“Mohelet Culture?” On Accusations of Misandry
by Jill Hammer
David Kelsey asks us to regard Jewish women doctors’ participation in circumcision as “mohelet culture,” a castrating theology that hopes to change men into women (David Kelsey, “Misandry,” Jewschool,” May 14, 2006). Further, Kelsey wants Jewish feminists to change their attitude, as he believes they are turning off Jewish men like him. As a former Ma’yan: The Jewish Women’s Project staff member, who has written material for ritualwell when it used to belong to Ma’yan, I’d like to point out that while Kelsey’s critique of “circumcision as femininization” has merit, his logic about Jewish feminists as a whole is flawed.
Kelsey accuses Rabbi Elyse Goldstein, the author of an article on circumcision posted on Ritualwell, of bigotry because she argues that circumcision is meant to “soften” men and make them like women. I am sympathetic to the argument that Goldstein has erred here. Making men become like women is not my goal as a Jewish feminist, nor is it the goal of most feminists I know. However, Kelsey then complains that his parents were forced without warning to witness a circumcision performed by a mohelet, as if this spectacle arose directly from Goldstein’s article. This is not a fair move for Kelsey to make, as Israelites adopted the practice of circumcision thousands of years ago, and Jewish doctors, male and female (at least in the liberal community), have been trained to perform the ritual because the Jewish community requires it, not because Jewish feminists are out to turn men into women. (Tziporah, the biblical and female circumciser, certainly didn’t know anything about Elyse Goldstein.) Feminists did not invent circumcision, nor did they invent the rationale that it makes men more docile (see Maimonides on this), though you’d never guess this from Kelsey’s writing. Accusing all mohalot of subscribing to a female-supremacist philosophy is simply wrong. Many mohalot are Jewish women doctors who already perform circumcisions as part of their routine as American medical professionals. They want to do a mitzvah and don’t see a good reason why women should not perform this mitzvah. As far as I can tell, many more of them are influenced by traditionally positive Jewish attitudes toward circumcision than by feminism. If David Kelsey disagrees with their decision, and thinks that in the hands of a woman, circumcision suddenly becomes a hate crime (or if, as it appears, he disagrees with circumcision entirely), it would be helpful for him to explain his thoughts without reference to a Jewish theologian who I’m sure many mohalot haven’t read, and without reference to the Jewish women he’s dated, unless some of them are pediatricians. And I’d like to see him talk about his relationship to mohalim as well, so we can compare how he sees men in this role with how he sees women.
But, as far as I can tell, this article is not about circumcision or about theologies justifying or condemning it. Nor is it a thorough review of the varieties of feminism that ritualwell promotes (basically, Kelsey condemns not only the site but an entire religious movement for a single article, without any real discussion of what the site is trying to do or an acknowledgement of the ways it supports both men and women). Kelsey takes Goldstein’s comments as an excuse to claim that Jewish feminists in general are angry sorts who blame individual Jewish men for patriarchy, and are simply undateable. I hear that Kelsey feels that the rush to overturn the legacy of patriarchy is like being on a 5:00 pm train out of Grand Central (though I have to say that in most areas that hasn’t been my experience), but I’d like to see him recognize that this issue isn’t easy for women either, to significantly understate the case. It makes it harder to name real, painful and damaging exclusions when some Jewish men resent us for it and lump all of us in with the opinions of any feminist they don’t happen to like. Kelsey may be right that some Jewish men are in flight from this issue and from Jewish women, but if so, I wonder if it’s partly that their own feelings about the legacy of sexism (and about women’s feelings about that legacy) are painful and confusing. I don’t think it is because most Jewish feminists hate men.
I encourage Kelsey to go on naming bigotry when he sees it, and I appreciate his reminder to not tolerate or promote theology that elevates one gender over another. I do want him to consider how often I come across a Jewish website with material, biblical, traditional, mystical, or otherwise, that theorizes about the meaning of my gender with no reference to my actual experience. The feeling Kelsey had when reading Goldstein’s comments is one that I share on a daily basis, in shul, on the web, in my Torah classes. Every day I have to confront, in the Genesis stories that I love, geneaologies that have no women yet are still regarded as sacred by the Jewish people. Every day, I have to face that prominent Jewish conferences still have almost entirely male speaker slates, and if women complain about this, they are often regarded as troublemakers. Sites like ritualwell (which has hundreds of pages I find inspiring) help me feel that some of my experience is being heard. If such sites make Kelsey feel excluded I want to hear about that, but only if my feelings of exclusion are important to him as well. While he is being a watchdog for men’s rights, which is a role I appreciate and hope to share, I’d be glad to hear that Kelsey is willing to be a watchdog for my rights too (since they are still very much under threat around the world, Reconstructionist websites notwithstanding). Then maybe we’d have more to talk about as allies.
But, instead, Kelsey wants me to know that he doesn’t feel like dating me. This is certainly a good thing for both of us, but it’s probably bad for dialogue.
