Disclaimer right now: This post is going to be more angry than pensive, unlike my other more non-narrative posts. So, if blunt-to-the-point-of aggressive thoughts (or the peppering of the "F" word) bothers you, you may wish to skip this one. Warning: it will be entirely un-PC.
I saw an article today that got me fuming for pretty much half the day. Apparently, some court in Germany has decided that male circumcision of infants, is assault, effectively banning the practice, at least legally. Interestingly, this is a law that will primarily affect only religious and ethnic minorities-- namely, Jews and Muslims-- because the court specifically said that it is banned in the case of religious--as opposed to medical (and I guess then, hygienic?)-- reasons.
First: Germany. No one in the official media is sayin' it, but you *know* we are all thinking it...
Secondly, this ruling is crap. The court, in its opinion, said the "fundamental right of the child to lebensraum bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents." This ruling puts into legal precedent something a lot of bleeding-heart types have wanted for a long time: basically, to force religious leaders and doctors (the law in Germany didn't preclude the practice if done by doctors, but this is in fact what a lot of the proponents for this type of ban actually do want) to stop performing the procedure. Namely, to take away people's right to consider the pros and cons, and decide for themselves. In doing so, these do-gooder types have described the practice as "barbaric," and have likened it to female genital mutilation, which is practiced in many, lesser-developed societies. The court said that it takes away the child's right to "choose his religion" later on, because *so* much of your spirituality is dependent on being "intact" (I would like to point out at this juncture that there are many people of all sorts of religions, or none at all, that have it done. So no, I don't think anyone is going to say you can't decide to be Catholic when you are older, because a moyel did a bris on you when you were 8 days old). And, from what I can tell from reading the comments by the peanut gallery that tend to come after such internet articles, most people agreed with this decision, and want to see it "spread" to the rest of the civilized world.
I am going to address (briefly) some of their arguments:
1. It is not just an "old religious tradition" that has no practical meaning. Now, if you know anything about me, you know my thoughts on religion (Sparknotes version: I don't like it). But every so often, it actually gets something right. Shocking, I know. Look, a lot of what got codified as religious dogma back in the day, actually came out of practical realities of the time, dictates that were put down so that people wouldn't get their assess kicked by nature, and thus the society could survive. One of these things was circumcision. Namely, intact people have a higher chance of getting very painful infections, because bacteria and other nasties can get trapped, um, "there," if not thoroughly cleaned. Since it was hard to be thoroughly cleaned back in the day, it was a good preventative measure in terms of not getting what I imagine would be a really nasty condition. Now, proponents of the no-circumcision thing say that this is no longer necessary, as we live in a much more hygienic society, and it is unlikely that it will cause problems, so you are putting someone through trauma for no reason. Which brings me to my next point...
2. Just because it is "less likely" to cause problems, doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with. Now, I a not a religious person, but if I ever have sons-- assuming the bleeding hearts haven't rammed through some kind of law banning it by then-- I am going to get them "altered" at the hospital, before we leave. Why? Because the peace of mind that it is one less potentially very problematic health issue they will have to deal with growing up. As humans, we take out and preemptively deal with "unnecessary" body parts all the time, before they become an issue. Exhibit A: wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are pretty much universally taken out now when a teen is around 16 years old, before they have erupted. Why? Because when they erupt, at best they cause teeth to overcrowd, and at worst they grow in impacted, leading to a very painful, likely-to-be infected,situation. So we take them out ahead of time, to just avoid the whole nasty situation. It is likewise the same with circumcision. Yes, it is a "natural" part of the male body, but no, males do not need it, and the potential problems it can cause down the line just aren't worth having it around.
3. Now, a lot of proponents of no circumcision would say, "but any surgical or quasi-surgical procedure carries a risk that someone is going to botch it, or that it will be infected, and so it is an unnecessary risk." Yes, that is in fact true. Hopefully, you vet the people performing these things, but shit does, in fact, happen. Same can be said for wisdom teeth. In fact, I think the risk of infection might be higher for wisdom teeth, since I kept hearing horror stories about dry socket before I got mine done. And thus I was paranoid about following doctor's orders, and keeping my mouth clean. But you know what? If the doctor or moyel knows what he is doing, I bet that risk is pretty low, probably lower than the risk of infection if you keep it around (you can clean yourself all you want, but the skin is easily inflamed or infected, particularly if you have bad skin to begin with. I consider myself pretty hygienic; still didn't prevent me from getting a bad cyst infection this year that required (very painful, like a 9/10 on the scale ER doctors keep asking you about) draining and two visits to the ER). And what do you think is more traumatic for someone? An infection in infancy, when you won't remember it, or a very painful infection "down there" that you have to deal with after your brain and neuron connections have fully developed? A minor surgical procedure when you are a week old, or a what will be a more major surgery should you choose to get it done later in life? I had some pretty serious operations in infancy that, while I get to tell some cool/shocking stories about them, I thank my lucky stars that I don't remember jack shit, because I don't know if I could mentally handle "heart failure" and "open heart surgery" thrown at me, now that I am old enough to be aware of what that means, and what getting it worked on could entail (namely, flatlining in the OR). Oh, and: Twice. Twice this happened. I don't need that in my memory.
