Brace yourselves: NYT gets it wrong again - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 07:45 AM - Thread Starter
 
brant31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This appeared in New York Times electronic editions yesterday evening and on page D6 on Tuesday, 17 August 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/he...circ.html?_r=2

Here are some short excerpts and my thoughts.

Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in US
by Roni Caryn Rabin

Lead 6 words: "Despite a worldwide campaign for circumcision..."

[This is inflammatory and wrong. There has been no worldwide campaign for circumcision, much as the Times wishes there had been. There is a targeted effort in 13 eastern and southern African countries.]


a "precipitous drop in circumcision", from 56.2 percent in early 2007 to only 32.5% by end of 2009. "For federal health officials... the news suggests an uphill battle."

["Uphill battle" for what, exactly? To get the US back in the business of near-universal circumcision of our boys? Is that really a valid goal of the medical associations and our government agencies? (Note that there is a pejorative angle to use of the word "precipitous" that suggests "danger")]


Officials from the [AAP] said... the academy is likely to adopt a more encouraging stance than its current neutral position and to state that the procedure has health benefits

[New policy: don't let any American woman give birth without a full sales job on the benefits of having her baby circumcised. Oops, just the boys, thank you. Pitch it to dad, too. Revenues are down and this is unacceptable. Everyone pitch in and help the economy. American = circumcised... why else do you think the bald eagle is our mascot? ]


The article states that about 4 in 5 US men are cut, yet even the biggest fans of circumcision acknowledge that it won't really bring down HIV rates in North America. Nevertheless, the CDC and AAP statements are predicated on the force of the African studies.

[Then what precisely is their motive? More money for doctors and hospitals? Validation of their own circumcisions? Note the weaselly NYT wording; nowhere near 80% of all US males are circumcised, but by saying "men" they can imply it's almost universal and accepted. Also, it's not merely "one of" the highest rates in the developed world; it is a striking anomaly in the developed world. The NYT loves to imply in all its circ stories that nearly all developed nations circumcise, but that the US is just a leader. They don't want to shock their readership by informing them that we stand virtually alone on this, as they might question why we circumcise. Can't have that.]


The Times states that it's "unclear" that male circumcision specifically helps the female partner of a seropositive man .

[Again, the Times misleads materially by omitting vital facts. The only study to examine M-to-F HIV infection found circumcised males far more likely than intact males to infect their female partners. This is certainly worth revealing in the interests of honest journalism, if they play up the other African studies as much as they do.]
brant31 is offline  
#2 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 08:31 AM
 
serendipity22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
An acquaintance of mine referred to a similar article in the NYT as gutter journalism.
serendipity22 is offline  
#3 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 08:50 AM
 
becca_howell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Everyone who knows me who is pro-circ knows not to even approach me with the HIV/AIDS argument. It's a fail from the get-go. My son will be taught from an early age to save himself for marriage and to keep himself to his wife.

Me: femalesling.GIFDH: fuzmalesling.gifDD: hearts.gifDS1: superhero.gifDS2: babyboy.gif
lactivist.gifsaynovax.gifsigncirc1.gifwinner.jpgcd.gifsewmachine.gifribboncesarean.gifribboncesarean.gifvbac.giffamilybed2.gif

becca_howell is offline  
#4 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 09:29 AM
 
mamadelbosque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, ordinarily I like the NYT, but their stuff on circ is just... horendous.
mamadelbosque is offline  
#5 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 12:57 PM
 
Qbear'smama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: between the two solitudes
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It makes me really mad to think about how many people who may be on the fence will jump on the circ bandwagon after reading this!!

Mama to DD 4/06 notes2.gif  new DS stork-boy.gif born 17/12/10 familybed2.gifnovaxnocirc.gif
Qbear'smama is offline  
#6 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 01:14 PM
 
Hannah32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't really think the article was all that bad. Just being honest.

Look, I went to a very mainstream childbirth prep class and gave birth a very medicalized setting. NO ONE pushed circ on us. The question was asked once, I said no, and that was it. At least where I live, people seemed to think it was our business.

I don't think circ is that much of a money maker. That's just an OTT statement.

I do disagree with the idea that circ will prevent AIDS and that's why it should be done. Condoms will do an even better job.
Hannah32 is offline  
#7 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 01:21 PM
 
Qbear'smama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: between the two solitudes
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hannah, I agree it's not the money, but I cannot figure out why circd men are so wedded to this idea, I have spoken to a number of women in recent weeks (since I have been asking around) who have stated "DH insisted we get the baby circd" so I think there is way more to it than making money, but I'm having a hard time getting my head around exactly what is going on in the minds of men on this issue. If I had been subjected to something like circ, I would be doing everything in my power to keep it from happening to my child, not handing them over willingly.

