absolute authority he has known, or will know, in his entire life: MOM. This is not easy. What is the invariable refrain of every father who wants his son to be circumcised? "So he'll look like his father." IOW, so his father will not have to confront this sometimes shattering question in his own life. Easier just to pass it on to the next generation unexamined.
Do you really want your sons to question your maternal authority? Think about it. What would that do to your life, your family? Does Mother know best, or not? Which is it? If Mother does not know best, why is it that mothers get custody in the overwhelming majority of divorces? BTW, I understand that in the 19th century and earlier--before the Infant Male Circumcision Program, "female suffrage," Prohibition, Hillary, etc. etc.--it was fathers who were assigned custody, because they were seen as the responsible parent. Interesting.
There can be no comparison between the views of women and the views of circumcised men on the subject of circumcision. Expecting men to "lead" in this instance is ridiculous--especially after decades of insisting that men should follow women's "lead," without question, in all situations.
Female power is subtle. Most of the time, women are not consciously aware of their power and how they are using it. Which is the real tragedy, for it is women's unconscious use of their power which causes most of our suffering--the avoidable part, anyway. Nevertheless, the Law is "Ignorance is no excuse." Because ultimately the Universe's books will balance. In human societies, men pay for women's ignorance. Which is the entire reason for the "patriarchy": because somebody must be responsible, and women won't do it, men must do it, so men have (had) the authority that comes with that responsibility. Where the buck stops, there also is the decision-making power, apparently at least. But in fact, men are always playing catch-up, cleaning up after the effects of women's unconscious use of their power.
Men would not exist if women did not create them. Keep this in mind; you will never understand the relationship of the sexes without this fact as foundation. Females can exist without males--as has been proven by the many species which used to be sexual but no longer are, because the females simply stopped producing males--but males cannot exist without females. The power to create is also the power to not create. No analysis of the comparative power of the genders has any validity unless it starts from this point.
The "myth of male power" is truly a myth in both senses: (a) it is not true, and (b) everyone believes it.
So, why do females create males? Nature is ruthlessly economical; She does nothing without some reason, some utility. Perhaps sex first happened, ca. 1.5 billion years ago, by an accident resulting from a random cosmic ray striking a nucleus; but it would not have continued, prospered and prevailed if it did not work. Sex works for two reasons: (1) It provides for swift evolution to meet changing circumstances and challenges. And (2) Expendable males (remember, she can always make more if she needs them) can be assigned to various chores which females prefer to avoid. Even now, in the Golden Age of Feminism and Gender Equality, we can see this in operation, as women use their newly-won "equality" to invade work areas such as corporate boards that have previously been exclusively male, but somehow mysteriously neglect to insist on becoming garbage"women," or being subject to military conscription, etc. etc.
And while campaigns to bring these discrepancies to public attention may be useful, ultimately I believe they will fail. Because women do have the power, and will always have the power, to avoid what they do not wish to confront. Including their buck-stops-here responsibility for what happens to their children.
Of course it's all about choice for women. It always has been, and it always will be. Until men grow wombs and begin gestating and giving birth--i.e. until men become women--there will always be this fundamental inequality between the sexes. And of course, there's no need for men to become women; if that's where we're headed, the simple way is for women to stop producing men. As many species have done--though none, so far as I know, among the warm-blooded birds and mammals.
That's why I don't fight against feminism. That would be pointless. What I do is put forward the truth. The truth is, women can have it any way they want, because they hold the power. No man has any power but what has been lent to him by women. However, there is one check on women's power: Natural Law. Even women cannot decide to have water flow uphill, or time flow backward. And even women cannot repeal the law of karma. Whatever you do to another you yourself will eventually experience, in this lifetime or another.
Years ago, I went to a circumcision of a child born to two friends of mine. (It was horrible and a real eye opener.) The procedure was performed by a male rabbi, as part of a religious ceremony, and attended by myself, my wife, both parents, an aunt, and an uncle -- four men and three women, and the male rabbi performed the mutilation.
Of course it was performed by a rabbi. It's his job, is it not? But who is he working for? Actually, it was probably a mohel, though maybe a rabbi can be both. Traditional mohels even keep one of their thumbnails (I believe it is) long and sharpened specially for this ritual. Then they suck the blood off the baby's chopped penis with their mouth. Charming picture, no? Ooh, look out--don't want to be anti-Semitic!