4. Which again brings me to another point: pain. A lot of people think it is bad because it is painful for the babies. This is the only point on which they have kind of a point. Apparently, when done in religious ceremonies, or even in some hospitals, they don't bother to use anesthesia. That is fucking stupid, I admit. Spring a lil cash, and get some local anesthesia. Problem solved. A lot of the proponents of this ban say that by deferring it, you are letting the guy decide on his bodily integrity later in life, when he has capacity to control his destiny or whatever. You know what is going to be more painful than some un-anesthetized cutting when the infant is too young to remember? Cutting it when it has fully developed, necessitating a more major procedure, and thus a more protracted recovery time. I had some foot surgery done last summer, and I had to take the Vicodin they gave me to the max dosage to get the pain down during recovery. And then my body couldn't handle it, so I vomited. So basically, it fucking sucked. So, what guy is going to want to voluntarily go through this when he is older, even if it is objectively beneficial?
5. People who claim that circumcision-- particularly in a religious context-- is "mutilation," and compare it to the hack job that women in undeveloped societies have to deal with. If you can't tell the difference between a minor quasi-surgical procedure that has objective health benefits and an easy recovery, and a procedure that is meant to take all sexual pleasure away from women by creating constant pain, as a way to keep them virgins until they marry, and then obedient to their husbands (or murder, or honor killings or foot binding, or abortion, which are some of the other comparisons people have been making), then sorry. You are a fucking idiot.
Although, this court in Germany might just get the Nobel Peace Prize for their little stunt. Because they just did the fucking impossible: they succeeded in uniting the Jewish and Muslim populations, in solidarity outrage over this law that makes a major ceremony in their respective religions illegal.
Why do I bring this all up? Because this law is the epitome of why it is becoming increasingly less of a question of "if," and more of a question of "when" I am going to give up on society as a whole, and go somewhere remote to become a crazy cat lady (or dogs, or bunnies, or really any small, fluffy, blood pressure-reducing critter).
Why? Because increasingly, I am seeing that one cannot escape from the tyranny of the "opinion" if one is to live in society. As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one. Except people aren't happy having their opinions be just that: opinions. Oh no, they have to make everyone agree with their opinions, if not by persuasion then by force. Like this law: because *some* people think that circumcision is not necessary and a bad practice, they now must take away the ability of parents to fully consider the issue, and then make the decision they find is best for their child. Oh no, because *they* think it is bad, it must be bad as they could not *possibly* be wrong, so *they* should get to decide for everyone else. Because, you know, anyone who disagrees is obviously a barbarian, and so we couldn't possibly listen to what they have to say, or consider their side. Or a slut.
And I see this everywhere I go, from official policy to family, religious and culture tradition, to peer pressure. People think they got it all figured out, and that because something works for them, or comports with their morality or world view, everyone else must follow suit. You know why I don't "do" religion? I got into a big fight about this with my mom on my parent's anniversary. I told my mom "I am not a Christian," (which I am not-- I am not anything, even though I grew up Episcopalian/Anglican/whatever). She got all angry because she thought that my declaration was my trying to disavow my heritage, culture, and the way my parents raised me. That is not it at all. I think I take a lot of deference to the values my parents instilled in me-- like honesty, loyalty, hard work, and independence. But I can have those values without being tied down to a religious doctrine. In reality, I don't "do" religion because all I see it as, is more bars on the jailhouse door, so to speak. With everyone else trying to force their way of living or beliefs on you, why would anyone gratuitously add yet another level of restriction and dictation, of "moral imperative," particularly given by people who have no idea about the individual circumstances of others, and are taking their direction from a book or books (depending on your religion) written in a society in no way, shape, or form similar to the way we are living now? That is why I don't do religion, primarily (there is also the issue that I think that the question of whether there is a god/higher power, is not dispositive of the question of whether we should worship it or do what it says. But that is a post for another day.)
Basically, I follow a simple life philosophy, cliched but true: live and let live. As much as possible, I try to not gratuitously be a bitch to people, or get up in their business. I observe things around me, I observe how people behave. And a lot of it I may not approve of, because it violates my sense of what it is to not be a jerk, and therefore wouldn't do myself. But, so long as what these people are doing doesn't directly affect my ability to lead my quiet, relatively uneventful life in peace, I am not enough of an arrogant prick to think that because I think certain things are wrong or stupid, I should force others to comply with the way I behave. Because the only person who knows what is right for a person, is that person. And sometimes people make bad choices, and have to-- or should have to-- deal with the consequences. This is what I believe in regards to others, so I expect the same common courtesy in return. I am not my brother's keeper, and neither is he mine. And that, my friends, is the essence of freedom: the ability to define one's own existence, in peace. To rise and fall as the results of one's own actions. To make choices, and to learn from them. To *live*. To, in the words of our Founding Fathers, pursue happiness, so long as it is not in a destructive way (towards others. And no, "emotional distress" or "being offended" don't count. To use the language of the German court, the right to free speech-- as expression is part of really living-- outweighs any right to not have one's feelings hurt). Existing and living are not the same thing. I don't want to be part of a society that only lets me exist, and not live. This is also incidentally why no, I am not some crazy Anarchist. I think organized government and a legal system is imperative to preserving-- as much as possible-- the right to live and let live. Since rapists, murders, thieves, fundamentally violate this credo. And deserve their just desserts for it.
