Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

A badly written paper has turned into a justification for being pro-circumcision or against. This is a pointless argument.

Jembru, let me explain why this matters.

Currently, my country (USA) is highly polarized between two groups - you can call them left & right, liberal & conservtive, or pimk and brown. Because of this, we are in a heep of trouble. No matter who wins the next presidential, there will be hell to pay - for some group of people or other.

Many Liberals (to choose one name at random) hate conservatives because of the incredible excesses and outright foolishness of their radicals. I won't bother to mention any, because I bet everybody here can rattle off 5 or 6 without thinking too hard. Because of these things, liberals do not believe that they can enter any kind of meaningful dialogue, or find any common ground, with conservatives.

Many Conservatives, however, for those of you who don't know, also see the excesses coming from radical liberals. Many conservatives are convinced that liberals are empty headed retards - and that paper is a perfect example why. Obviously, no conservative believes he/she can have a meaninful diaogue with a bunch of empty headed retards.

This is a perfect example - For an author, with a Ph.d after his name, to, in 2002, publish a paper suggesting that the unlimate source of gender differences is male circumcision, is absolutely inexcuasible. And that it is pawned off by an educational institution and "Humanities" organization as valid work is... I don't know - "disgusting" is the best word I can think of.

It is (in the first place) completely counter to ALL findings from the real, actual, experimental-based sciences of neurobiology, sociobiology, evolutionary biology, and plain, old fasioned developmental psychology.

But that isn't the worst of it. For a person to believe that this is true requires them to actually deny observable reality. Are uncircumcised men more like women than circumcised men? Uhmmm... It doesn't look like it too me. Possibly DanieMarie or Tylluan Penry, with their greater experience, can confirm my observations which indicate that uncircumcised men are no more woman-like than are circumcised men. And no less.

So, aside from the ethics of honesty and integrity, what's so bad about filling college student's heads with filth?

As you can see from this thread, crap information like this is then used by some as an excuse to spew self-rightious hatred on those who differ from them in some pretty insignificant ways. Haven't we all seen enough of this in our human history already?

Meanwhile, those of us who are not radical this or radical that, but just real, honest to God people trying to do the best we can and do what we believe is right get crushed between to opposing groups of waring lunatic A-holes.

And I don't like that.

IMHO - until we stop rewarding the crazies with our respectful undivided attention or sheep-like acceptance of outright bullshit, they are the ones who will be in control. And, whether it's Left or Right, lunatics in control is a bad thing for everybody else.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

What I see there is a huge flaw in a two party system. I often wonder why the more moderate conservatives don't form a conservative party (something similar to other conservative parties in other countries, perhaps). I also find the so-called "left" to be very bizarre, as the mainstream faction of it isn't really left at all, and that end of the spectrum seems to encompass everything from right-wingers who believe in a social safety net to far-lefters.

Basically, I don't think a two-party system works in the long-term, especially not in a pluralistic, modern world...and I think what's happening now in politics is proof of that!

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Thanks for the invite to comment, Corbin! I've been staying out of this as much as possible, saddened by the conflict this seemingly simple question has aroused. Because I genuinely believe that everyone here is speaking from the very best of motives. What we are brought up to do or to believe is often very subtle. It is something that has been perplexing me ever since this thread started.

We are talking about children. And personally I don't like putting them in pain. I did not like getting mine innoculated but realised that it was for the good of their health. Now - there is a good deal of debate about the benefits of vaccinations - especially the MMR jabs. But - I firmly believe that whether we choose as parents to vaccinate using some of the more controversial vaccines (such as MMR or Whooping Cough) - we do so from an earnest desire to do the best we can for the child.

And I feel this is probably also the case with circumcision. I will nail my colours to the mast here and now and say that I don't agree with it, never had my sons snipped and as far as I know none of my grandchildren have been either (or maybe that's being hidden from me, I don't know!) But - I do realise it is an emotive subject and maybe the best way forward is with some good, well presented research.

That the earlier sources offered have been torn to shreds does not surprise me in the slightest. Some medical evidence in well-respected journals uses methodology that would shame a five year old, but nobody is supposed to question it (the RACHEL study in Europe on patient diaries had some absolutely awful stuff. Eventually it seems to be evening out, but the early research was badly done (one - which was used in teaching at a University nursing course - even resorted to Wikipedia for references!)