God bless Rabbi Jill Hammer.
And thanks to Mobius for posting this.
Jill, You misquoted me. In fact, you invented quotes. I never used the word “soften,” nor did I quote Goldstein as doing so. In fact, you never quoted me once, just paraphrased.
You wrote,
“Every day I have to confront, in the Genesis stories that I love, geneaologies that have no women yet are still regarded as sacred by the Jewish people.”
Read it again. Look for this woman named Sarah. She is considered quite high ranking. She is not alone. In Genesis. Do we have the same edition?
“I’d like to see him recognize that this issue isn’t easy for women either, to significantly understate the case.”
Of course it is. I never claimed otherwise. Reconciling an ancient culture is certainly hard for them. It is also hard for the rest of us.
“They want to do a mitzvah and don’t see a good reason why women should not perform this mitzvah.”
I can give them plenty.
“The feeling Kelsey had when reading Goldstein’s comments is one that I share on a daily basis, in shul, on the web, in my Torah classes.”
Do you discuss men circumcisiing women much in you shul, on your web, in your Torah class?
“And I’d like to see him talk about his relationship to mohalim as well, so we can compare how he sees men in this role with how he sees women.”
Same dating policy.
“Kelsey may be right that some Jewish men are in flight from this issue and from Jewish women, but if so, I wonder if it’s partly that their own feelings about the legacy of sexism (and about women’s feelings about that legacy) are painful and confusing.”
Wishful thinking.
David, in your original essay, you wrote:
My parents recently were shocked recently when at the bris of an intermarried woman’s son they were treated to a Mohelet’s performance of the ritual. They were given no warning.
I have to say, this is the part that’s confusing me here. Your parents went to a bris. They knew that a circumcision would take place. Why were they so shocked that it was performed by a woman? I assume that the child’s parents were okay with that mohelet–why weren’t your parents? If you assume it to be a de facto act of violence for a woman to circumcise a boy, do you similarly think that it’s an act of violence for a male gynecologist to perform a hysterectomy?
And jut to clarify, I think that Rabbi Goldstein’s comments are ridiculous, and they echo a gendered version notion of original sin. But I don’t think that follows to the rest of your arguments.
play nice david. and as per “giving them plenty…” i’d like to hear your reasons.
I found both David’s original post, and Jill’s followup post enlightening, intelligent, and thought-through. Comments – less so. I wonder if the correct medium for this discussion should be through posts, rather than brush-off comments. David, I don’t feel like your comment on this piece was a response to the piece, but closer to a justification.
Mobius, you said, ”
play nice david. and as per “giving them plenty…†i’d like to hear your reasons. ”
Very well:
1) Circumcision is hard enough without the politics of inter-gender genital cutting. There are politics in such things. The same action, say violence, is viewed differently when it is between say, a black and a white, as opposed to two of the same ethnicities. It is gas on the fire. So too here. It makes it more intense.
2) If a person is similarly circumcised himself or herself, he or she can at least claim that it is no big deal for them personally. A person not in such a position can make no such personal claim. They don’t experience this.
3) Jewish women already have a reputation–fair or not–as a bit invasive. You can say that’s wrong, and they shouldn’t have such a reputation, but that is a perception, even if not the reality. This is not going to help that situation. It may prove a problem for both men and women.
4) We don’t know what effect this public ritual will have on the child towards Jewish women later in life. I think this question should be asked. I don’t think it is being asked. I find that quite problematic. Because the child can’t voice his opinion, we decided at a later date he will have no preference. That may not be the case. We should be more concerned about that.
5) This is not a ritual that lends itself to egalitarianism in a meaningful way. To insist on pretending that mohelets achieve such a goal is rediculous. It underscores the point, it does not alleviate it.
6) If we accept that this is a guy thing, men should have been and should continually be polled as to how they feel about this. And knowing some guy or guys who say they don’t have a problem with it is hardly a comprehensive study. I know girls who just wants a guy who will take care of her. That proves nothing.
7) A disproportionate amount of Mohelets are used ritually in interfaith brisses, and I am quite sure that means where the man isn’t Jewish. This suggests that Jewish men are not comfortable with this at all, as they don’t agree to it nearly as often as the non-Jewish partner who feels he has no say. Again, no registered concern.
8) This country is turning anti-circ. As it continues to do so, and the Jewish community finds itself increasingly defensive over its attachment to this ritual, the Mohelet movement will be exposed for what it is not–about egalitarianism. It is going to be a point of derision far wider than for comedians like Penn and Teller (where it already was, episode #27, I believe) or hate sites, where it already is as well.
Worse, because they have a point, this risks exacerbating what will already be a problem in terms of Jews’ own perception of circumcision, which will be increasingly under attack in liberal Jewish communities.
My concern is that this situation illuminates how at times segments of Jewish feminism and their backers are solely concerned about their own issues, at the neglect of all others, and of the Jewish community’s welfare as a whole.
Oprah, if you are reading, I’ve got four words for you to consider…. Men Who Date Mohalot.
