Quantcast


Advertisement

Hollywood Jew

Email | Print | Text - Text +

June 15, 2011 | 2:32 pm

In praise of circumcision: Curbing male barbarism

Posted by Danielle Berrin

Photo

Men may soon complain that they’re being objectified.

In recent weeks, national public discourse has steadily focused on the male sex organ. First, California ballot measures advocating for the ban of male circumcision caught national attention, sparking intense debate between proponents of the religious ritual (“It has health benefits!”) and those who oppose it (“It’s genital mutilation!”). And then, in a discomfiting display of his own Semitic snip, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) injudiciously Tweeted a picture of his package to an online coquette, unleashing a flurry of online-liaison confessionals and prompting calls for him to resign from Congress.

Before that, the spotlight shone squarely on Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, whose stunning sexual appetites led to emasculating consequences.

How ironic, then, that tales of male sexual deviance are met with reminders of religious restraint. God can be so calculating. All these “peccant peckers,” as Christopher Hitchens calls them, have men, in general, in a pickle.

Naturally, a first line of defense is to protect one’s private part.

During a friendly Tweetin’ tussle last week with his producer Eli Roth, actor Russell Crowe expressed his contempt for cutting: “Circumcision is barbaric and stupid,” he direct-tweeted to the “Inglourious Basterds” star.

“Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that God requires a donation of foreskin? Babies are perfect. [I have] many Jewish friends, I love my Jewish friends, I love the apples and the honey and the funny little hats but stop cutting yr [your] babies.”

That Crowe, who won stardom (and an Oscar) for playing a Roman gladiator, is unable to distinguish between real barbarism and a religious ritual that profits health is mildly dispiriting, especially when one of circumcision’s central aims is to curb male barbarism. Men are supposed to be reminded of God and, one could argue, moral behavior, in the very place they are most likely to betray religious ideals.

“Circumcision is the indelible symbol that a man can be more than just an animal,” Rabbi Ed Feinstein, senior rabbi at Valley Beth Shalom, said. “The fact that you seal your connection with God and with tradition into that organ makes it incredibly difficult for that organ to be used as a weapon of manipulation or destruction. For men, this is the center of being: Is masculinity to be defined in terms of power and violence, or control and strength? What you see in the news is what happens when men make the wrong choice.”

All the hullabaloo over men behaving badly has proved an opportune moment for women, who are foisting their feminist critiques about different gendered approaches to power.

“[M]aybe feminists have learned that male development stops at power,” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote about a string of prominent men — Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, et al — involved in high-profile sex scandals.

On ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour,” a roundtable discussion on sex and politics became an exercise in female moral superiority.

“You’d be hard pressed to find a sex scandal involving a female politician these days,” Amanpour began, “which begs the question: What if there were more women in politics and in positions of power? Would they change the way business is done from Washington to Wall Street and beyond?”

The panel included a former Bush administration official and, strangely, Cécilia Attias, the former first lady of France and Nicolas Sarkozy’s second wife, who ran off with her lover during their marriage. But the discussion resorted to clichés: Women don’t cheat “because we don’t have the time”; “the perils of too much testosterone”; “women are attracted to [men in] power,” etc. By contast, an essay in Sunday’s New York Times suggested that while women enter politics more nobly to “do something” with their power, the seemingly shallower sex does so to “become something.”

“Women run because there is some public issue that they care about, some change they want to make, some issue that is a priority for them, and men tend to run for office because they see this as a career path,” Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, told The Times.

Women are seizing upon this man-down moment to vent long-held beliefs and assert hard-won power. Soon, they have learned, all will be forgotten; men will be forgiven their transgressions (see: Clinton, Spitzer) while their female co-conspirators languish in disgrace (see: Monica Lewinsky, Tiger Woods’ mistresses, call girls, porn stars, college students and housekeepers).

The double standard endures, and women are fed up.

“In five decades, we’ve moved from the pre-feminist mantra about the sexual peccadilloes of married men — Boys will be boys — to post-feminist resignation: Men are dogs,” Dowd wrote last week.

Leave it to men, then, to enlarge ideas about the nature of their desires. The actor Alec Baldwin, whose own animal-ish impulses qualify him to comment, defended Weiner on The Huffington Post: “[H]e probably spends a great deal of time going to meetings, raising campaign funds and seizing upon every opportunity to remind people of how great he is as a public servant and a human being. It’s exhausting,” Baldwin wrote. “He exists under a constant pressure cooker of self-analysis and public appraisal. Like other politicians, he needs something to take the edge off.”

