Jewish Intactivists Speak Their Mind
May 19, 2009 Circumcision
Jason Siegal and Zachary Levi Balakoff explain their Intactivist reasoning. I think that they overreach a bit, since there is certainly violence in non-circumcising societies, and the violence of the U.S. is grossly overstated and politicized in a dubious manner. Having said that, it does seem that the most brutal societies on earth correspond to those with the most radical forms of genital mutilation.
When Siegel and Balakoff begin to understand that their cause is not a far-Left issue, but rather, a moderate-Left issue, I think they will become better emissaries for the Intactivist movement. I suspect that they associate Intactivism with the far-Left camp because within the Jewish community, it is considered a more radical position than in general western society. I would remind Siegel and Balakoff that the far-Left is hardly compassionate on issues that affect men generally, and many of those who are receptive to the Intactivist movement, especially the moms, are thoughtful, moderate people. Not Marxists, and not fahbrentenah feminists.
14 comments
I’m not terribly interested in the topic, but let’s approach this honestly. How about tallying up the death toll from the last century of societies that routinely practice circumcision versus those that don’t? How do you think the Jews, Muslims, and Postwar America would do against the Communists and assorted Fascists, not to mention the Great War?
As for the statement,
“it does seem that the most brutal societies on earth correspond to those with the most radical forms of genital mutilation.”
are you putting the cart before the horse? Meaning is that that societies that practice “radical forms of genital mutilation” are brutal, or that brutal societies practice “radical forms of genital mutilation,” and perhaps, you know, being brutal, of mutilation in general?
Jewdar, I don’t think that the Jews practice the worst forms of genital mutilation. That would be found in the horn of Africa.
I said these guys overreached, and that’s why i stressed the brutality of the way these societies kill their victims, and not just the death toll itself.
In terms of fairly comparing the death toll, I have an idea. Let’s give the warring freedom fighting tribes in Sudan, Somalia, and in the Congo the same level and intensity of weaponry of pre-nuclear WWII, and see how they do.
I bet they would clean house, and prove the fascists and the Communists a sorry band of sissies.
Now, in terms of how these warring tribes treat the ladies of the opposing tribes, I think you have to give the Congo credit for outdoing anything we have seen on this scale as far as I know.
Eve Ensler calls it “femicide.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/.....ler.congo/
I wonder…where oh where did these guys come up with the idea that cutting up a woman’s vagina was a normal way to fight the good fight?
look at the map–most of Congo is out of the genital mutilation zone, as is Rwanda. Cambodia didn’t practice it, the Serbs didn’t practice it (I mention that one just because Ensler does). The Mongols didn’t practice it, the Huns didn’t practice it, the Spanish Inquisitors didn’t practice it, the Aztecs didn’t…So in fact, I would say that it doesn’t correlate. particularly well.
What I would say, as I said before, was that brutal societies find their own unique forms of brutality. These guys are making the point that brutality stems from what they call “genital mutilation.” I would say it is more correct to say that in Africa, female genital mutilation stems from a general devaluing of women’s humanity.
And in fact, now that I think about it, your point is completely unrelated to their point, since you’re not arguing that these people are violent because of their own circumcisions, which is their (as you pointed out, poorly researched and evidenced point). But don’t waste time on this nonsense, when there is your own genital mutilation to consider. Go, young Kelsey, go harness your sacred penile energies!
jewdar, the countries involved with war in the Congo include Sudan, for crying out loud. You won’t find a better teacher.
As for your point about Serbia, their rape rooms simply don’t compete with the Congo, and Ensler admits as much.
Okay, here’s my issue. I have no problem saying that what’s going on in Congo is worse than anything else. And I have no problem with saying that Sudanese forces have played a role in the fighting there. My problem is saying the the latter is responsible for the former. Italian forces fought in large numbers on the Eastern Front. I would hesitate to suggest however, that by virtue of that fact, that they were responsible for the mass murder of Soviet Jews. At this point, I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that Sudanese forces are responsible for the atrocities in the Congo.
Studying history, I look for patterns. Is their a pattern of brutality in the Congo that might account for this? I would say yes. Go back to the ’90’s and massacres in Rwanda (members of the Hutu and Tutsi tribe spill over into Congo), look at the 1960’s (cannibalism! How’s that for production value?) If you want to be all PC, go back to the Belgians and their unique workplace productivity incentive program (don’t produce enough? have your limbs chopped off). So at this point, I have no reason to look at the Congo and say “this is a place where the people care about their fellow man–if this kind of brutality is taking place, it must be because of those pesky Sudanese.”