One more thing. The all too often misappropriated Tziporrah narrative.
This was, according to every classic commentary I have read -on the subject- this was not considered ideal. Not every exceptional situation is meant to be normative. See Pinchas’ behavior, for instance. Addionally, Tzipporah’s circing was done privately, not with everyone watching in a communal setting. There are frequently different rules regarding private and public behavior.
Only recently was it considered okay to have public, inter-gender genital cutting. For reasons why I don’t see that as acceptable, please see above litany of concerns.
7) A disproportionate amount of Mohelets are used ritually in interfaith brisses, and I am quite sure that means where the man isn’t Jewish. This suggests that Jewish men are not comfortable with this at all, as they don’t agree to it nearly as often as the non-Jewish partner who feels he has no say. Again, no registered concern.
That’s an interesting phenomenon if it’s true, but on what stats is this assertion based?
This may be more a narrative question than a sociological one but: Even if Tzipporah’s meilah was private, didn’t the choice of the Torah and Rabbi’s, to accentuate it, and point it out make it a public act? Doesn’t telling a private story to a public make it *as though* she performed the act publically?
Mister Goat,
You asked,
“That’s an interesting phenomenon if it’s true, but on what stats is this assertion based?”
The Atlanta Jewish Times article is direct.
“Most of Schapiro’s clients, however, are less concerned with sticking to tradition and more worried about a service that is too religious for secular or gentile family members and guests. That’s why Schapiro always takes care to explain the purpose of the bris and the blessings and encourages intermarried parents to involve both sides of the family in the service. “And I can tone down the Hebrew,” she says. ”
http://atlanta.jewish.com/archives/2001/060801cs.htm
Others–suggestive.
“The Conservative program requires applicants to be practicing members of Conservative congregations, and ritually observant. The Reform program requires applicants to belong to any congregation, Reform or not, but makes no stipulations about ritual observance.
Rubin had delivered Alexander Kincannon’s son, Patrick Charles Moorehead, and the District woman liked the notion of having the obstetrician do the brit as well.
“We wanted to keep the connection,†Kincannon says.
She also notes that her husband is not Jewish, and Rubin did “a nice job of explaining the ritual and the meaning behind it.â€
http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=4779&TM=36359.27
Mordy, you asked
“Even if Tzipporah’s meilah was private, didn’t the choice of the Torah and Rabbi’s, to accentuate it, and point it out make it a public act? Doesn’t telling a private story to a public make it *as though* she performed the act publically?”
Not anymore than publicizing a patriarch knowing his wife is the same as him having sex in front of everyone.
Thannks for those links, David. I’d strongly urge others to read them too.
Your original statement was that
A disproportionate amount of Mohelets are used ritually in interfaith brisses, and I am quite sure that means where the man isn’t Jewish.
In my opinion, these articles don’t prove that point. You say that the Washington Jewish Week article is suggestive, but the fact that it uses an anecdote of an interfaith family doesn’t suggest much of a trend to me. As for the Atlanta article, let’s look at it. it says that many of this Mohelet’s clients are primarily concerned with “a service that is too religioius for secular or gentile family members and guests.” But there’s no indication that that’s unique to this moelet. I suspect that many mohelim also deal with families who want services that are accessible to secular and gentile family members. It’s likely to be an issue for any Jewish spiritual leader who works with non-Orthodox (and in some cases, non-Conservative) Jews.
I also can’t see anything that indicates why you say you’re “quite sure” that the interfaith families who you believe use mohelot are families “where the man isn’t Jewish.” What’s your backup for that–the anecdote in the Washington Jewish Week? Even you admitted that that was only suggestive.
Honestly, if that’s what you’re basing your assertion on, I don’t think that it stands up.
Mister Goat,
I couldn’t find what I thought I had read, and will perhaps take another look another time.
For now, I would like to retract from my statement that I am sure, and rather, say I am suspicious.
Additionally, as it becomes increasingly accepted in the U.S. that circumcision is taking away something sexually from a male, just as it does in a female with FGM1 (though it certainly does not make either more like the opposite gender), I am interested to know how that acceptance will affect a choice of a Mohelet vs. Mohel along with a declining Jewish circ rate among more liberal Jews and the intermarried .
Kelsey,
I feel like in your first post you maintained that women, specifically Jewish liberal feminist women, as a group want women to complete the brit because it emasculates the child. If this is the case then I dont think the Washington Jewish Post article supports your theory when it says,
“We wanted to keep the connection,†Kincannon says.
This seems to be expressing parents (the word ‘we’ is used here) desire for the person who watches the child gestate and delivers the child to also be the person to bring the child into the covenant with god. The motivation does not seem to be to decrease the humanity or sexuality of a man.
Ris,
We were talking about increased use of Mohelets by the intermarried. The connection she and her gentile husband were talking about was the connection to the OBGYN. Read it again.
i don’t view Jewish women as “invasive” and it breaks my heart to hear anyone make such a generalization, even in a “this isn’t my opinion BUT” sort of way. let’s stop knocking ourselves, eh?