And for anyone's info - I don't think that circumcision affects a person's perception of their own gender in the slightest. Mr Penry - for those who have never met him - looks (and occasionally acts) as though he has just stepped off a Viking longboat and is hell-bent on some pillaging. He's not more or less masculine for being uncircumcised. It just isn't done (except for medical or religious reasons) in our part of the world. And amongst people who circumcise routinely for religious reasons - are we to say that their menfolk are more or less masculine than they would otherwise be?



However, it's important to remember that here we are amongst friends. Just because I don't agree with circumcision does not mean I am picking a fight. I'm not. And I think it's a great pity that politics seems to be mixed up in it because IMHO - it shouldn't be. We should concentrate on what unites and not what divides us. In this case - welfare for the child, a determination to prevent illnesses, complications etc. And we just happen to have two diametrically opposed answers. That's something that will need sorting.

But it has to be done kindly and intelligently. Maybe this thread has made an important start.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

LOL - having a personal oppinion is never a bad thing, until somebody tries to force it on someone else. I don't see you doing that, Tylluan, so I have nothing to argue with you about.

Honestly, I've never even thought much about circumcision. Here, where I grew up, pretty much everybody is circumcised. If I had grown up somewhere else, normal would be different. The same is true for you, of course.

If I had a son, I don't even know if I'd have it done or not.

But it would be our (K'roe and me, + the Dr.) choice.

That research, Tylluan, was not incorrect because it was early work. The biology of gender differences have been a major study here in the U.S. since the 70's,
and the sources and causes are understood well enough now to know that they are primarily genetic (contrary to the early 60's mistaken belief that if you raise a boy like a girl, he'll be a girl), with little to do (in most cases) with environmental factors (I can give you a list of a thousand experiment-basedresearch papers, all of which arrive at a clear conclusion, if you like , and all published long before 2002 ). This has been clear since the mid 80's.

In 2002 (the year that study was published) that paper was not mistaken - it was a flat out lie. That's what pisses me off - not that it was wrong, but that it was inexcusibly worng. Maybe if it had been written in 1950-60...

That the earlier sources offered have been torn to shreds does not surprise me in the slightest. Some medical evidence in well-respected journals uses methodology that would shame a five year old, but nobody is supposed to question it (the RACHEL study in Europe on patient diaries had some absolutely awful stuff. Eventually it seems to be evening out, but the early research was badly done (one - which was used in teaching at a University nursing course - even resorted to Wikipedia for references!)

And that's the problem - we do have to feel free to question these things... even if we don't have a PhD of our own.

There's a problem because, these days, there is so much to know, in so much wonderful, exquisite detail that nobody can know it all. We look then to experts to explain these things to us, but if the "experts" are as likely to be lieing as is anybody else - when they have a pet theory or political aganda - who can we trust?

People have to have at least some knowledge of science in order to understand pretty much anything of importance these days. But if that paper is an example of what an institution of higher learning pawns off as "science," any good decisions about issues that happen to be made will be purely due to chance.

Tylluan, you're a scholar, I'm a scholar. We both love knowledge - possibly you love it more than I do because you've immersed yourself in it, whereas I only dabble. We know that scholars make honest mistakes, especially when they are doing ground breaking research. Despite my previous comments about Freud, the man was an first class genius. His "On the Interpretation of Dreams" is an absolute tour-de-force of careful scholarship and sound reasoning. Unfortunately, he was reasoning with the limited data that was avaialbale to him at the time, and so many of his broad conclusions end up being wrong. But he's still worth reading - because his mistakes are honest mistakes, and what he does well he does so very, very well.

That paper is something else. If it wasn't a deliberate lie, then I don't know how the mistake could have been made honestly, and I find that bothersome.

- - - Updated - - -

What I see there is a huge flaw in a two party system. I often wonder why the more moderate conservatives don't form a conservative party (something similar to other conservative parties in other countries, perhaps). I also find the so-called "left" to be very bizarre, as the mainstream faction of it isn't really left at all, and that end of the spectrum seems to encompass everything from right-wingers who believe in a social safety net to far-lefters.

Basically, I don't think a two-party system works in the long-term, especially not in a pluralistic, modern world...and I think what's happening now in politics is proof of that!

DanieMarie, you are absolutely right. We do really need more moderate parties - and, to tell you the truth, I think that if a viable third party were to show up, people would flock to it... if they ever heard about it, and if they believed that it had a fighting chance.

I think that the problem is that we here are so used to two parties that an overwhelming majority of people find it difficult to take new parties seriously.. When I've spoken to people about third parties, I generally find that most people imagine that a vote to somebody other than a Democrat or Republican = a wasted vote, since their candidate will most likely not win, place, or show for the first few elections.

That logic is bad, of course - new parties need a chance to grow, and a cast vote is never wasted when (if?) the other parties are responsive to the citizen's voice, but it's hard to break from old habits of thinking.

The other problem that I've seen is that third parties that arise here tend to be special interest parties that have a bug up their butt about some specific issue - and not much substance on anything else. Naturally, this isn't going to attract a lot of voters - these parties are there basicly to make public statements, not win an election.

I do hope that reasonable third parties start showing up before I die. In the mean time, I have to go left because the lefty mistakes will, I think, ultimately be less destructive than the righty mistakes. And the loonies aren't in the forefront of the Democratic party... yet.

[Medusa]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

You know I do agree that an uncut penis doesn't automatically = an unclean penis. The same way a parent circumcising their newborn is not = to being a monster. I think both sides just get tired of the other side's poo flinging.

[Dumuzi]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Circumcision, death penalty and abortion. Always internet forum classic!

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Circumcision, death penalty and abortion. Always internet forum classic!

Well I knew that the death penalty and abortion were controversial.... but circumcision opened my eyes...

No, that just doesn't sound right somehow....;-)

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

LMAO - pretty much anything becomes controversial when somebody tries to meddle in other people's private business.

Dumuzi, you forgot gun control.

[thalassa]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Well I knew that the death penalty and abortion were controversial.... but circumcision opened my eyes...

No, that just doesn't sound right somehow....;-)

lol!

Try hanging out on parenting or mom forums...breastfeeding, vaccination, c-sections vs vaginal births, epidurals, spanking...it keeps going...and is ultimately ridiculous.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

lol!

Try hanging out on parenting or mom forums...breastfeeding, vaccination, c-sections vs vaginal births, epidurals, spanking...it keeps going...and is ultimately ridiculous.

Good grief! However has the human race survived when we all seem to be doing everything wrong!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Try hanging out on parenting or mom forums...breastfeeding, vaccination, c-sections vs vaginal births, epidurals, spanking...it keeps going...and is ultimately ridiculous.

I bet that is a virtual quagmire of natural = good arguments...

[Willow]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

After discussing it with the hubby, we decided that it's not really worth doing. The cleanliness factor was more of an issue before the methods for maintaining hygiene had developed into what they are today. Natural way trumps aesthetic surgery in our opinion.

[thalassa]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

I bet that is a virtual quagmire of natural = good arguments...

*snicker*

SMALLPOX IS AWESOME!!

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Nothing bothers me more than anti-vaccination people...

I think that one goes beyond "It's my kids and I'll do what I want", because if this is a widespread thing, it's a problem for lots of people when diseases are spreading. There's a difference between individual choice and selfishness crossed with misinformation.

[Dez]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

I can one-up that, Danie. I know someone who insists vaccines caused her son's Autism.

Luna said something back a couple of pages ago I find worth coming back to: a lot of the pro-circumcision stance in America is rooted in the idea that it's vital to do everything in one's power to prevent male children from masturbating. Up until the strong evangelical push in response to Gilded-Age excess, most boys weren't circumcised. It just infiltrated our culture as "the way things are".

Personally, I did not have it done to our son. L has very little sensation in his shaft and head. Abnormally little. Just trust me when I say I'm pretty sure something was botched. Between that, and having seen footage of the procedure (something I think every parent who needs to make that choice should do...there's a reason why they usually whisk the infant out of sight these days), I personally made the choice not to have it done to may son. I will forever love the fact that L consider that my choice to make, since that baby was coming out of my body.