Circumcision in Anne Lamott's Operating Instructions

[skye's mama]

Maybe this has been discussed here before...I just started reading Operating Instructions by Anne Lamott. I have never read anything by her before. It was recommended by a writing group. Anyway, the book chronicles her first year of motherhood. So anyway, I didn't know what to expect. But having just started to make my way out of the exhaustion of my first 1.5 years of motherhood, I am curious to see what personal accounts have been written about it.

I am enjoying the book, although she clearly has very different personality and beliefs than me. So some of the stuff I can just kind of go with, like, she really wanted an epidural. OK, some women are convinced they can't handle the pain. It is not the route I would take, but...

But then the next thing, she has her son circumcised and gives these reasons (I am mostly using her phrasing):

1. penile cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised males
2. uncircumcised males have much more frequent urinary tract infections
3. female lovers of uncircumcised males have a much higher rate of cervical cancer

I honestly haven't done the research...so I don't even know if these are just some misused statistics thrown at her by her doctor.

She also adds personal reasons:

4. she would have to cleanse the foreskin daily, which she thinks would be a hassle
5. she prefers the aesthetics of circumcised penis
6. she prefers the feel of a circumcised penis

I guess I was just kind of shocked about how lightly she treats this decision. I am hoping to read further on and maybe see that she might come to a different conclusion eventually.

I am not sure why I am even posting this. Guess it just gets me wondering about how many people read this and are influenced by it. Sigh.

[thismama]

Wow!

Hmmm... I don't remember that stuff about circumcision. I read her book and enjoyed it a lot, but this was maybe back when I was pregnant? She's also not very AP... I remember a passage about letting the baby cry for 10 mins before realizing he was wedged between the bed and the wall?

[feebeeglee]

I wonder if she would cut up a little girl as well? Her daughter would have had the following 'benefits' from a routine mastectomy at birth, with breast implants put in at puberty:

1. Almost no chance of breast cancer which strikes one in eight unmastectomised American women
2. Unmastectomised females have much more frequent mastitis
3. Male lovers of unmastectomized women have a much higher rate of lung cancer*

4. She would have to clean the girl's nipples daily, which she thinks would be a hassle
5. She prefers the aesthetics of the artificially enhanced breast
6. She prefers the feel of the artificially enhanced breast

* the rate of cervical cancer in women is dependent on so many more factors than partner circumcision status that it is ridiculous to try to blame foreskins for cervical cancer - else why would the US have such huge rates for it and intact Denmark not?

ETA: OK, OK, it was written in the mid-90s, she gets a little slack. But still she should edit later editions.

[Aura_Kitten]

i don't remember that at all.. i read this book when i was pregnant w/ my first, and it had me cracking up through almost the whole thing, although i did have to take a lot of it w/ a large grain of salt, so maybe i just skimmed the circumcision stuff over...?

i do remember the discussion of how awful the wound was afterward though, and i remember vividly her account of having to take her son's rectal temperature...

i think this is more a case for education, yk? it's pretty clear that she was ignorant of a lot of things going into it...

[jessjgh1]

I didn't read the book, but from your comments....

She DID at least do some research on it. What she found was misleading. Then when she had her baby, the medical community supported her decision without correcting her misinformation. She actually thought about it, her reasons show some concern.

This is probably a woman who could have been reached.



I'll say it again, Shame on the medical community....

I'll also share that I had most of the same misinformation she had.

Jessica

[Frankly Speaking]

The BIG problem with this issue is that you have to become educated before you can be educated. I know that seems like a stupid statement but bear with me.

There are so many websites about circumcision and so many preconceived notions that you have to have some information to be able to sort out all of the misinformation first. That prerequisite is pretty intense.

There is so much information that is incorrect in what appear to be legitimate websites that you can easily find information that fits your preconceived notions of what is right. Sometimes, these sites are easier to find than the ones that provide accurate information. There are at least two that actually advertise on the internet. Simply by clicking on a link, you are taken to information that will intentionally give you misinformation. One of these are sponsored by an Atlanta doctor that derives a substantial portion of his income from performing circumcisions and agressively promotes circumcision. He also sponsors a discussion group for fetishists to comfirm his misinformation. Another is sponsored by a doctor who was kicked off the AAP's Taskforce on Circumcision for his radical ideas and absolute refusal to consider the consensus of the rest of the group.

Even in websites for legitimate organizations, you are likely to find misleading information. For example, the research on UTIs will often be stated as intact boys having X times more risk. There was a single research project that found this. However, what they are missing is that this project used all premies for their intact group and all full term babies for their circumcised group and premies are at a known higher risk of UTIs. They also totally ignore that there are about a half dozen other studies that show either no difference or a statistically insignificant difference on the magnitude of 1/10th of 1%.

