Mothering Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I found it very interesting that my neighbor is a vegetarian, does not spank, and will not even go to a rodeo because she feels the animals are being treated cruely, yet she circumcises!

Then again, I often pair things together for no apparant reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
I do this too.

Every once in a while there is a thread around here, or in homebirthing, about homebirthing and circumcising and whether or not they go together. Makes no sense to me, but I guess there are people who do both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
I think the two issues go together. She doesn't spank her kids because she doesn't want to harm them. She doesn't want to harm animals. Why should animals have more rights in her eyes than her son does?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
Interesting thread! And it really speaks to me.

I am an anti-hitting ("spanking") activist but I did circ my first son. Then someone joined the mainstream board I used to frequent and I began to see the strange inconsistencies in my beliefs and practices. I believe that hitting children violates their bodily integrity and their human rights and is violent and unnecessary. But why in the world would it offend my sensitivities to strike people but not to cut them?

That said, I am always baffled by those who feel circ is wrong but who rationalize other types of violence even against all of the data/research/studies/lessons from other countries/etc. (like hitting young people). In some instances, I think it just comes down to critically examining our parenting practices to ensure that they conform to our moral values (some of mine, for example non-violence, respect for human rights, etc.) Others have elaborate rationalizations for certain practices and whether they are consistent doesn't seem to bother them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,629 Posts
Quote:
Why should animals have more rights in her eyes than her son does?
I know people like this and it is too much for my brain to fathom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,757 Posts
Weird... people never cease to amaze me
:

love and peace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,777 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by skybluepink02 View Post
I think the two issues go together. She doesn't spank her kids because she doesn't want to harm them. She doesn't want to harm animals. Why should animals have more rights in her eyes than her son does?
My guess would be that she just doesn't see that circ=harm.
If you asked her if she has ever let anyone hurt her son she would say "no."
If someone helped her understand that circ does harm she probably wouldn't do it again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
453 Posts
I suspect a lot of people have taken circ for granted and don't give the issue much awareness.

Its like the story of the Emporer's new clothes, everyone says Emporer Circ is wearing beautiful clothes, when in fact he is wearing nothing at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,143 Posts
I see a LOT of moms on mainstream boards insist that "circ doesn't harm." It usually comes up in a debate situation, where someone starts discussing the comparisons between FGM and MGM or points out the inconsistancies in the beliefs of those who refuse to spank or CIO, but are PROUD of circ'ing their sons. They always say something to the effect of "FGM is ALWAYS cutting everything off and sewing it up. It harms. Circ doesn't harm. There are lots of benefits." or "Spanking or CIO hurts their psyches. Circ doesn't harm. They don't even feel it. All my sons slept right through theirs and showed no signs of any pain whatsoever afterwards."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
doesn't make sense to me either. if someone put a gun to my head and said "you have a choice... either spank your kid or cut his foreskin off" i would definately spank. now i know thats an unrealistic situation, but you get the point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,587 Posts
As an ethical vegetarian, I definitely see the connection. As I believe it - animals have the right to not be treated cruelly. However, they don't deserve any more rights than my children. My sons have a right to keep their bodies intact. It's that simple. My son's also deserve the right to not be treated cruelly - and circumcision is cruelty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,132 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by New Mexico Beach View Post
I found it very interesting that my neighbor is a vegetarian, does not spank, and will not even go to a rodeo because she feels the animals are being treated cruely, yet she circumcises!
I'll bet you $1000 she wasn't there when her son was circumcised, that she would describe it as "just a snip of a useless flap of skin", that the nurses who returned her baby to her told her he was "a trouper - he didn't even cry".

I'll bet you another $1000 that she knows someone who knows someone who had problems with his intact penis and "had" to be circumcised later in life.

A final $1000 bet that she was influenced by her family (especially her circumcised DH), who told her that if it wasn't done now, it would HAVE to be done later, so let's do it now when he won't remember it.

This poor woman isn't a hypocrite, but she's horribly uninformed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeannie81 View Post
doesn't make sense to me either. if someone put a gun to my head and said "you have a choice... either spank your kid or cut his foreskin off" i would definately spank. now i know thats an unrealistic situation, but you get the point.

It is so interesting to me how people rank different forms of violence. Personally, I am the opposite. Mostly because I believe that repeated, assaultive, routinized violence that is committed against children who internalize it (most people start and/or continue hitting far beyond infancy and into the years when a child is forming and internalizing beliefs about violence) poses a much graver threat to our society -- particularly in terms of perpetuating physical violence -- than surgical violence.

I am not defending either practice (both are indefensible, IMO), but with a gun to my head, I would commit one-time surgical violence over repeated physical violence. If it were a "strike your baby one time" (that would kill me) versus circ, the balance might change. But if it were a choice to incorporate violence into my regular childrearing practices, then there is no way I could choose that.

In the end, I think BOTH practices are on their way out. Hitting by legislation (eventually -- we are just behind numerous other countries in that area) and circ by education (most people will simply choose not to do it). And both are good trends that, IMO, should be supported by anyone who values human rights, non-violence and bodily integrity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by peacelovingmama View Post
It is so interesting to me how people rank different forms of violence. Personally, I am the opposite. Mostly because I believe that repeated, assaultive, routinized violence that is committed against children who internalize it (most people start and/or continue hitting far beyond infancy and into the years when a child is forming and internalizing beliefs about violence) poses a much graver threat to our society -- particularly in terms of perpetuating physical violence -- than surgical violence.

I am not defending either practice (both are indefensible, IMO), but with a gun to my head, I would commit one-time surgical violence over repeated physical violence. If it were a "strike your baby one time" (that would kill me) versus circ, the balance might change. But if it were a choice to incorporate violence into my regular childrearing practices, then there is no way I could choose that.