Another problem I had with your whole methodology is the lack of perspective. You can say that right now, at this time, the countries that practice female genital mutilation are committing the worst atrocities, and that’s probably true. But it wouldn’t be true in 1992, or 1972. And to say, “Well, this is worse than Pol Pot, or the Serbs,” that may be fine. But at the time, Serbia was the worst, and Pol Pot was the worst, and your genital mutilators were bush league, so to me, it seems that there are other factors at play (especially because, as noted above, you haven’t yet demonstrated that the genital mutilators are the ones committing the atrocities in Congo).
Can we both agree, though, that you should never, ever, ever give any credit to a couple of guys who speak seriously about “sacred sexual energy?”
Sorry, second paragraph should say “there,” not “their”
Can we both agree, though, that you should never, ever, ever give any credit to a couple of guys who speak seriously about “sacred sexual energy?”
Yes, but they are quite young. Maybe they will grow up. It happens.
But at the time, Serbia was the worst
No Sierra Leone was the worst. Way worse. Unbelievably worse.
Guess what they have? FGM.
Additionally, Sudan is not the only country involved WITH THIS WAR in the Congo, that has FGM, it is just the worst offender.
Chad is also involved. Oh, right, only estimated at like 45% of female population..
And while we’re at it, might I remind you than the anti-apartheid movement against South Africa was waxing in Europe in the late 70s, Idi Amin was EATING HIS PEOPLE FOR DINNER!
Wasn’t apartheid South Africa the MOST democratic nation in Africa when we decided a regime change was necessary?
But again, you need to demonstrate that Chad is involved in these atrocities, and not just involved in the war.
And while discussing great African rulers who eat treyf, let’s not forget Jean Bokassa.
Ultimately, again, what’s your point with the FGM? I think we’re in agreement that it’s a monstrously brutal practice, so why should we be surprised that its practitioners are brutal monsters. But that’s just correlation, not causation. The guys in the video argued that circumcised men are violent men; not that men who brutalize women are violent men–that is (or should be) apparent, and requires no elaboration.
Oh, and Kelsey, don’t think I didn’t notice that, for all your hostility to chassidus, you are willing to be rebbe to those poor, lost Intactivists. Every now and then, your pintelle yid comes through.
Not all intactvists want to ascribe all the violence in the world to circumcising. For most of us, the violence that circumcision IS warrants making it a priority.
The foreskin is absolutely as vital to a male’s full sexual experience as the homologous hood and inner labia are to a female’s. Google “Prader Scale” to see how these parts arise from the same tissue and diverge only at three months’ gestation.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body, HIS decision.
Can we both agree, though, that you should never, ever, ever give any credit to a couple of guys who speak seriously about “sacred sexual energy?” – Jewdar
That seems kind of harsh. Any usage of “sacred” is either going to be tongue-in-cheek or a statement of religious belief. If someone says they want chicken properly noted on ingredients labels, because of the sacred souls of birds, I don’t think they should be ignored just because they seem something as sacred that I don’t. Granted, they will have to make a better argument to convince anyone outside their faith.
(It’s interesting, in The Year of Living Biblically, A.J. Jacobs accounts how we went to an expert to get help finding which of his clothes were Leviticus-compliant. It takes some optics – microscope or magnifying glass, I forget – to see which fibers are which.)
I accept the generous spirit of your comments, Blode, and I agree that my bias here against the pagan crowd was showing through (I apologize, Kelsey, for my intolerance)–but I, in fact, don’t speak about the sacredness of my snazzy non-wool/linen blend wardrobe, or my overpriced poultry, not because I don’t believe these things are sacred, but simply because I find that speaking in that kind of tone about almost anything is pretty dorky. You are a better human than me, Blode.
Well, I didn’t consider it that big of a deal, anyway. My wife is of an unusual religion and I have learned to be fairly sensitive about her spiritual ideas.
I’ve always imagined myself at the Pearly Gates with a big grin saying, “Mixing fibers? You were serious about that?”
Are we forgetting circumcision is a violation of human rights? So is forcing a religion on someone (which isn’t even possible) and amputating part of their body with out his or her permission. There must be a societal reaction to this action. Circumcision is violence therefore is causes violence. The only justification for continuing this practice in a modern world is to justify our own mutilation and never end this vicious cycle of abuse. We can overcome this with open minded intelligence, but we must get down on the physicians and mohels who propagate this practice. It is too delicate an issue to talk about, but it must be done.
Leave a Comment