Wow, Kelsey, you must have a rockin’ dating life.
I fail to understand the “invasive women” comment and I also fail to understand any comments about the perceptions of others. If you have any case to make, in my opinion, it is that this is screwing around with the history and tradition of one of our most basic and fundamental traditions. I can accept that argument because a circumcision is something that links both you and me to our male ancestors going back through all the generations of a couple of thousand years. While there may have been plenty of other Jewish laws and customs that have changed or had a different existence over these couple of millenia, circumcision has been consistently the same. It also deals with perhaps the most intimate part of our customs and subsequent lives. This does make it different than, say, reading the Torah at synagogue. I can understand a woman doing that much more easily than I can having a woman become a mohelet and futzing around with genitalia and this particular 2000 year old tradition.
Having said that, I don’t think that this argument is such a strong one that it can trump all others.
Two more things: you keep talking about how American culture is turning against circumcision. Not only is this not true, but you are among one of the key people beating that drum. Talk about fulfilling self-prophecies.
Second, as I pointed out to you at your blog a couple of weeks ago, the international community (read: very fe Jews) are encouraging circumcision to become a standard procedure in Africa because it will lower AIDS infection rates.
fe = few
TM,
I think you are grossly overstating the level of weight and consideration most Americans pay to new and changing attitudes about prophylactic care in Africa. Not much more here than in Europe.
And unlike in hospitals in previous decades, where their arguments were utterly shut out of any discussion, the anti-circ activists are growing rapidly because of the internet which provided them with a platform, and mobilizing impressively here, just as they have in other Anglo countries where the circ rate has fallen.
And people without our cultural attachment are both listening more, and talking about it much more, when it was once taken for granted. And they are increasingly deciding differently than those of us who do it for religous and cultural reasons, even if some of us pretend it is a health or hygiene issue.
Some of us pretend nothing because it is immaterial. Those who do it for customary reasons, will do so anyway. Those who do it because their doctor told them or the father is and wants the son to be will do so as well. The drumbeat is coming from you – seriously, I so rarely read about circumcision that you are the main anti-circumcision gadfly I see out there. If activists oppose it, then there will be fewer circumcisions. Big deal.
And you keep denying that Africa information…
TM, I don’t know what you are talking about. Get off the Jewish net. Go general, not Jrants. The real anti-circ community make me look like what I am on the subject. A conflicted moderate who agrees that routine male circumcision is inappropriate, but wants sensitivity to those who practice it for religious reasons. I also would like those of us outside fundamentalist circles to consider retreating from the more radical brit priah, just like we did from metzizah b’peh. Which is not being raised anywhere as far as I can tell. To me, that is an important gender issue.
But I am hardly driving the anti-circ movement.
Here are some of the major drivers:
http://www.mgmbill.org/
http://www.noharmm.org/
http://www.nocirc.org
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/
http://www.circumstitions.com
http://www.cirp.org/
http://www.foreskin.org/
As for your “Africa information,” it is not appropriate to a nation that has reaily available condoms, which is a better protection against AIDS, and many parents understand this.
If anyone on this thread is giving fuel to the anti-circ movement is is Kesley, whose statements about circumcision portray it as an emasculating form of genital mutilation. I dont think he has made a convincing argument for why this is only true when women perform circumcisions. Lets remember that the baby doesnt remember his circumcision, so these issues of gender identity are more of a projection of the adults in the room. As a society we are comfortable choosing the most qualified OBGYNs, urologists and pediatricians available to us regardless of their sex, so why should this medical procedure be different in a Jewish society that values gender egalitarianism in its rituals?
It is comforting to see trained medical professionals contributing to the Jewish community in this way. New York has recently seen an Orthodox male rabbi infect babies with herpes (which some of them died from) because he insisted on orally suctioning the wound. Many Jews of all denominations call upon mohels from right wing orthodox communities because they are available in abundance. We will only increase the number of qualified mohelim using board of health certified procedures by allowing female mohalot to practice.
Furthermore, why does Kesley see it as so problematic that these mohalot “takes care to explain the purpose of the bris and the blessings and encourages intermarried parents to involve both sides of the family in the service.” I think its great when clergy try and make Jewish tradition meaningful and relevant. If you are so worried about dwindling circumcision rates, why would you object to this?
David,
If you feel that routine male circumcision is inappropriate (I assume that you mean circumcision of gentiles), are you agreeing with the anti-circ people that it is harmful, physically and/or psychologically? If so, can we justify continuing the practice based solely on religious arguments?
New York has recently seen an Orthodox male rabbi infect babies with herpes (which some of them died from) because he insisted on orally suctioning the wound.
MS–thgat’s terrifying? I must admit that it sounds supect, though. I’m a helth educator, and I’ve never heard of herpes being deadly (though I’m not familiar with how it impacts infants. Do you have any citations?