What powerful and public men crave may not be merely sex but a release from responsibility. Sometimes the only way to feel like a man is to act like one. Properly understood, circumcision is the sole barrier between instinct and utter ruin, and men could use a pointed reminder that sometimes inertia is more intelligent than impulse.

29 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Favicondel.icio.us Digg FaviconDigg Facebook FaviconFacebook Google FaviconGoogle Reddit FaviconReddit StumbleUpon FaviconStumbleUpon Technorati FaviconTechnorati YahooMyWeb FaviconYahooMyWeb

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

In your article, you said, “Men are supposed to be reminded of God and, one could argue, moral behavior, in the very place they are most likely to betray religious ideals.”

Here is the problem with that statement, and your opinion in general: getting a baby circumcised is not a result of his religion, it is a result of his parent’s religion.  I was circumcised at birth, and I resent it.  While my parents my want me to have some sort of moral reminder every time I look at my penis, I don’t think I should have to just because of their beliefs.  This is my body.  Amputating healthy, functional parts from my body should not have been their decision to make.

Comment by jbaker on 6/15/11 at 6:31 pm

This is probably one of the dumbest articles I have ever read. Are you serious with this? Not really much more I can say about it.

Not even worth going into the genital mutilation debate topics on this piece of garbage.

~Barefoot Intactivist

PS Yes, I’m reminded of my botched circumcision every time I look down. You think that is an adult’s right to force on a defenseless child? Sick sick sick.

Comment by Barefoot Intactivist on 6/15/11 at 9:11 pm

It seems that circumcision for boys, and girls has failed, as far as the reasons behind the procedure, which is to calm the organ, and keep those citizens in check.BTW is it time to outlaw abortion for the sake of religious freedom? Many say yes it seems.

Comment by Robert on 6/16/11 at 10:51 am

Weiner did not commit his sexting indiscretions because he is an abuser of power, but rather out of a need to self-sabotage.  As far as circumcision goes, I agree with those who note that it is something imposed on infants.  As a Jewish convert, I find it difficult to understand why this ritual is perpetuated, even by Reform Jews. To me it seems an absurd reach to claim that “Circumcision is the indelible symbol that a man can be more than just an animal.”  DO human beings, who have the ability to think and create in a very profound way, require an “indelible symbol” such as foreskin removal?  And what would be the analogous “indelible symbol” for women?

Comment by Anne on 6/16/11 at 1:47 pm

Don’t look at what Maimonides had to say about it.
He was a physician and rabbi.
Would re-circumcising Anthony Weiner help tone down his excesses?
Who does the penis belong to?  He is the one who should make the final call.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/16/11 at 7:54 pm

“The fact that you seal your connection with God and with tradition into that organ makes it incredibly difficult for that organ to be used as a weapon of manipulation or destruction.”

But the fact is that YOU don’t. It’s done TO you - at an age when you have no idea whatsoever what it might mean. To use an old expression that might be misunderstood, it’s done willy nilly (will he, nil he - whether he wants it or not). And is there any evidence whatever that it has the effect the rabbi describes? (No, of course not.)

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/17/11 at 1:58 pm

Didn’t work with Weiner, did it?

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/17/11 at 2:00 pm

Cutting a part of your child’s body to remind them not to betray their moral ideals. That’s not barbaric?

Comment by david on 6/18/11 at 8:24 pm

Is it barbaric when Muslims circumcise girls, to remind them not to betray their moral ideals?
Circumcision, no matter how you look at it, is a violent act.  The genitals are designed by nature, to be exquisitely sensitive.  Transfer that sensitivity to another part of the body.  Imagine having a lip cut off.
Yet, that is less painful.
The scissors in the picture are an implied threat.
Nobody thinks that Russian Jews are not Jews.  We wouldn’t be celebrating them in Fiddler On the Roof otherwise.  Yet, they are not circumcised.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/19/11 at 3:49 am

As if to self-undermine her point, the author fails to understand that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Jewish.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/19/11 at 3:54 am

The comments made in this article are truly bizarre.

I frankly don’t need a reminder I’m more than just an animal. What does the rabbi do? Look at his penis every morning and sigh with relief that he is human?