Sometimes I think maybe things will change, maybe people will see the light and start valuing freedom over their own little pet sensibilities. But no, it seems that increasingly, people are willing to trade their freedom-- and encourage others to take freedoms and choices away-- for whatever reason they agree with. On the right, it is this bullshit moral majority crap (because when one decides to have sex, or whether one exposes his or her hair or their skin, or whether one use contraception, or who one consensually loves and marries, or if one eats dairy with meat, or meat on Fridays, or works on the Sabbath, is so fucking dispositive of whether or not they are a "good" person, and so fucking relevant to the lives of those not involved). On the left, it is this collectivist mindset of "for the good of everyone/the whole/society." Or, you know, environment (also, have you people learned nothing from the 20th century? The path to hell is fucking paved with trying to forcibly promote or establish some person's or people's idea of "for the good of society." Seriously, go open a history book, and educate yourselves). And as much as either side is willing to call out their nemesis's bullshit, they will refuse to look at, analyze, or call out their own, finding a million and one excuses (my favorite, on the left, is the "externalities" argument. Yeah, pretty much everything has externalities. Still doesn't mean you should be able to tell me when and where I can have a fire in my fireplace, IN MY OWN GODDAMN HOUSE) why the other side's efforts to curtail freedom and choice is crap, but *their* pet projects are right and fine and "the right thing to do." And people will clamor to this, and actively promote and accept it, if it goes along with whatever excuse they happen to find persuasive. So the result is, we are constantly being squeezed, from the right, from the left.
One of the objections my boyfriend has when we get into this discussion, which usually turns into a fight (my boyfriend, bless his heart, is the eternal optimist, and also profoundly liberal), is that I have had a comparatively blessed life, so "why am I angry?" he says. For the most part, things have gone my way, and I have been lucky enough to have a lot of freedom, a lot of opportunity, and not much in my way. Aside from that lil snafu at the beginning of my life (which has not been a further problem for 21 years), I've had it good. So perhaps it seems bratty that I am so angry about all of this. But that is exactly my point: it is comparatively good right now, for me more than a lot of others, but for most people as well. It could always be better, but we are no longer indentured servants on feudal estates, having to do what "god and country (being one dude who has everything go his way)" tell us to do. We are living the Enlightenment dream, to be fully autonomous, free-thinking individuals. Or at least we should be. But freedom is a very precarious thing, it is fragile and exceedingly fleeting. Drop the ball once, relax on your laurels of individualism too long, and it can be snatched from under you. And what I am seeing around the globe lately-- retrenchment back into religious dogma, or a heightened drive towards "collectivism" -- threatens the delicate liberty we were all taught to believe in. And the problem is, people don't seem to care. They are too distracted by infighting to notice, and in many instances, are willing participants. For a long time, this country (with the exception maybe of the influence of the church, unfortunately) generally had a hands-off approach to people doing their thing, whether through official policy or otherwise. I feel like we are getting away from this, and this is bad. That is why, even though my existence is privileged, I must-- as should we all-- call out the bullshit when we see it. Because people trying to unduly control others (and I don't even mean in an official way, like with laws, but just in general) is like a cancer-- easier to keep in check when it is small and just beginning, but if it infects the body, it is exceedingly difficult to kill, and either the disease-- or, in some cases, the treatment-- will end up killing the body. But, it seems like no one is really willing to do this, because they agree with some of it, and fail to see the forest for the trees. Which depresses the hell out of me.
I imagine for my fiercely individualist views, I will be called or thought of in many different, unflattering terms: crazy, selfish, cold, mean, bitchy, uncaring, hedonistic, immoral, unbalanced, "a slut." But, if you couldn't tell from my blog, I really stopped giving these labels any sort of power over me, a long time ago. It not my problem what people choose to label or see me as, as long as I am true and honest to myself. Yes, it is important to be mindful of how one is perceived, but not at the expense of what makes you, you. As someone once said (again a cliche, but true): it is better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you are not. So, I guess if it really gets to an extreme point of people trying to force others into their version of conformity, I probably will leave for a remote destination; like a line from one of my favorite movies says, I will "leave the madness over the mountains." Because I won't compromise myself or my integrity just to "get on" in the world.
Damn. I am starting to sound like Holden-fucking-Caufield. And I didn't even really like that book much.
Readers, if any of you agree with me on any of the above, please do leave comments. It would be nice to know that I am not alone. Or better yet, send your friends the link to this page, to "spread the word." But, somehow I don't think this will really happen, as I think I am in the significant minority over here.
Anyway, thanks for listening/reading. Particularly if any of what I said just attacked what you believed. If you continued reading in spite of that, I have a lot of respect for you. I am just trying to get people to think, to stop reacting and start acting. And sometimes you just have to be blunt. Anyway, it will be back to the regular mood of this blog on the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment