Intactivism: Week in Review July 16, 2011
Parents, protect your babies. Support intactivism. The following list includes blogs, articles, and websites of interest to Intactivists that were published in the past week. This is a running tally of the ones I found interesting.
In less than a month, the Genital Autonomy Conference will be held in the United Kingdom. The conference is scheduled from August 31 to September 1, 2011, at Keele University, Staffordshire, UK. The two day conference will consider the legal and human rights issues surrounding non-therapeutic genital surgery on male, female, and intersex children.
Monday, July 11, 2011
HuffPost Religion: The Other Side Of The Circumcision Debate
Ronald Goldman is executive director of the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center and author of "Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective" and "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma." The Jewish Circumcision Resource Center represents Jews around the world who question ritual circumcision. Some mothers have revealed great distress about permitting and watching the circumcision of their sons and have regretted their decision for years. "I will go to my grave hearing that horrible wail," one mother says.
LA Times: The debate over circumcising baby boys
The Los Angeles Times presents both sides of the infant circumcision debate. Georganne Chapin is the founding executive director of Intact America and the founder of Hudson Center for Health Equity & Quality, a nonprofit organization devoted to improving access to healthcare. She says that genital cutting of infant boys is a human rights issue. "All people, male as well as female, are entitled to bodily integrity, and nobody — for any reason — has the right to cut off part of another person's body when that person is too young to understand and to consent." On the other side is Daniel Halperin, a lecturer who recites many of the myths that have been debunked. He concludes, "I'm not interested in pushing circumcision but in making the service readily available to everybody who wants it." Hmm. I do not think the baby boy wants to be circumcised.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The Sacramento Bee: Viewpoints: Measure rightly challenges need for circumcision
The opinion piece provides the many reasons why the San Francisco proposed ballot measure to restrict male infant circumcisions is a good thing to do. First, the harms of circumcision outweight any benefits. The urinary tract infection claims are specious. Circumcision is big business. Circumcision is elective surgery and circumcision requires informed consent. Parental rights are not absolute. Religious dogma is ot immutable.
Fantastic Foreskin Blog: Attack on Foreskin Man
A new comic cover: The Battle of the Century: Foreskin Man vs. Capt. Israel. The comic cover was reported at Bleeding Cool, a comic news site. The comic cover is a response to the Foreskin Man comics. It is a cover done by Arlen Schumer, a comics historian, comic book-style illustrator, and graphic designer.
Intactivist Blog: Letter to Nurse Educators from Rosemary Romberg
A letter to nurse educators seeking to inform them about male infant circumcision. The letter includes facts like the current 32.5% circumcision rate in the US. The letter also includes information on the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) policy statement that states that the circumcision of underage boys should be stopped.
Intactivist Blog: What made you become an intactivist?
A short piece describing why the author became an intactivist, one who fights for the genital integrity of all children. When she was researching circumcision for the birth of her next baby, she learned that male circumcision removes part of the penis. That was all she needed to know to be against male infant circumcision.
YouTube Bonobo3D: Denman Street Car Free Day - Foreskin Demos
At Vancouver's Car Free Day Glen Callender and Jennifer Campagnolo bring the Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project (CAN-FAP) to a curious public. The video also includes interviews of members of the public discussing the issues around genital integrity and human rights.
The Jewish Week: Alternative To Circumcision
A Jewish mother explains why she did not circumcise her son. "For me, deciding not to circumcise wasn’t about “doing what’s in vogue” but about doing what I felt was in my son’s best interest. We’ve learned a good deal about the perception and effect of pain on the developing newborn, the biologic function of the foreskin, and the often unspoken complications that accompany circumcision and frequently go unrealized until sexual maturity. This new information should not be ignored. Pursuit of the truth, wherever it takes one, and doing the right thing over the objections of others, has never gone out of style. Indeed, it’s been an integral part of Jewish culture and tradition dating to the days of Solomon and before."
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Beyond the Bris: Brit Shalom: An Alternative Naming Ceremony
"The bris (Yiddish) or brit (Hebrew) is nothing more than a covenantal naming ceremony for baby Jewish boys. Traditionally done on the eighth day of life, the baby is given his Jewish or Hebrew name, he is ushered into the community of Judaism, and his foreskin is removed. Nowadays, we have similar naming ceremonies for baby girls, minus the genital cutting. In Hebrew, the term Brit Milah refers to ritual circumcision. Why not eliminate the cutting, and peacefully give baby boys a name which welcomes them into Judaism? The term Brit Shalom, “Covenant of Peace” is used to denote an alternative non-cutting naming ceremony. Other terms include Brit b’li Milah (Covenant without Cutting), Brit Chayim (Covenant of Life) and Brit Ben (Covenant for a Boy). Brit Bat being the term for a girl’s naming ceremony."
Male Circumcision and HIV: IAS 2011: Thank you to all the donors
Intact America is sending representatives to the International AIDS Society conference in Rome, Italy.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Babies, Boobs, and Blasphemy: One Pro-Circ Argument I Actually Agree With
Many say that female genital mutilation is not at all comparable to male genital cutting. They may be correct. One type of female genital cutting cuts a tiny speck from the female genitals, typically from a baby girl in the hosptial. Such female genital cutting is much less severe than male circumcision. But doing that to a female is illegal in the United States while amputating the foreskin from an infant baby boy is legal. Should this less damaging form of female genital cutting be made legal to be the equal of male circumcision laws?