... and who uses their penises as weapons of destruction? Doesn’t that hurt, and wouldn’t guns and explosives work much better?

Comment by David V. on 6/19/11 at 3:53 pm

“For men, this is the center of being: Is masculinity to be defined in terms of power and violence, or control and strength?
What?  You teach a child control and strength, by exercising violent power over them, and amputating half their genital skin?  Just exactly how does this work?
How do we teach girls control and strength?
If you don’t think circumcision is violent, why does it leave a scar?  Why do some cry so hard, they burst their bladder?  It stands to reason that the genitals are the most sensitive part.  How could tearing the foreskin from the head NOT be the worst pain a male can experience?  What an exercise in self-contradiction!

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/19/11 at 4:35 pm

Danielle Berrin strikes me as a typical feminist who has no concept of individuality.  A woman who engages in communal blame by chastising the entire male gender based on what a few do. Feminists have fought long and hard to eliminate female stereotypes but show their hypocrisy by labeling men as barbaric unless their circumcised. Ms.Berry’s rant is best described as misandry.

Comment by frank on 6/23/11 at 8:49 pm

I detest the thought of ripping a tradition from any peoples.
I hate the thought of hurting a baby even more.
I don’t want the legislation to force anyone Jewish not to circumcise.
I wish that individuals would recognize, through the kindness of their hearts, that painful surgery which does not benefit the child, is not the best thing they can do for him.
Throw a bris.  Hire someone to play the mohel.  Have some fake blood.
None of your friends and family need to know…it’s really not their business.
You get the acceptance of your community, and no one suffers.
But seriously, there has to be a better way.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/24/11 at 5:58 am

Jewsish men who have been circumcised want to believe it is necessary to a) being Jewish and b) being distinctive, but mostly c) they want to do this same thing to their sons to reinforce the idea that nothing bad was done to them when they were babies.  In the case of (a), it is not necessary to be circumcised to be Jewish. Re (b), plenty of non-Jews have had this done to them, and for (c), it is a self-perpetuating highly-damaging cycle of inter-generational abuse done to help those who have been abused in this way feel better about it.  When non-Jews do this, whether for religious reasons (as in the case of Muslims) or not, it’s the same psychology at work.  This must end.

Comment by Matt on 6/24/11 at 7:21 am

One more thing… sounds to me like the author is trying to vent her anger toward men in general by advocating for cutting up of baby boys’ genitalia.  All I can say to this is that she clearly needs professional help—while men and boys probably could use some help in protecting themselves from women like her.  Strength in numbers, guys.  Only by men forming cohesive groups of intactivists and lobbying strenuously for an outlawing of circumcision will this barbarity get stopped.

Comment by Matt on 6/24/11 at 7:27 am

Some Jewish women just love to talk on and on about circumcision, don’t they?  Ms Berrin is definitely in need of some therapy.  From her photo, it is clear she is not very attractive and hence she has become angry at men.  That’s understandable.  But then she turns her frustration into a bloodthirsty advocacy for mutilating defenseless babies…it’s just sick.  Get some help, woman!  Oh, and of course, while she’s all for cutting little boys in the name of her religion, cutting little girls in the name of anyone else’s religion would be “barbaric”!  Hypocritical beeyotch.

Comment by lucullus on 6/24/11 at 7:48 am

The comment by lucullus is an abusive personal attack attack on Ms. Berrin, and, as such, is unworthy of The Jewish Journal.  While I am not in favor of circumcision, I believe there are many more respectful ways of making your point.  The second comment by “Matt” also makes the assumption that a woman who favors circumcision does so because she is angry at men.  Very poor argumentation,guys.  This article is analytically weak—but not because the author is a woman.

Comment by Anne on 6/24/11 at 8:24 am

I must agree with Anne.  Pure projection, and unwarranted.
We have no idea how the author feels about men.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/24/11 at 8:43 am

“Male barbarism” is in the title of the article…and you have no idea how she feels about men?  Then you are far too dense to be reading the Jewish Journal.

Comment by bfinley@chemrisk.com on 6/24/11 at 9:22 am

My point is that “lucullus” and “matt” are engaging in ad hominem attacks. lucullus even attacks the author’s appearance, stating that she is “not attractive” and “looks like a man.”  Both comments are irrelevant (and, as far as I can tell from the tiny picture, not even accurate).

bfinley’s response is to call me “dense.”  Another weak way to back up an argument. The phrase “male barbarism” is used in the context of Rabbi Feinstein’s statement about role of circumcision (a statement I disagree with). When you take phrases out of context, you distort her argument.  Finally, it is highly possible that the headline was written by someone other than the author.