Mama to DD 4/06 notes2.gif  new DS stork-boy.gif born 17/12/10 familybed2.gifnovaxnocirc.gif
Qbear'smama is offline  
#8 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 01:28 PM
 
Hannah32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I guess I'm just lucky, but my hubby is circd and he was the one who was adamantly against it. He's in favor of banning it. I had never really thought about it at all, but I do agree that it's just not acceptable and it's unfortunate that it's so culturally accepted. I came to this conclusion after learning about FGM, which is just so awful. To me, circ is just a difference of degree, but is the same basic concept.
Hannah32 is offline  
#9 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 02:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
brant31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If the New York Times has one consistent theme on infant circumcision over the past 20 years of reporting on it -- and this article is far from their worst -- it is, "What is wrong with those people who have an issue with universal circumcision of our children?"

Their articles consistently imply that "normal" people all support circumcision; circumcision has only benefits and virtually no drawbacks; and it is equally supported by all "developed" or "Western" countries. By implication, it is impoverished mud-dwellers in distant hemispheres and the persistently uneducated here at home who have a problem with the Simple Snip. If the CDC and AAP came out with a call for mandatory circumcision (which they won't), the Times would be first in line with an editorial hailing and supporting the idea.

Instead of actually interviewing parents to learn why infant circumcision has (permanently, and properly) lost its appeal among a large segment of the US population, they instead wring their hands over how federal agencies will achieve their desired ramp-up in the face of such medical ignorance.
brant31 is offline  
#10 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 03:34 PM
 
asunlitrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qbear'smama View Post
Hannah, I agree it's not the money, but I cannot figure out why circd men are so wedded to this idea, I have spoken to a number of women in recent weeks (since I have been asking around) who have stated "DH insisted we get the baby circd" so I think there is way more to it than making money, but I'm having a hard time getting my head around exactly what is going on in the minds of men on this issue.
I think it has to do with our culture. Women aren't the only ones who suffer from oversexualized media -- men are expected to be virile sex machines too, and the penis has been a symbol of strength and virility since ancient times. There ARE phallic symbols everywhere, no? Thus, the penis becomes an important part of male identity (for most men, not all).

You start talking about the wrong-ness of a procedure that has to do not only with your partner's penis, not only its aesthetics, but its function as a pleasure-giving and performing sex organ, and of course men are going to get defensive and state that there's nothing wrong, never has been, and never will be. Saying no to circumcision isn't just about the baby for them, it's about admitting that something is wrong with their penis. I can't say I wouldn't feel the same way.

Now, I do think as a parent you have to examine yourself and why you're doing the things you're doing. Luckily I'm the person who's never impressed with tradition or mainstream culture, so I've never been for circumcision. Once I did the research, I was even more against it. I know my current SO was a little taken aback when he found out I was against circumcision, and asked me why, but I was very careful with the language I chose. I didn't want him to think that I was unhappy with his body, and I'm not. I love him the way he is. I just simply told him that for me, I am unwilling to submit my child to a procedure that they can't consent to, especially when there are no medical benefits. He asked me if I would allow our kid to get it done later in life if my kid wanted to, and I agreed. We're both a big proponent of "nature knows best," so it's worked out.

I just think in this case you have to put yourself in the position of being told something is wrong with your body -- inherently wrong. I can't say I wouldn't be defensive at first. I also think sometimes having a child can bring out a feeling of wanting to pass down the best of you: in a culture which prides men on being pleasure givers, subconsciously that must go on too. KWIM?
asunlitrose is offline  
#11 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 03:48 PM
 
dmpmercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: AK
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok thats it. Can we write letters to the editor? How can we combat this information. I wish one of us could get an article published. This sucks. Why why why is this garbage still going around. This HIV stuff makes no sense at all. Why is our rate higher than the rest of the industrialized world who doesn't circumcise.