Think about this: This is where this whole business comes from. This is not some accident; it has deep roots in the atavistic past of Middle Eastern desert tribes, long before Judaism existed. It's a remnant of the Golden Age (so the feminists tell us) of Goddess worship, when men and boys were sacrificed to keep Her happy. As, in fact, we still are. Not much ever changes, really.
Rabbi Hillel, when asked to expound the Law while standing on one foot, said, "Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself. That is the whole of the Law; the rest is merely commentary." It is unfortunate that his own people have paid no more attention to this truth than has anyone else. But that's the way of the world.
I imagine in countries where FGM is still practiced, the mothers support the procedure as much as the fathers. It is cultural.
Indeed they do. In fact, in at least one instance I saw in the newspaper in the mid-1990s, an African immigrant father in New Jersey or somewhere was desperately resisting his wife's insistence that their daughter be circumcised. That was a hoot for the feminists. The real question is, what is "cultural"? Is "culture" something that comes down from the sky and envelopes us all against our will? I don't think so. I think "culture" is simply a term to describe how we, human beings, organize how we live together. And again, the primary power in that organization is the power of women. "Culture" is women's creation first, modified, with women's permission, by men.
As I've written before, I find it interesting that whenever the subject is something men do to women--e.g. rape--it's always clear that men are responsible; but when it's something that mothers do to their children, suddenly it becomes "cultural," or "society does it," or "a tradition." Women are coated with teflon. For men, the principle has always been that "ignorance is no excuse"; but for women, ignorance is always an excuse.
Funny; in another thread where I expressed some feeling of compassion for the suffering of an insane woman who killed her husband, I was excoriated for wanting to "exculpate" her. Which I did not; I'm just sorry for anyone's suffering. Here, on the other hand, I am criticised for holding women--millions of ordinary, supposedly wide-awake, sane, sensible women--responsible for what they have voluntarily done to their sons. While, it seems, several men who criticized my "chivalry" elsewhere are quick to jump in here and pick up the burden for the little woman. I haven't even said I wanted them "to fry"--or to be circumcised. I don't want anyone to be circumcised, or hurt in any way. I just want the truth on the table, so we can have a meaningful discussion.
Are there ready made info packets to download for distribution?
I don't know about downloads, but if you go to the links in my previous post you'll find a lot of information. NOCIRC in particular provides pamphlets, etc., all very "non-confrontational." Sure, that's fine; whatever it takes to stop it. It may very well stop without the real truth ever being publicly acknowledged. Of course that would be better than nothing; but I'm still going to speak the truth when the subject comes up. Because if the root cause is never addressed, then like a cancer that's been "cured" by surgical removal of some body part, it'll only reappear elsewhere.
I too am happy to see a woman thinking about this and other issues. But this is primarily a men's forum, and that's whom I'm primarily addressing here. If a woman, who is supposedly my "equal," wants to join our discussion, I'm all for it; but I'd suggest she be prepared to face some hard truth--as men do, when they're not adjusting their words so as not to offend women's delicate sensibilities.
Again, I'd suggest reading some Camille Paglia; some women can and do think fearlessly, and talk sense (more or less). I welcome any woman who is willing to undertake this discipline.
Thanks to anyone who has taken the trouble to read this long, hastily-written essay. I have to get back to work now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blame is extra, an emotional load dumped on the situation that is totally unnecessary for understanding, and in fact will impede understanding, because as soon as "blame" appears, everyone will be so busy trying to avoid it that there will be no time or energy left for simple understanding.
I find it curious that by exposing an inconsistency in feminist thinking, I'm (indirectly) accused of blaming women. I consider this an unnecesarily defensive reaction. First, my comments were made in the context of a feminist critique of a lawsuit. I was suggesting that on the one hand, feminists assert the right to "their own body"; on the other hand, it appears that internalizing the "right to one's own body" doesn't extend to any recognition of the right of infant males to their own bodies. Instead, feminists react defensively to any suggestion that female genital mutilation can be compared in any sense whatsoever to routine infant circumcision. This is irrational, as is the suggestion that I am laying blame for irrational thinking by pointing it out. It may be that many feminists are truly incapable of extending their internalized sense of bodily integrity to their infant son's, in which case they are blameless. As others pointed out, education is needed, especially since the ability to generalize effectively about the right to one's own body is non-existent: it applies to my body and not yours, or else it is a gender specific right.