Comment by Anne on 6/24/11 at 9:38 am

No, Matt is not engaging in ad hominem attacks.  I am.  If you don’t want to acknowledge the chiding,lecturing anti-male bias in this article or any of the other articles she quotes as “suppport”..who cares?

Comment by lucullus on 6/24/11 at 10:31 am

Lucullus, you are right, of course.

Comment by Anne on 6/24/11 at 11:51 am

So why is wanting to have sex ‘animalish’ and just how does being circumcised curb ‘barbarism’ when barbaric acts have been done by people of both sexes circumcised or not throughout history (remember that horrific woman, Ilse Koch?)? As for sexual misconduct, it would seem based on Strauss-Kahn’s (he is Jewish and presumably circumcised) alleged behavior and assuming he is guilty, that being circumcised didn’t stop him in the least.

If there is something to defend circumcision, it isn’t the argument put forth by the author. Barbarism? I mean, even her examples make no sense.

Usually the JL has some decent writing but wow, how the heck did THIS claptrap make its way into this issue?

Comment by Fred on 6/25/11 at 3:15 pm

This is one of the most offensive things I’ve ever read. As a circumcised male, it bugs me how the media promotes circumcision when there are absolutely no health benefits. If women get reproductive rights and the right to choose, why don’t male get reproductive organ rights (the right to choose whether they are circumcised)? I didn’t get a choice.
Why do all men get painted with the same brush as philanderers just because of the actions of a few? This misandric piece of trash suggests that since a few men cheat, every male infant should have to undergo a dangerous, and purely cosmetic procedure. I think you should heed the words of Jesus “Circumcise your hearts, not your bodies.”

Comment by Xtrnl on 6/30/11 at 9:25 am

To Xtrnl:

I agree that circumcision should be a choice.  However, the religious justification of it (for Jews) is that it is the sign of God’s Covenant with Abraham and the Jewish people.  The issue of whether it inspires men to not misuse their sexuality seems to be secondary.  While I am not a rabbi (or even close!), it makes sense that Jews would look for ways to interpret circumcision as something that has relevance to Jewish life today. For me, as a Reform Jew, and a convert, circumcision just seems to be the last of the sacred cows.

Comment by Anne on 6/30/11 at 11:02 am

To Anne:
I honestly think that God sometimes tested the Israelites by asking them to do things that were immoral, to see if they had enough integrity to stand up to him. People who just blindly do what they’re told and don’t question things are of no use to the Lord. Sadly, circumcision is one of these tests humans failed miserably.

Comment by Xtrnl on 7/03/11 at 12:27 pm

Spitzer and Weiner are surely circumcised. I know that Schwartzenegger was done early in his American body building career. John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Clinton are very probably snipped as well. Strauss-Kahn, because he is of Jewish ancestry, may be as well. Yet they all made fools of themselves in the realm of sex.

The vast majority of the quarter million North American gay men who have died of AIDS since 1980 or so, were circumcised.

Sorry, Mrs Berrin, the circumcised penis is NOT a more moral penis. Any rabbi who argues that is flat out wrong about human nature and experience.

Comment by concerned cynic on 7/04/11 at 1:23 pm

Adding to concerned cynic’s argument, King David was a circumcised Israelite. Yet due to his attraction to Bathsheba, he ensured that Uriah(his best friend, and Bathsheba’s husband) would end up being killed in battle. He did this by putting him in the front lines, and then withdrawing most of the men after a battle had begun. There you have it. A circumcised man betrays his best friend due to his attraction to said man’s wife. This pokes a pretty big gaping hole in the argument being presented here.

Comment by Xtrnl on 7/10/11 at 7:25 pm

Post a Comment

Name:  
Email:  

Type the word you see below:

Comment:


About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

RSS


Blog Archive






Newspaper

Serving a community of 600,000, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is the largest Jewish weekly outside New York City. Our award-winning paper reaches over 150,000 educated, involved and affluent readers each week. Subscribe here.

© Copyright 2012 Tribe Media Corp.
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net. Homepage design by Koret Communications.
Widgets by Mijits. Site construction by Hop Studios.

counter fake hit page