Dianna environmentally educated tree hugging mom of dd 9/06 and ds 10/08 newbie dd 9/10
dmpmercury is offline  
#12 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 03:48 PM
 
Pumpkinheadmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qbear'smama View Post
Hannah, I agree it's not the money, but I cannot figure out why circd men are so wedded to this idea, I have spoken to a number of women in recent weeks (since I have been asking around) who have stated "DH insisted we get the baby circd" so I think there is way more to it than making money, but I'm having a hard time getting my head around exactly what is going on in the minds of men on this issue. If I had been subjected to something like circ, I would be doing everything in my power to keep it from happening to my child, not handing them over willingly.
Because a circ'd man would be forced to confront the fact that he had been violated in the worst possible way at the most vulnerable time of his life. That's a hard pill for anyone to swallow. It's easier to deny.
Pumpkinheadmommy is offline  
#13 of 24 Old 08-17-2010, 07:03 PM
 
Claire and Boys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I had to comment on the final paragraph:

Quote:
And while studies in Africa found that circumcision reduced the risk of a man’s becoming infected by an H.I.V.-positive female partner, it is not clear that a circumcised man with H.I.V. would be less likely to infect a woman.
Never mind that the study actually showed women were MORE likely to become infected if their partner was circumcised. This is ignored, yet again.
Claire and Boys is offline  
#14 of 24 Old 08-18-2010, 12:06 AM
 
fruitful womb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 2,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
The study found a very low rate of complications associated with newborn circumcisions; most were considered mild and no babies died.
This is FALSE!


Babies have DIED from circumcision!
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b...21eb5313a&pi=5
fruitful womb is offline  
#15 of 24 Old 08-18-2010, 12:27 AM
 
ElliesMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qbear'smama View Post
Hannah, I agree it's not the money, but I cannot figure out why circd men are so wedded to this idea, I have spoken to a number of women in recent weeks (since I have been asking around) who have stated "DH insisted we get the baby circd" so I think there is way more to it than making money, but I'm having a hard time getting my head around exactly what is going on in the minds of men on this issue. If I had been subjected to something like circ, I would be doing everything in my power to keep it from happening to my child, not handing them over willingly.
oh it's basic psychology. that men have to beileve at all costs that their penis is the best. in order to validate what was done to them, they have to do it to their own child. that's what it's really all about i think.

--

i was pretty excited to read that the rate has dropped to about 1 in 3.

i'm in the midwest and we were solicited for circumcision, after i had already declined in advance, and my file was marked do not circumcise.

needless to say i was on top of it, and expecting such treatment.

but the OB didn't need to be at my bedside at 7 am after a 1 am birth, to wake me up from my, like, 1 hour of sleep to ask if i'd circumcise him. can you imagine? baby was all nested in next to me, sleeping too. no f'in way he was leaving my side. so yes they do still try their best to drum up circ. business.

ElliesMomma is offline  
#16 of 24 Old 08-18-2010, 12:29 AM
 
peainthepod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chasing sanity
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannah32 View Post
I don't think circ is that much of a money maker. That's just an OTT statement.
Hospitals sell human infant foreskins to cosmetics and biotech companies for profit.

The $140-million foreskin

Circumcision is profitable for hospitals and the doctors who perform it. It also desensitizes men--making them more likely to require pharmaceutical sex drugs like Viagra later in life, perhaps? Not that we'll ever see any research on that. It's surely just a tinfoil hat coincidence anyway.

Loving wife partners.gif and mama to my sweet little son coolshine.gif (Fall 2008) and a beautiful baby girl babyf.gif(Fall 2010)

 

When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty. --George Bernard Shaw

peainthepod is offline  
#17 of 24 Old 08-18-2010, 08:28 AM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qbear'smama View Post
Hannah, I agree it's not the money, but I cannot figure out why circd men are so wedded to this idea, I have spoken to a number of women in recent weeks (since I have been asking around) who have stated "DH insisted we get the baby circd" so I think there is way more to it than making money, but I'm having a hard time getting my head around exactly what is going on in the minds of men on this issue. If I had been subjected to something like circ, I would be doing everything in my power to keep it from happening to my child, not handing them over willingly.

http://www.stopcirc.com/vincent/vulnerability_of_men.html

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
#18 of 24 Old 08-18-2010, 02:20 PM
 
Qbear'smama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: between the two solitudes
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks to posters with insight about this issue and Fyrestorm, very interesting article.

Mama to DD 4/06 notes2.gif  new DS stork-boy.gif born 17/12/10 familybed2.gifnovaxnocirc.gif
Qbear'smama is offline  
#19 of 24 Old 08-18-2010, 03:20 PM
 
Pirogi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brant31 View Post
Instead of actually interviewing parents to learn why infant circumcision has (permanently, and properly) lost its appeal among a large segment of the US population, they instead wring their hands over how federal agencies will achieve their desired ramp-up in the face of such medical ignorance.
I agree. The tone of this article and the 1-in-3 article that came out recently is no accident or coincidence. A new, quiet nudge is starting in the US in favor of infant circumcision, with the HIV studies as the base. Media is one of the best avenues into an American home, and if a story can be inserted by a high society newspaper perceived as being read by well-educated, sensible people, all the better.
Pirogi is offline  
#20 of 24 Old 08-18-2010, 03:25 PM
 
peainthepod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chasing sanity
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think this is a good sign that they're getting desperate as the rates of circumcision continue to fall. People have access to more information about circumcision--its risks and the ethical/moral arguments against it, especially--than ever before, and are making informed decisions instead of blindly trusting doctors who have a vested financial interest in selling the procedure.