In the end, I think BOTH practices are on their way out. Hitting by legislation (eventually -- we are just behind numerous other countries in that area) and circ by education (most people will simply choose not to do it). And both are good trends that, IMO, should be supported by anyone who values human rights, non-violence and bodily integrity.
yes, it is very interesting how people rank different forms of violence. personally i would rather have someone swat my butt every single day for the rest of my life than have someone cut off my labia and clitoris. im not advocating spanking/hitting... my point was just that i don't understand how someone can have the sense to be against hitting a child, but is ok with torturing a child.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,658 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeannie81 View Post
yes, it is very interesting how people rank different forms of violence. personally i would rather have someone swat my butt every single day for the rest of my life than have someone cut off my labia and clitoris. im not advocating spanking/hitting... my point was just that i don't understand how someone can have the sense to be against hitting a child, but is ok with torturing a child.
Hell yeah. The level of trauma is drastically different.

Imagine we are discussing George Bush having it done to Iraqi prisoners. Regular bumswatting, or cutting off part of their genitals with inadequate or no anesthesia without warning. Please. When Singapore starts cutting people's genitals off for spitting gum in the street, I'll march on the UN.

It's like when people bring up ear-piercing of children too small to understand. SURE it's a little bit like. SURE it's not ideal. But the LEVEL of torture is so different- it only hurts our cause when ignorant people coming here to learn hear, "Oh, like ear piercing? Like spanking? That's not soooo bad."

Now because animals are sentient creatures that experience pain, I think it is a better comparison (although they are almost all much shorter than circumcision... vivisection is a better analogy than slaughter for meat.)

An ethical vegetarian is an ideal candidate for educating about what circumcision entails. Probably won't take as long to get that lightbulb to 'click'
as other potential intactivists.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,324 Posts
It seems that the difference is ignorance.
She's well aware of what exactly goes on, and is involved in, rodeos and the factory farming of animals.
She's not aware (I have to guess) of what EXACTLY a circ entails. I think a lot of caring parents think along the lines of "it must have some benefits, or they wouldn't do it."
Faulty logic, but when you don't know, what you don't know, you don't realize how stupid that thinking is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
you can't assume one way or the other that she knows or does not know what circ entails. there are alot of people who have been educated on circ, some by intactivists that frequent this forum, and still choose to circ. of those people, im sure some of them are in to GD or are vegitarian or in to animal rights or are against having their cat declawed or something similar. i don't get these people, but they do exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeannie81 View Post
yes, it is very interesting how people rank different forms of violence. personally i would rather have someone swat my butt every single day for the rest of my life than have someone cut off my labia and clitoris. im not advocating spanking/hitting... my point was just that i don't understand how someone can have the sense to be against hitting a child, but is ok with torturing a child.
I do see your point but view it differently. Repeatedly hitting a child puts that child at risk for increased anti-social behavior, juvenile delinquency, depression, and various mental illnesses. It also teaches a child in the most effective way possible -- violence committed by someone who loves the child -- to accept and embrace violence as a solution to conflict or when anger becomes overwhelming. And it is usually repetitive, done with the express purpose to inflict pain, and committed when the child is at an age to really internalize it. Circ, on the other hand, is not generally performed with the express purpose to inflict pain and humiliation as punishment.

People often say: "well, I hit my child but it doesn't make him go around hitting other people." That may or may not be. But it definitely teaches a child to accept violence and embrace it as a solution to conflict. A VERY dangerous thing to perpetuate in our already-too-violent society, IMO, and something that increases the acceptance of violence in our society. So hitting children harms not only the child-victim, but also society at large. I'm not sure that circ causes a male-victim to become more violent or accepting of violence. It is possible but I just don't see the clear connection that I do with hitting children.

Also, as for FGM, I would rather undergo the form most akin to circ under anesthesia (under anethesia and the type that reduces sexual pleasure and causes the loss of part of my body -- horrible, yes, but not the most extreme form that causes a lifetime of excruciating pain during each menstruation, sex, childbirth, etc. which I view as more akin to removal of the penis entirely) than live under threat of repeated violation of my body through physical violence. That is just me. I honestly feel that imposing physical violence through hitting a vulnerable child is THAT harmful and immoral. I guess we all have areas that we are most passionate about.

I definitely see the hypocrisy of rejecting violence but embracing circ. But I think that same hypocrisy extends to rejecting circ violence but embracing hitting violence. Just as someone helped me see the contradictions in my former stance (anti-hitting, did circ), I hope such discussions will help some who are currently anti-circ/pro-hitting see the contradictions as well. As I said, either practice is violent, causes harm, and cannot be rationalized. I am glad to be in the company of people who reject both harms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,132 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by peacelovingmama View Post
People often say: "well, I hit my child but it doesn't make him go around hitting other people." That may or may not be. But it definitely teaches a child to accept violence and embrace it as a solution to conflict. A VERY dangerous thing to perpetuate in our already-too-violent society, IMO, and something that increases the acceptance of violence in our society. So hitting children harms not only the child-victim, but also society at large.
Perhaps hitting a child does not make a kid hit others, but NOT hitting a child very strongly reinforces the "No Hitting" rule in our family. We try very hard not to develop one set of rules for parents/adults and another set for kids - it's just too confusing (for all of us). We also try to live our lives by the Golden Rule, and I most certainly do not want anyone to hit me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by nd_deadhead View Post
Perhaps hitting a child does not make a kid hit others, but NOT hitting a child very strongly reinforces the "No Hitting" rule in our family. We try very hard not to develop one set of rules for parents/adults and another set for kids - it's just too confusing (for all of us). We also try to live our lives by the Golden Rule, and I most certainly do not want anyone to hit me.
Amen to that. We have the same anti-violence rule in our family and it applies to all members, regardless of age.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top