I’m not denying that oral suctioning would be really unsanitary–part of the story just doesn’t add up, though.
In her article, Rabbi Goldstein writes, “At the brit milah male blood is the metaphor for discipline and control over the ultimate male lack of control: unbounded and dangerous sexuality.”
I wonder if she realizes how much she has in common with the African proponents of female circumcision. They also believe that their girls’ genitalia must be cut in order to control their unbounded and potentially dangerous sexuality.
But while Goldstein can wax poetic about the beauty of what goes on at a bris, I imagine that, like most Western feminists, she would probably start screaming bloody murder in opposition to female circumcision. She would probably say that brit milah and female circumcision (a.k.a. female genital mutilation or FGM) are completely different and have absolutely nothing in common (one of course symbolizes G-d’s Covenant with his chosen people, while the other is a barbaric horror that is performed among the savage and backward tribes of Africa). And she would probably also say that the equivalent of FGM on a male would be the excision of the entire penis. But not all forms of female circumcision are so radical. When Somali immigrants to the US first started asking American physicians to infibulate their daughters, some of the doctors proposed a slight nicking of the clitoris as a more reasonable alternative to the complete mutilation of the female genitalia. But American feminists were quick to characterize this “reasonable alternative” as a mutilation. And their screams were heard in Washington, where Congress enacted a law that prohibits the circumcision, excision or infibulation of the whole OR ANY PART of the female genitalia of any minor. So while female children are protected from ALL forms of genital cutting — regardless of the customs or religious beliefs of their parents — even now, after the metztitza b’peh tragedy, male children still have no protection whatsoever.
R’ Hammer wrote:
The feeling Kelsey had when reading Goldstein’s comments is one that I share on a daily basis, in shul, on the web, in my Torah classes. …If such sites make Kelsey feel excluded I want to hear about that, but only if my feelings of exclusion are important to him as well.
Well-said!
David:
I wouldn’t worry about the anti-circ movement. The muslims do it too so no-one is going to touch that issue with a ten foot pole. Because after all, no-one wants to offend the muslims.
Mr Goat: Herpes can be deadly to newborn babies who all have weak immune systems. There were many articles in the NY times and Jewish week about the issue in this past year, especially in the fall. Health professionals all agreed that the infant’s death were due to the herpes that appeared soon after the brit. There are other infants who did not die, but 8 days old is rather young to acquire a lifelong STD.
MS,
You wrote,
“Lets remember that the baby doesnt remember his circumcision, so these issues of gender identity are more of a projection of the adults in the room.”
The baby grows up. And gets to see all sorts of wonderful mohelet ritual pictures not taken in a hospital room.
“As a society we are comfortable choosing the most qualified OBGYNs, urologists and pediatricians available to us regardless of their sex, so why should this medical procedure be different in a Jewish society that values gender egalitarianism in its rituals?”
Dp they do so for the reasons Goldstein says it should be done? Do they do so even for what Maimonedes says it should be done? Or Ibn Ezra? Or Arye Kaplan? Or M’am Loaz?
I personally think routine circumcision needs to be considered much more carefully. And Jewish health professionals need to understand that they all too frequently have a cultural bias, and should be careful not to inappropriately impose this upon gentile parents and their babies.
Which brings us back to my question. If you are against “routine” circumcision, I assume that you find at least some validity in the arguments of the anti-circ crowd. So, I ask again – if we believe it to be harmful, do we have the right to perform this procedure on children based upon religious assumptions which may or may not be true?
I’m not trying to be confrontational; I really would like to hear your opinion. This is a problem that has bothered me for years.
David Kelsey writes:
The baby grows up. And gets to see all sorts of wonderful mohelet ritual pictures not taken in a hospital room.
I don’t remember a thing about my bris, and I don’t know (and have never known) the name of the mohel (though I assume it was a man, since it was the ’70s). I’ve seen pictures, and none of them have the mohel in them (or any “ritual” at all); it’s just happy family members holding the baby. I also don’t know the name of the doctor who delivered me, or whether it was a man or a woman. It’s quite possible that the baby will never know this about his mohel(et), even into adulthood, so there is no reason to think that a mohelet will have any psychological effect whatsoever on the baby.
BZ,
“there is no reason to think that a mohelet will have any psychological effect whatsoever on the baby.”
Please see my above reasons. Your “whatsoever” is suspiciously overconfident.
Cipher,
It’s a longer conversation, and a core one, much harder than my attacking Mohelets and misandry. I concede that you have hit on a most difficult topic for me, and I will get to it more directly in a future post, okay?
DK,
Thanks for reminding me why I didn’t set foot in a synagogue for ten years. Thanks for bringing back the feelings of rejection and the feelings that men I didn’t even know were making decisions about me. Thanks for making me uncomfortable in my ulpan class last night. where I keep reflecting on the fact that I wasn’t taught Hebrew as a child because “girls don’t need it.”