There might be a new media push but I don't see it gaining a foothold unless they come up with some crazy new scare tactics (like what?). Even really mainstream mamas I've met recently are either not circumcising their sons, or are seriously talking about not circing their future sons. It helps that many insurance plans won't pay for it anymore.

Loving wife partners.gif and mama to my sweet little son coolshine.gif (Fall 2008) and a beautiful baby girl babyf.gif(Fall 2010)

 

When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty. --George Bernard Shaw

peainthepod is offline  
#21 of 24 Old 08-19-2010, 03:26 PM
 
whozeyermamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ugh. So much to complain about but the biggest for me is the idea that circ complication rates are low.

I found the original "Elsevier Global Medical News" story and this seems odd:

They looked at 6.5 million circumcisions from 06 to 09. The article states that to "estimate the incidence of circumcision-associated adverse events, the researchers tallied the rate of any of 41 different ICD-9 and CPT codes that could be such events during the 90 days following circumcision."

Ok, why are they "estimating" based on medical codes - why can't they definitively say how many complications there are?? Why only 90 days? I'm sure many complications only surface years later.

It states that there were no "mishaps" in boys aged 1-9. I'm sorry, I don't believe it. Ok, just a very quick google search found that there is between a 4 and 18.8 percent complication rate for a nose job. Don't tell me that there are NO complications for circ.

It states that as for "correctional procedures" the rate was 58 out of 100k for babies under age 1. We have no idea how many of that 6.5 million were in that age group but it's logical to argue that most of them were so, that means at least 4,000 babies needed corrective surgery 90 days afterward. How many beyond that???

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

Me (40) DH (49) daring DD (9) and darling DS - almost THREE! (born June 25, 2010 in an amazing, unplanned homebirth.jpg

whozeyermamma is offline  
#22 of 24 Old 08-19-2010, 08:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
brant31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is a basic clue as to what garbage the CDC numbers and the Elsevier reporting are: the CDC makes clear from other slides and supporting information that the 3-year period covered was from late 2006 to late 2009.

Elsevier reported 6.5 million US circumcisions in that 3-year span.

Interesting. There were only 6.4 million US male births in those 3 years. Hmmm.

Even if you add the 300,000 or so "later" circumcisions to it, you still have a greater-than-100% infant circumcision rate. But they're telling us it's really 32.5%. And implying that this will have dire health consequences unless we act fast to reinstate circumcision subsidies at Medicare & private plans and also create a standardized "gauntlet" of their information that every new couple must endure and sign off on. The CDC is still trying to work out the kinks of how to ensure that doctors and hospitals target every mom/couple, since the CDC unfortunately doesn't have the staff to do it.

Sometimes I think I'm ready to give up. Why is it so vitally important to this small group of powerful people that the United States be a circumcised country? Why have they made it their life's mission to worry that foreskin stigmatizes a boy, then they create the stigma? Why are they so terrified, after a 100-year failed experiment with circumcision, of trying it the other way to see if we save money and improve health? Europe does it! What is so deeply upsetting about foreskin?

The best thing we can do is to inundate newspapers and web stories with comments from ourselves and every friend we can think of. There is no question it makes a difference, because I have heard comments from the bigwigs in the pro-circ movement that it deeply troubles them that public opinion seems to be running 70% against them -- and they see this most vividly when they get skewered for articles promoting circumcision. Hence, the PR push. They honestly thought this was going to be a cakewalk, an easy sell to a nation still in love with circumcision. They can't fathom where all the hostility to a quick, beautifying snip comes from.

Besides, it ensure that they and their sons will be in the majority; remember, they are obsessed with stigma. Since there is no way they're not going to circumcise, it's much easier for them if the whole country would just go along.
brant31 is offline  
#23 of 24 Old 08-20-2010, 12:11 PM
 
Pirogi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brant31 View Post
Elsevier reported 6.5 million US circumcisions in that 3-year span.

Interesting. There were only 6.4 million US male births in those 3 years. Hmmm.
Maybe some of them had two penises?
Pirogi is offline  
#24 of 24 Old 08-26-2010, 10:28 PM
 
serendipity22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirogi View Post
Maybe some of them had two penises?


Actually a significant of boys get circumcised TWICE, so with a 100%
circ rate, the 6.5 million figure can be explained.
serendipity22 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off