The risk of penile cancer is also one that gets big play. That's odd because it is one of the rarest of all cancers to afflict mankind and few doctors or even hospitals will see a case in their entire careers. It is so rare that a city of 50,000 people can be expected to see one case every 156 years. The risk of death from circumcision is much higher than the risk of death from penile cancer. If people understood this, the risk of penile cancer would be a non-issue.

There is also the fact that penile cancer is caused by the HPV virus. It is very difficult to find that information because it is just not published as a discussion of circumcision and penile cancer. It is also not published that there is a vaccine for HPV infection that is even effective after infection. Basically, you have to know that before you can understand the penile cancer issue.



Frank

[kama'aina mama]

I have discussed that book with a number of close friends, most of whom are AP moms. We hate that part. H-A-T-E. There are other things she says/does we aren't nuts about... but that's the worst. I still love the book because it is so very, genuinely honest and raw. She speaks the unspeakable. The moments when the baby makes you almost literally insane. The doubts. The fears. The pure joys. She is a fearlessly truthful writer and even when I don't like her choices I can't help liking her for trying so hard to look life and herself in the eye.

[Quirky]

OK, I think she deserves a little slack here. The book was first published in 1994 - what year was her son born, at least a year before that, right? So this is pre-Internet, pre-Mothering mag Fleiss articles, during the era of the pre-1999 AAP statement, etc. How else was she supposed to get the right information except through her doctors, who obviously led her down the garden path?

I am so thankful the Internet has come along to revolutionize information sharing and distribution. Otherwise, how many of us would have circed our sons in the sincere belief that it was the healthiest thing to do? I'm one of them.

[Frankly Speaking]

Ouirky, I would tend to agree with you with a few exceptions.

(1) Yes, she didn't have much of a source of information when her son was born.

(2) Yes, if the book has not been reprinted since then. If it has, she had an opportunity to correct information and should have.

(3) If she is not trained in medicine or does not have the background, she should not be giving medical advise such as penile cancer, cervical cancer, penile hygiene and cleaning. Publishing a book with such false information is a far different situation than posting to an internet discussion site. There is more responsibility involved. Being published gives you the aura of expert just as talking over a microphone gives you the aura of an expert.

(4) There is also a moral issue. That is, the writing that she prefers the look and feel of a circumcised penis. Imagine if a man wrote in favor of female circumcision asserting that he preferred the look and feel of a vulva that had the clitoral hood and labia removed. We can clearly see the offensiveness of that but we can not clearly see the offensiveness of promoting male circumcision for the same reason because our eyes have been culturally clouded to the issue.

Just to respond to what she wrote:

1. penile cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised males

This certainly can not be accurately said. The penile cancer rate in many non-circumcising countries is lower than that in the majority circumcised US. It is also not "almost exclusively" in uncircumcised males. There is actually only a little difference and it can be legitimately asserted that there are cultural reasons for that having to do with the history of circumcision in the US.

2. uncircumcised males have much more frequent urinary tract infections

Again, not accurate. In all but one (flawed) study, the difference was not statistically significant at less than 1%.

3. female lovers of uncircumcised males have a much higher rate of cervical cancer

This is also not true. There is a difference but the difference is due to individual differences, not the foreskin. It has much more to do with the sexual practices of both the man and the woman.

4. she would have to cleanse the foreskin daily, which she thinks would be a hassle

She is obviously not educated on the proper care of the child. Perpetuates the myth of the "dirty foreskin." It also tells me that she is an extremely lazy woman who would rather cut parts off of her baby than accept the responsibility she took on when she got pregnant in the first place.

5. she prefers the aesthetics of circumcised penis

This is where I really start having red flags pop up. This sounds pedophillic. I wonder if she found out that a lot of men didn't like pubic hair if she would have her daughter's pubic regions laser treated to destroy the hair folicles for their benefit? We can clearly see the problem with that kind of thinking but our cultural blinders keep us from seeing the red flags of what she is saying.

6. she prefers the feel of a circumcised penis

This one filled my front yard with red flags and I have a very large front yard. Is she planning on having sex with her son sometime in the future? Otherwise, why would it be an issue for her? Isn't this an issue for the owner of the penis to be concerned with?


Hopefully, with this very public expose' of her ignorance and inappropriate sexual intentions, her son will confront her with it some day and she will come to regret ever writing such trash.



Frank

[hummingbear]

I mentioned this passage ages ago in this forum. I was wondering if she would be willing to put a large and obvious forward that says "circumcision is not medically necessary and no medical association in the world recommends routine infant circumcision". I guess if no one asks, the anser is no.

[Ilaria]

She should consider that...what if someone believes her BS, follows her advice and later finds out the truth and sues her for millions?