I am not a mohelet, but I think my MD degree and MA in Jewish Studies qualify me to be one if I wished to. But now I, and more importantly, any qualified woman who wants to be able to perform brit milah, face the idea that there needs to be a “warning” about our presence. You call Jewish women “a bit invasive.” Worse still, someone else on this thread (TM) talks about Jewish women “futzing around with genitalia”! Hey, a slap in the face to all Jewish women and to all Jewish women physicians in one thread! I do not understand how, if you think we’re such castrating bitches, you would want to marry one of us. Remember, if you have a boy baby, your wife will be washing his penis every day (My husband pointed this out to me).
Oh, and TM, thanks for referring to the result of years of training, sleepless nights, exposure to needle sticks, etc. as “futzing around.” We really appreciate it.
Wouldn’t it be easier if the guys with castration anxiety just got some psychotherapy instead of taking it out on all Jewish women/Jewish women physicians? It reminds me of the way they used to (who knows, maybe they still do) operate on tall girls’ legs to stop them from growing so men who are screwed up about their short stature would marry them. Nobody thought to treat the men for their own self-image problems.
Interesting. I was just going to raise the issue of female doctors and medical circumcisions, and here is a female doctor dealing with it. Would you pass a law prohibiting women from handling penises medically, too? Good point about how we take care of our sons. I’d like to hear what you have to say about dads who bathe and diaper girl babies.
Would you ban women from the fields of urology? surgery? fertility?
How about men ob-gyns? That’s kosher?
Kelsey, do realize how misogynistic you seem in your posts?
Invasive women? Isn’t that a gross generalization, along with some of your other comments?
Well, I’m Kyle’s Mom for a reason. Only understand that I chose that name for myself, and not because I intrude on Mobi’s life.
Kelsey-
Which above reasons are those? How can the kid be affected by being circumcised by a mohelet (beyond any effects of circumcision in general) if he never finds out whether he was circumcised by a man or a woman?
BZ,
In a ritual situation, as opposed to a strict medical one, but one with pictures and guests, he will know.
Kyles Mom, you– like so many on this issue– appear to conflate Judaism with the secular world.
Don’t. They aren’t the same thing.
This is the crux of the problem.
How are we conflating Judaism with the secular world? Um, let me quote from the Jewschool MySpace profile:
“Jewschool is an open revolt. Offering the latest and greatest from the bleeding edge of Jewish cultural and communal life,…”
Mr. Kelsey, I see a photo of you on the Orthodox Anarchist Web page, and I see you not wearing payess. You are not dressed as Polish nobility. And !horrors! you are seated next to a woman with exposed elbows. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to dress, shave, and dine in ways many might consider “secular,” but suddenly when it comes to brit milah you want to be warned if a woman is doing it! It seems that as long as something doesn’t fit with your personal idea of what is Jewish and what is secular you feel entitled to insult large segments of the Jewish population (i.e., Jewish women, Jewish women physicians). Your explanation, in fact, is gratuitously insulting. If, for the sake of argument, there were some rule that everyone agreed upon forbidding women to perform brit milah, since brit milah falls under the category of the supra-rational chukim, the reason would likely be supra-rational as well. You try to turn it into a mishpat and say that Jewish women are “a bit invasive,” an explanation akin to saying that kashrut is for health reasons, only much more offensive.
Please show me where in the psychiatric literature it posits that knowing that the person who circumcized you has an effect on you as an adult. I’d love to read it. I have time today; I didn’t get my fax from the International Association of Invasive Jewish Women.
Ditto everything Libby Cone said. Also, DK, if you wanna dabble in psychobabble, you can make an equally strong case that getting cut by a man causes Jewish males to experience lifelong insecurity/fear/anxiety/paralysis around other men. Is that the case? I mean, outside the outdated Jewish stereotypes that get exhumed and bandied about here, is it really the case?
Libby Cone, you wrote,
“Please show me where in the psychiatric literature it posits that knowing that the person who circumcized you has an effect on you as an adult.”
Look for yourself. You obviously have never bothered to consider it ever at all. Only the poor mohelets who are being harmed by not being allowed to cut boys, and aren’t received in ritual events (that is to say, not the hospital) to unanimous fanfare.
Again:
http://www.cirp.org/
http://www.mgmbill.org/
http://www.noharmm.org/
http://www.nocirc.org
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/
http://www.circumstitions.com
http://www.foreskin.org/
You wrote,
“You try to turn it into a mishpat and say that Jewish women are “a bit invasive,†an explanation akin to saying that kashrut is for health reasons, only much more offensive.”
No — you do, and many in the Jewish community do, by pretending this is a necesaary “health” procedure with no adverse affect, taking nothing away, like the foreskin has a dotted line, and is meant physiologically to be amputated.
Kosher is NOT “healthy.”
Neither is circumcision. Rather, it is in many ways the exact opposite.
DK, for the zillionth time, all of these links talk about circumcision in general, and provide no basis for a distinction between mohalim and mohalot.