Add to that the defensiveness of parents who don't want to be considered responsible for following their doctor's advice. That's understandable, but it's a separate issue; I think an across the board judgement is unfair; one has to consider each case separately. The issue I'm referring is precisely the widespread feminist inability to apply the notion of bodily integrity to infant males, even when that right has been throughouly internalized by feminists as the right to an abortion. This is my response to feminist ridicule of the circumcision suit; my remarks were intended in that context.
Of course, if "my body my choice" doesn't apply universally, independently of gender, then we have to ask why this is. Is this related to widespread assumptions about which gender is an appropriate target of violence? Why is there such a cultural blindspot about the rights of the infant male? If infant males don't have the right to sexual self-determination, by which I mean the right to decide when they reach the age of consent whether to be circumcised, why should their mothers have the right to their own bodies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it curious that by exposing an inconsistency in feminist thinking, I'm (indirectly) accused of blaming women. I consider this an unnecesarily defensive reaction.
Mars, I hope you don't have the impression that I was making such an accusation. My comments were directed at the remark(s) I quoted, and others similar (not by you), which demonstrate just the the knee-jerk feminist reaction you discuss here.
My take on that reaction, the reflexive, sometimes almost violent refusal to acknowledge any similarity between female and male genital mutilation, is that it is a turf defense: The entire edifice of feminism is built on the definition of the female as the eternal helpless victim of male power, thus to admit that the "oppressor" (i.e. the white male) might be a "victim" in any circumstance would literally jerk the ground right out from under the feminist position. Moreover, I believe that all women know, whether they admit it to themselves or not, that infant male circumcision is an expression of Mother's power; thus the instant refusal to even look at the issue, because to do so will necessarily lead to other thoughts they cannot bear to contemplate--including that they may be to "blame" for this egregious wrong.
In my own case, my mother has steadfastly stonewalled the subject for the last ten years. She was, has been and is in most respects a very good mother, but I suspect that as the notion of "blame" figures large in her thinking (as it does with most people, and especially, I feel, with women), her instinctive, emotional response is to refuse to deal with something that, if allowed into her consciousness, would, as she understands it, force her to feel very badly about herself.
The solution to this dilemma, as I've attempted to suggest, is to dump the concept of "blame," which is useless in any case, since its only effect is to perpetuate suffering. As a Buddhist, my single aim is to decrease and if possible to prevent suffering; anything I do or say must be measured against this standard. If someone has done harm, of course that must be redressed if possible, but to add "guilt" or "blame" to the situation is a waste of energy that could be better used for the real task: to determine exactly what happened, why, how, and what best can be done to correct it.
So long as those whose power is the final authority in the situation refuse to acknowledge this fact, the cause-and-effect chain of suffering will continue. Including, I believe, in the case of infant male circumcision, many of the very same behaviors of men that women so complain about. Any badly abused animal will tend to be unreliable, treacherous, and sometimes violent; infant, pre-rational baby boys who were so savagely violated by their mothers--who in this world can we possibly trust if we cannot trust our mothers?--naturally grow into men who subconsciously fear women, and such fear can easily lead to unexpected violence--unexpected even by the perpetrator--when circumstances evoke such deeply repressed, unconscious feelings. Even at best, the encounter of the sexes will always be confusing, frustrating and sometimes frightening; the wisest preparation is to leave our children whole and support their growth into whole, internally-secure beings who can deal with challenges without losing their mental equilibrium.
--------------------------------------------
Circumcision of children of either sex, like the branding of cattle or the docking and cropping of the tails and ears of dogs, is the physical manifestation of Mother's instinctive sense of ownership: that her children are her possessions, to be modified to suit her tastes, and used to gratify her needs. After all, she made them, didn't she? But is this the proper attitude toward children?
Kahlil Gibran's inspired, classic meditation The Prophet says:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know what a Shibboleth was, but it sounded like an interesting word, so I looked it up!
shibboleth
\Shib"bo*leth\, n. [Heb. shibb[=o]leth an ear of corn, or a stream, a flood.] 1. A word which was made the criterion by which to distinguish the Ephraimites from the Gileadites. The Ephraimites, not being able to pronounce sh, called the word sibboleth. See --Judges xii.
Without reprieve, adjudged to death, For want of well pronouncing shibboleth. --Milton. Also in an extended sense.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