Friday, July 15, 2011
Salem-News: FORESKINMAN: Unconsciously Anti-Jew
A third issue of Foreskin Man has been released. The first issue depicts a doctor attempting to perform an infant circumcision. The second issue of Foreskin Man depicts a Mohel attempting to perform an infant circumcision. The latest issue depicts attempted female and male genital cuttings in Africa. Genital integrity is a world issue.
Gizmodo: You Can Get a New Penis Made from Your Thigh if You Misplace Yours
Penis cut off? This article describes how to replace it. I thought I had it bad by being circumcised and having to restore my foreskin. The guy that had his penis cut off by his upset wife really has it bad.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
ERIC: End Routine Infant Circumcision: Circumcised To Fit In? Nonsense!
Many circumcise their son because they are afraid their son will be ridiculed in the locker room. Hogwash! This article debunks the myth that foreskin is ridiculed in the locker room. As more and more boys remain intact and whole, it is the circumcised boys who will be different. "Intact penises are natural; do NOT let someone take a way an important part of your son’s penis."
Intact America: Intact America urges policy makers to halt male circumcision rollout, calling the plan exorbitant, dangerous, and unethical
Examiner: Stop UN & WHO 'circumcision prevents HIV' lie says rights group
Digital Journal: Human Rights Group Calls Upon UNAIDS and the World Health Organization to Tell the Truth: Circumcision Does Not Prevent HIV
PR Web: Human Rights Group Calls Upon UNAIDS and the World Health Organization to Tell the Truth: Circumcision Does Not Prevent HIV
Keeping men intact is the specialty of human rights group Intact America (IA). Intact America is heading to the International AIDS Society (IAS) 2011 conference in Rome, Italy, this weekend. Urging public support to "spread the message that circumcision does not prevent AIDS," Intact America has a petition aimed at UNAIDS and the WHO, demanding they stop mass circumcisions, "a dangerous distraction in the fight against HIV."
- Tally's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
#1 Foreskin Man
What benefits has "Foreskin Man" brought to the intactivist community? As far as I can see, there are none.
"Foreskin Man" ridicules the whole movement by portraying the ideal intactivist as a violent and Aryan-looking fanatic. Even worse, thanks to "Foreskin Man," the pro-circumcision lobby has now been provided with "evidence" that, in reality, intactivists are sworn anti-Semites. What Matthew Hess has achieved is a massive mobilization of the pro-circumcision lobby. Potential intactivists are turned off by the anti-Semitic imagery used in the comic and by the heat of the debate. Again we will hear the demand that, in order to prevent another Holocaust, every baby boy in the world should be circumcised. And people will listen and nod their heads.
The Fourteenth Dalai Lama said, "The inner enemy is the trigger that unleashes the destructive power of the external enemy."
#2 What benefits has "Foreskin
ME. I agree, but you do not know enough about intactivism to make that call.
ME. "Ridicule" would make sense if Foreskin Man were a parody intended to send up intactivism. But that is not the case.
ME. Foreskin Man is proof that Matthew Hess has flawed judgment and cultural sensitivity, and nothing more. A large majority of intactivists are women of reproductive age, who are of a very very different mindset.
ME. The people Hess has "mobilized" all strike me as a touchy Jew. Gentile advocates of circumcision have kept quiet.
ME. That the imagery is anti-semitic is something most people under 40 or 50 are no longer aware of. Hence they can't be "turned off" by it. I agree that Foreskin Man is intemperate and in poor taste. But what strikes me as too hot to be temperate is a lot of the critiques of Foreskin Man, and the rush to paint all of intactivism with the antisemitic tar brush. By contrast, the defenders of intactivism have been more reasonable.
ME. Don't be ridiculous. And the argument the other way is equally valid: Jews should abandon circumcision as a Holocaust preventing measure.
ME. Those words may one day haunt circumcision advocates.
#3 I disagree with Michael W.
I've already written about Foreskin Man and the worn-out use of the anti-Semite card.
I'll be the first to say that, although I thought the Foreskin Man comic was a bad move, the release -has- been beneficial to the movement. I'll list the benefits here.
1. The broaching of a taboo subject.
One of the biggest reasons it's hard to talk about ending circumcision is BECAUSE doing so gets you automatically labeled an "anti-Semite." IMO, the real reason people are up in arms about Foreskin Man is, not so much the portrayal of Monster Mohel, but just the in-your-face way in which it puts ritualized child abuse in general. Circumcision, especially when it's practiced by "god's chosen people," "the most suffered people in the world throughout the ages" is supposed to be off-limits. Foreskin Man breaks this, and THIS is the real problem with Issue no. 2 of the comic book. Notice how even Israel Man says it; it was OK to mock and question secular circumcision, but when you criticize religious circumcision, you've "crossed the line." Uh, I think that starting this year, this is no longer true. Thanks to Foreskin Man it's no longer Taboo. This has forced the secular AND religious practitioners of circumcision.
2. Attention to a much needed debate.
Ever get tired about how circumcision advocates try to brush it aside as a "non-issue?" Well, thank to Foreskin Man, this isn't a "non-issue" anymore. For better or for worse, people are talking about circumcision more openly than ever before. Every once and a while some may feel the need to take out the Foreskin Man straw man and give it a good public beating, only to find out this no longer has the intended effect. Sure, some people will tout the anti-Semite/Foreskin Man card yet, but notice how there's no new conversation going on. Die-hard circumcision advocates will comment "amens," and that's about it; it's nothing but preaching to the choir. Circumcision advocates have to contend with the fact that the conversation is no longer limited to arguments about who the "anti-Semite" is. For every "intactivsts = Foreskin Man = Hitler" "news" article or blog post, notice there are like 10 other articles regarding the San Francisco ban and/or questioning of the validity of "medical benefits," "religious freedom," and/or "parental rights."
3. It gets the Jews talking
Foreskin Man has forced Jewish intactivists to become ever outspoken on the issue, showing that intactivists isn't limited to non-Jews. Ron Goldman issued a press release. Eli Ungar-Sargon is conducting his "CUT" tour. Recently there was a debate between Eli and Rabbi Schumley. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there are a few articles out there of Jewish men speaking out against circumcision. Some rabbis are actually questioning whether circumcision is fit for our times despite its "ancientness." For better or for worse, Foreskin Man has shaken everyone, up to and including the Jewish community. I think this is a good thing. In his own way, Hess is braking down the taboos. "Anti-Semite" is becoming an overused buzz word. After circumcision advocates are done pouting and kicking on the floor, the issues are still being talked about and "religious freedom" is being questioned as an alibi for child abuse.
To address some of Michael W.'s points
"'Foreskin Man' ridicules the whole movement by portraying the ideal intactivist as a violent and Aryan-looking fanatic."
This is what pro-circ advocates wish were true, and they'll keep trying to make this argument from here to breakfast. If you actually believe this, you've fallen for their trap. The reality of the situation is that Foreskin Man is one person's (Hess's) expression. Assuming that what is true for the one is true of the whole is a logical fallacy and we must call out those who make it intentionally. The fact of the matter is that not all of us agree, and we musn't let it phase us when pro-circs use this deceptive tactic. Flip the tables on them; no, circumcision isn't exclusive to Jews, and no, not all Jews agree that circumcision is a "religious right."
Even worse, thanks to "Foreskin Man," the pro-circumcision lobby has now been provided with "evidence" that, in reality, intactivists are sworn anti-Semites.
Not really. As stated above, the comic isn't evidence of anything, except that the pro-circ lobby likes to cherry-pick what it likes. Always point to the fact that the first comic portrayed a secular doctor, and that the 3rd comic attacks tribal circumcision. They can keep screeching "anti-Semite," but the fact that circumcision is not exclusive to Jews, that the ban, the comic etc. does not focus on Jews will always be true.
"What Matthew Hess has achieved is a massive mobilization of the pro-circumcision lobby. Potential intactivists are turned off by the anti-Semitic imagery used in the comic and by the heat of the debate."
Look closer. The pro-circumcision lobby has been "mass mobilizing" since 2006. Or even further back than that. The pro-circ lobby has always used the anti-Semite label to shut down debate. Even without Foreskin Man, we were going to get called "anti-Semites" anyway. What Hess has achieved is the beginning of a breakdown of this taboo. Circumcision is no longer off-limits. "Anti-Semite" is becoming old and worn, and it's all thanks to Foreskin Man.
"Again we will hear the demand that, in order to prevent another Holocaust, every baby boy in the world should be circumcised. And people will listen and nod their heads."
Wrong. Those who nod their heads were always nodding their heads regardless. No, perhaps in the past, people listened and nodded their heads. It's different this time around. Back then there was a silence on circumcision. It was a different world. Now, 18 states no longer cover circumcision, and, if the CDC numbers are correct, infant circumcision is down to 33%. (More conservative numbers point to a 40%+ figure, but still, it's no longer 90%.)
People still pull out the anti-Semite card. Some still insist on beating the Foreskin Man straw man. But look around; people aren't backing down so easily anymore. There is more to the circumcision debate than just Foreskin Man. Once people are done throwing their tantrums, once the dust clears, the issues will still be there to address, and no amount of screaming "anti-Semite!" can make them go away.
Intactivism's here to stay whether the pro-circ lobby likes it or not.
#4 Israel Man comic a ridiculous comeback to Foreskin Man
Having addressed Michael W.'s post, I've got to say, Israel Man has got to be the most be the most ridiculous and the most pathetic come-back parody I've ever seen. To criticize circumcision is to criticize Jews and the nation of Israel. Really?
Somebody needs to give Schumer an update; nowadays, circumcision isn't exclusive to Jews in Israel. When he's done beating the Foreskin Man straw man into the ground, the arguments against cutting off part of a healthy, non-consenting child's genitals, even in the name of "religious freedom" will remain ever intact.