If someone perceives what was done to them in a negative or somewhat negative fashion, there will be politics, and the politics will increase just as they do when somene is perceived to be oppressing someone of another race or gender anytime. The politics always increase.
Regarding circumcision, I don’t have a dog in this fight, so I have not been arguing about circumcision itself. But you’re right, I hadn’t read the literature, so I looked at the references cited in the “Cirsumcision Reference Library” on the first Website:
1. British Medical Journal 1998 Jacobson and Bygdeman article: this is about maternal opiates at birth, not about circumcision
2. Menange article
This was written in 1998 and never updated. It features men who were circumcised at ages three and seven, and cites no references.
3. R. Goldman from the “Circumcision Resource Center,” hardly an unbiased source. He cites one article that mentioned that the use of EMLA (a type of Novocaine) cream during circumcision seemed to eliminate hypersensitivity to later vaccination pain in male babies.
4. The Transactional Analysis paper mentions four whole patients, not a statistically significant number. The article IT cites is a study of sex partners of men who were selected by an anti-circ organization, NOHARMM.
5. Doyle and Bensley article
selection bias by authors
DK, there may be negative ramifications to circumcision, but none of these articles proves it. Few of them were even in refereed journals. It is a complete flight of the imagination to go from these articles to saying that being circumcized by a woman is much worse than being circumcized by a man. I don’t like flights of the imagination when it comes to medicine, because they lead to things like the use of hormone replacement therapy in menopausal women (“Well, it LOOKS like it’s a good idea, doesn’t it?) and, something that happened in my own synagogue, the treatment of breast cancer with Chinese herbs.
I am NOT turning brit milah into a mishpat. I am saying that there is no grounds for your contention that having a mohelet do it is somehow more deleterious than having a mohel do it. If it’s deleterious , then NOBODY should do it. Just don’t start insulting Jewish women and physicians when you don’t have data to back up yuour allegations. There’s a little picture of a scowling Rabbi Soloveitchik looking at me as I write this, and I am being very careful not to turn this into an ad hominem attack. Please don’t revert to ad feminam attacks, either.
“I don’t like flights of the imagination when it comes to medicine”
We are talking about ritual, not medicine.
“If it’s deleterious , then NOBODY should do it.”
In medicine, as part of neonatal “care,” I am inclined to agree. Ritual is not about medicine. And there are politics.
3. R. Goldman from the “Circumcision Resource Center,†hardly an unbiased source. ”
Unlike other Jews when it comes to circumcision, and are utterly unbiased?
Dear Kyle’s Mom,
I find it interesting that you are accusing Kelsey of misogyny. Three years ago, in a response to the former porn gossip blogger and convert to Judaism Luke Ford, you wrote: “Furthermore, the bris with Avraham is very, very clear. The reason for it is that men need to be reminded, everytime they go to the bathroom, that they have to be menschlech. Obviously you need a more serious reminder.” Sounds like you yourself may have a bad case of misandry.
MS–thanks for the clarification on the herpes story. I’m not familiar with it, but as I said, I’m not familiar with how herpes impacts infants. And of course, I agree with you that 8 days old is early to get a lifelong STD! No arugment there.
OK, here are 200+ refereed articles on circumcision and sequelae (a fancy term for late complications)http://home.mdconsult.com/das/search/openres/57974262-2?searchId=477263202
I can’t get the full text of the articles; it might behoove the anti-circ organizations to get them. I see nothing about psychological complications, though there is plenty about physical ones. If about 20% of the world’s population is circumcized, there will be complications.
Now will you lay off moheletiot please? Don’t let one weird comment by one person put you in a tizzy. Personally, the go-to guy for gender issues in my book is Daniel Boyarin, especially his 1997 work, “Unheroic Conduct:The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Male.”
Libby Cone,
I find it problematic that you, like many, are so dismissive of these concerns even as you demand absolute sensitiity to your own “gender issues” that don’t involve anyting like removing the hood of your clitoris.
Jewish feminism is absolutely paramount in the liberal affiliated Jewish community. But there is another side, and another gender. And men have a right to express themselves, and challenge those who are attempting to both silence us and change ritual in a manner we view as unacceptable, in a push for hegemony under the pretense of egalitarianism, when it has nothing to do with that.
There is nothing egalitarian about male-only circumcision.
Dude,
If you think my doing a full Medline search after dinner is dismissive, I don’t know how to answer that. I don’t deny your pain. It’s obvious you are hurting and want to make it better. I just think you need to have a lot more proof to back you up when you start talking about alleged attempts (and you are implying that the “enemy” here is Jewish women) to silence you and slinging terms like “hegemony” around.It’s real easy to blame women for lots of things; why don’t you first prove that circumcision is more like incest or child pornography, i.e., more like problems that were formerly hidden and underestimated, and less like, say, abduction by aliens. Because right now, the OBJECTIVE evidence I see for long-term psych effects from neonatal circumcision is about as strong as that for alien abductions, Indigo children, and cold fusion. Use the intellectual energy you deployed so well in your report on sexual abuse coverups in the ultra-O world and show us OBJECTIVE evidence. THEN go one step further and show us OBJECTIVE evidence that the effect of neonatal circ on guys is worse when done by women. Once again, I am not denying or belittling your pain, just the explanation you come up with for it and the blame you so easily cast.