[Quirky]

Again, I feel I have to stand up for Anne Lamott. Not that I defend her decision or any of her reasoning, especially the part about preferring the circed penis, but her book is a reflection of her knowledge and the general thinking *at that time.*

Oh, and her son was born in 1989. 1989 was when the AAP came out with its infamous statement on circ linking intact status to penile cancer, UTIs, STDs, etc. See link here. Sounds to me like Anne must have read the statement or a story on it. Sure, in HINDSIGHT all of us can see all the problems with the statement - at the time maybe many of us could have seen all the problems with the statement. But people trust the AAP to steer them right, and I don't think we can slam Anne for trusting the AAP or her doctor's word.

Does she know better now? Maybe. We don't know one way or the other. Is her publisher going to pay her to edit her bookm which came out 11 years ago, correct the misinformation, write a new forward, whatever? Highly doubtful. Where's the money in it?

I think our energies would be much better spent focusing on the books that are being published today - especially the child care/parenting books - that are full of misinformation on circ, than bashing an author and memoirist who was a product of her times. Not to mention the magazine articles, BS publications and statements from doctors, etc.

[feebeeglee]

But... she is publishing today. Not that book, but she's a writer by trade! And a feminist one, at that, right? I don't read chick lit but isn't she like, big?

Has she ever written anything else about it? A quick Google let me know she's just published another book about mothering, from the other side so to speak, as he's a teen now.

Ed Schoen, the hero of the procirc mob, absolutely coos about her, here:

In her bestseller Operating Instructions, about her experience as a new mother, Anne LaMott stated that she had chosen circumcision for her newborn for reasons of hygiene and appearance. She said uncircumcised penises looked "sort of marsupial, or like little rodents stuck in garden hoses."

from http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/schoen1.html

I don't expect everyone to be an intactivist. But to be a pioneer behind (the smugly named) Mothers Who Think, shouldn't you, you know, think about things when you learn you're wrong?

[hummingbear]

Quirky,

I am not bashing her; not that you said "I" was specifically.

My concern is that "Operating Instructions" is still circulated widely. And if I had not already known to question circumcision based on my ex-husband's experience, her book could have been an influence on me to circumcise my son.

So, unless she wants to perpetuate that circumcision is the right choice I would add a forward in the next printing if I were her.

[Quirky]

Has she learned she's wrong? We don't know that. Maybe someone should write her a letter. But in 1989, she had no reason to think she was wrong on the medical reasons front, according to the AAP.

Again - not defending what she wrote! But we cut a lot of people a lot of slack here when they circed their sons last year or the year before, and now they come to us and say "We didn't know!" And this is after the advent of the Internet, plus there are actually mainstream sources out there with good information. And the 1999 AAP statement is a much different critter than the 1989 one. We tell them, when you know better you do better, how were you to know, no one told you, the doctors lied to you, society told you your son would have a complex from being teased in the locker room. It's OK, forgive yourself, we forgive you, and someday your son will do too.

I think we should cut Anne some slack too - and write her a letter pointing out that what she knew *in 1989* doesn't hold true today. If she still sticks to her opinion, then the heck with her - bring out the flamethrowers! :LOL

[Frankly Speaking]

ITA, Quirky. Is this book still for sale? I ask that because books are usually printed to supply bookstores for a certain time length, maybe a year or year and a half. When they run out of inventory at the publisher and there seems to be a continuing demand, the book is reprinted. This is the time to make changes when it is simple and easy. Jim Bigelow's book "The Joy of Uncircumcising" is in it's third printing and each time, it has been updated to reflect new technology and new sources of information and research. It's not a complex process and is quite normal.

Now would be the time to contact her and request modifications in case there will be another printing.



Frank

[hummingbear]

Originally Posted by Quirky

I think we should cut Anne some slack too - and write her a letter pointing out that what she knew *in 1989* doesn't hold true today.

:

Originally Posted by Quirky

If she still sticks to her opinion, then the heck with her - bring out the flamethrowers! :LOL

[Ilaria]

I think it's time to contact her!

[liseux]

I did write her a letter, via Salon.com where she writes often. I`ll never know if she got it. She recently wrote more on there about how she couldn`t imagine how any boy child could ever be taught to wash their penis and if a mom thinks their little boy is actually smart enough to learn such a hard thing, then go ahead and leave them intact. But not her kid, she couldn`t possibly deal with a foreskin. ( I am paraphrasing her)

I was pretty offended, and surprised by her ignorance of how freaking easy it is to deal with an intact child (even an older one) compared to constantly checking a circ and keping it vaselined. I don`t think we need to cut her that much slack, no need to bash her, which noone is doing, but come on, common sense is all you need to know how a penis is supposed to be. My mom had my brother in 83 and knew circ was painful, harmful & pointless so he was left alone.

[Quirky]

OK, Anne, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I had your back, but now I say....















FLAME AWAY, SISTERS!

:LOL