for Hanukkah -- voices of Jewish intactivists: Miriam Pollack

[Glia]

Increasing numbers of Jews are finding the idea and practice of genital cutting on children to be incompatible with their faith and are speaking out against it. Since the Maccabeans apparently insinuated this practice into Judiasm (having learned it from African tribes during their time in the Nile River region) to assert their power and enforce social conformity, it is particularly fitting to hear what these folks have to say during Hanukkah.

From Intact America's December 2011 newsletter:
"As a Jewish woman, Miriam Pollack was often invited by friends to the simcha (celebration) of their sons’ brit milah ceremonies, and found them increasingly disturbing. In 1991 she attended the 2nd International Symposium on Circumcision in San Francisco, met Marilyn Milos, and spent three days listening to presentations on the anatomy and physiology of the foreskin, the history of circumcision, and the implications for maternal-infant bonding. At that point she realized that, in her words, 'My entire maternal wisdom had been keening underneath the very powerful mantel of the religion and culture that I loved: Judaism.'"

Miriam discussed "circumcision and Jewish identity" in a 2007 video interview available on YouTube:
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnqN3YgTd8
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAQdM2CxY5c

As a researcher and writer, her intactivism magnum opus (so far) is Circumcision: Identity, Gender and Power. It was finally printed in Tikkun magazine after many years of trying and is now available on the Peaceful Parenting website at https://www.drmomma.org/2011/10/circ...and-power.html

Here is an excerpt:

The emphatic and elaborate emphasis on this life, on the sanctity of all life as a primary organizing value throughout both biblical and talmudic texts is in complete contradiction to the practice of circumcision. Removing functional sexual tissue is harmful: it is harmful to the infant, to the pleasure potential and sexual bonding of the mature man, and to the mother who is entrained to surrender her sacred bond with her infant in order for his masculinity to be redefined in terms of his community.

The rabbis explain that, because women are closer to the divine due to our ability to give birth and sustain life, men are in need of other ways to access spirituality — circumcision being the primary one. However, the notion that trauma can be a bona fide path, much less an ethical avenue, to greater spiritual awareness would be vociferously challenged by contemporary neonatologists as well as epigeneticists. What is unethical cannot be spiritual. The dichotomy and hierarchy assumed and taught for millennia in multiple religions between sexual aliveness and spirituality is false and has led to ages of human suffering. Spiritual sexism is still sexism and needs to be discarded.

I remember when I first learned about the phenomenon of female genital cutting. I was appalled. How could they? How could anyone? It took years before I could hear their voices: “It’s who we are, who we’ve been for thousands of years.” “No one will marry us if we’re not cut.” “Intact genitalia are ugly.” “They are unhygienic.” Then, I realized... we say the same things.

Yes, there are significant differences between female and male cutting, but it is not honest to claim that one is physically and sexually insignificant and the other barbaric; that one is enlightened, the other primitive. Holding a child down and forcibly removing genitalia is sexual abuse. We would not hesitate to use that label for an individual or culture that countenanced sexual fondling of children. Why do we think slicing off genitals is acceptable? Circumcision is not holy, it does not transmit the Jewish spiritual heritage, nor does it secure Jewish continuity.

[Moon]

Here is an excerpt:

The emphatic and elaborate emphasis on this life, on the sanctity of all life as a primary organizing value throughout both biblical and talmudic texts is in complete contradiction to the practice of circumcision. Removing functional sexual tissue is harmful: it is harmful to the infant, to the pleasure potential and sexual bonding of the mature man, and to the mother who is entrained to surrender her sacred bond with her infant in order for his masculinity to be redefined in terms of his community.

Spiritual sexism is still sexism and needs to be discarded.

Personally, i'd call both actual, male infant circumcision and female juvenile "circumcision" ageist;
the people to whom it's being done volubly disapprove of it.
All the parent(s) of an uncircumcised boy have to do is teach him to clean himself thoroughly.
And for goodness's sake, everyone please spread the word: Circumcision does not prevent AIDS.

You might also be interested in a movie the Sonoma County Library system has called If This is Kosher...

[Glia]

Moon, you're not alone in that assessment by any means. Joseph the Barefoot Intactivist recently did a blog post pictorial essay on just that subject: Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

He also did a good write-up on the "circumcision and sexually-transmitted HIV" sham:
https://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/...event-hiv.html

Thanks for the reply and info!

Personally, i'd call both actual, male infant circumcision and female juvenile "circumcision" ageist; the people to whom it's being done volubly disapprove of it.

All the parent(s) of an uncircumcised boy have to do is teach him to clean himself thoroughly.
And for goodness's sake, everyone please spread the word: Circumcision does not prevent AIDS.