“Because right now, the OBJECTIVE evidence I see for long-term psych effects from neonatal circumcision is about as strong as that for alien abductions.”
You check a supposedly comprehensive site, and find NOTHING.
Have you considered that this site is not accepting such ideas as even theoretically possible? Other sites have plenty of bitching about it. The fact that this one has nothing itself suggests this site is flawed, or possibly corrupt on this issue.
Circ is a very big and profitable business.Â
The “site” I checked is the Medline search. It searches the medical journals, foreign and domestic, listed by the National Library of Medicine. It’s nonpprofit. I understand what you are implying about a financial incentive to play up circumcision, but I searched specifically for problems, not benefits, and came up with hundreds of articles.I don’t know if you can access it directly (they charge an annual fee), but you can probably do a similar search on PubMEd:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed
Go wild.
But there is another side, and another gender.
Y’know, David, if you were just talking about circumcision as a practice, I’d be right with ya. I personally have a good bit of personal conflict about circumcising a son (if I have one–I currently don’t have kids). But when you turn it into a discussion of the gender of the person who does the circumcising, the issue of circumcising gets lost in the dust.
If we want to talk old school psychology, we will need to talk about the Freudian understanding of fear of castration, but I think we can all agree that modern psychology has moved on from those understandings for much of male behavior.
If we want to look at the psychological impact of female mohalot, you would need to compare the following groups:
1. circumcised boys-male mohel
2. uncircumcised boys
3. circumcised boys- female mohel
4. circumicised boys- dont know sex of mohel
(for kicks I would probably add in a 5th group of Muslim boys who were circumicised at age 13).
you would probably want two subject groups, one group 14, one group 25: two very disparate ages when it comes to attitudes towards sexuality and the body. I would be very impressed if you found correlations between having a female mohel and whatever psychological unstableness DK fears. If we want to say something is harmful to children, lets think about how it can be discussed and researched and not shoot in the dark. Outside of a good study, evidence is strongly anecdotal. When using only a few case studies you run the risk of assuming causation when none is present. Do you think the next batch of therapy patients will be discussing how the surgery they recieved when they are 8 days old is the cause of all their adult problems?
Furthermore, lets just stop to acknowledge that if this study was conducted without the groups who used female mohalot, much of the Jewishc ommunity and most certainly DK would decry it as attacking Jewish ritual. And I most certainly can think of better developmental psychology projects to fund.
Of course you can, MS. Let’s continue to change policy without study. Let’s assume any and every feminist change is good, no matter what it is!
Don’t let me stop you!
Just want to chime in here to express my disdain for the notion of Mohelet in the first place. In my estimation, it’s orignin lies in a deep rooted sexual deviance rather than a desire to perform mitzvot. To me, that any female would even DESIRE to perform a circumcision , has completely and totally shed an unsavory light upon the new direction for women as Rabbi’s within Judaism. In fact, I have begun to question my acceptance of them as Rabbi’s at all. Folks, we’ve just lost all credibilty here. In fact, I have trouble beleiving that this is EVEN being argued within a serious and legitimat forum. While I must admit that the female Rabbi’s have made a sincere effort in their rationale that would equate menstruation with the blood letting during the bris milah -the analogy fails miserably when placed in a true comparison; The bris not only involves blood, but flesh as well (not to mention a great deal of pain). It ALSO was intended to serve as a mark or a sign. In addition, are we to understand then, that until a Jewish female child reaches her first menstruation that she does not enjoy the benefit of the convenant?
But to me, of even greater significance is that this seemingly barbaric act (by today’s standards) was commanded by G-d to Abraham during an era of a PATRIARCHAL society, also at a time when HUMAN sacrifice was not all uncommon. The convenant was clearly between MEN and G-d alone and while preserving the notion of ‘blood sacrifice’ common to the era, it was clearly preferential to sacrificing his own sons. However, to put this within the context of this debates strikes at the core of the covenant itself. If we can simply tailor the intentions of the original commandment to suit our concept of modernity, then perhaps we should simply put an end to ritual circumcision itself. Afer all there are many legitimate calls from within the medical community that place previously held beliefs regarding health benifit of circumcision in extreme doubt.
But to place this in a more cynical tone; the day that a Mohelet informs me that she has allowed a FEMALE CIRCUMCISION to be performed upon her own labia (in a public ceremony), is the day I might consider allowing her to cut my childs penis in a bris milah- a ritual intended from inception as covenant between MEN and G-D. And yes, Tzipoorah did perform the circumcision of Moses, but this too must be taken into context.
In my opinion, to proceed in this direction will ultimatley cause great harm to Judaism. I know that it has for me and many of the Jewish males that I know.