What the Hell?

[Warning: racy language follows.]

You know, every once in a while I like to play Devil's Advocate. Sometimes this extends to positions I don't actually hold, like Jewish anti-circumcision activists.

But I have to say, even I have my limits. It's one thing to defend your personal choice to not circumcise your kid (and to ask people to stop throwing proverbial tomatoes at you). It's another to say something as positively boneheaded as, well, this from some weirdo named Erica Jong:

Ever wonder why Jewish boys are so fucked up about sex? Ever wonder why they fall for mile-high models from Slovenia who wear those big cold crosses? Ever wonder why they like Chinese girls, Chinese-American girls, Blonde shiksa cheerleaders from Kansas? Or those cool black models who dance like Beyonce?

It's because of the Covenant with Jahwah or G-d: I take this piece of your pecker, with your mother, father, grandfathers and grandmothers looking on, teary eyed. And you think of nothing but your pecker for the rest of your life!

First of all, lady, nobody calls it a "pecker" these days. Second of all, what burrowed up your butt and died? Third, what business is it who Jewish men choose to date, shtup, or, heaven forbid, marry? Maybe they're running away from Jewish women because they've only had the misfortune to encounter psychos like you.

You think female circumcision is bad? (It's hideous, health destroying and horrible -- and inflicted on women by other women). But at least women have other things to think about than their pussies -- like children, like politics, like writing. At least women don't focus nonstop on their vaginas... Men think about their pricks for the rest of their lives. Don't get me wrong, they think about them whether or not they're circumcised. But circumcision bumps it up to a whole other level.

Lady, get this through your head: YOU'RE CRAZY.

OK. Call me an anti-Semite. (I'm secretly a pro-Semite).

No, you're a malebasher and a racist. Is that better?

But how can you ever forget the pain, the fear, the confusion of being eight days old and having your pecker snipped? They don't remember, say the altacockers. They don't feel it, say the bubbies. We did it in the hospital, say the parents. He didn't feel a thing, says the mother (who was in the other room crying her eyes out).

Lady, I'm telling you, I was circumcised at THREE (for medical reasons, it couldn't be done in infancy) and I don't remember a damn thing. Ask most Jewish men and I'm sure they'll give you similar answers. There are legitimate reasons to have issues with circumcision, but the "it will psychologically scar you" argument makes about as much sense as saying that infants will be "scarred" by being born in a hospital and handled by a bunch of creepy looking weirdos in masks rather than popping out in "natural" structure like a hogan and being lovingly nurtured by midwives. The baby might care in the immediate short-term, and the parents probably have an opinion, but it's not going to haunt the kids down the line.

This woman continues on for another six rambling paragraphs, which include rants about Jesus and Kali, verbal slides of her summer vacation, and an apocalyptic future scenario in which her grandson is beaten up by skinheads for peeing in front of them. Since I feel nice (and nauseous), I'll spare you.

Hat-tip toJill at Feministe, who has some excellent observations of her own, such as,

They [Jewish men] fuck over-sexed black women but marry submissive Asian ones – congratulations, Erica, for racializing the virgin-whore dichotomy.

Plus, you know, Jewish women aren’t all sitting around waiting for Jewish men to get over their circumcisions and marry them.

and

you are out of your damn mind if you think that male circumcision is anything like most forms of female circumcision. The majority of female circumcisions involve removing part or all of the clitoris, which is simply not analogous to the removal of foreskin; a more appropriate comparison would be between removing the clitoris and snipping off the head of your dick. Female circumcision isn’t less bad because women don’t think about their vulvas (trust me, we do – and were you to suggest removing a part of mine, I’d be pretty damned opposed to it, despite my interests in children, writing and politics). It’s perfectly possible to question the cultural practice of male circumcision without playing the “what’s-worse” game with female circumcision.

Maybe Jews and Women can band together and go hunt down this crazy nut. Angry Guardians of the Internet, unite!

More on Brits or lack thereof

[N.B. If you're here looking for commentary on Tony Blair or Laurence Olivier, you're at the wrong blog.]

Having responded to a crank letter about circumcision yesterday, and then further stuck my nose in over at Oy Bay (note to self- learn to read people's names), I thought I'd conclude with a brief examination of one of the more rankling arguments raised by Sylvia and co. regarding the bloodless brit. Namely, the issue of selfishness.

I acknowledge that parents deciding not to circumcise their child does contain an element of selfishness. By the same token, however, I think there's a good argument that the alternative is similarly selfish. Either way, the parent imposes THEIR will on the child, who, let's be honest, is not in a position to give much of an opinion.

Frankly I think I come out brit-neutral more than anything else, which is to say, for cultural and nostalgia reasons-- and for some of the supposed health benefits, sure, why not-- I'd be fine with a circumcision, if not an actual brit ceremony. At the same time, I don't think the brit is THE defining Jewish act of a person's life, and I don't think not having one disqualifies you from studying with Rashi under the Tree of Life on a desert island Mandel floating in a sea of cholent when you pass on (note to self- come up with better afterlife scenario). I'd rather keep my distance from the zealots of both camps on this one, thanks very much.

Not having children, I haven't had to deal with the brit issue first-hand. However I have had other discussions about my hypothetical children which seem relevant, particularly the question of how "selfish" it is for someone like me, a post-modern agnostic, largely cultural, somewhat spiritual Jew interested in living some kind of Jewish home life and having a Jewish family, to date non-Jews.

I had one guy tell me that my decision to have a relationship with a non-Jew was selfish because it would constitute a "Jewish castration", forever cutting off my children from having a "true identity." He chided me for contemplating raising my (future) children as "fake", non-halachic Jews. "What if they want to marry someone frum, and they discover that they were never really Jewish in the first place? Do you want to put them through that?"

I told him that I thought this was bunk, and stand by it. First, given my religious views, it's extremely unlikely that any kids of mine would wind up in a situation where they would be marrying someone frum-- this would require them to be frum themselves, and in the course of this, they would encounter, and have to deal with, their halachic status. Second, irregardless of who they choose to marry, my future children's halachic status does not preclude them from converting Orthodox, should that be their choice. By the same token, I find it more than a little alarmist for pro-circ advocates to rail on about how non-circumcised Jewish males will grow up miserable with a major inferiority complex-- if it really bothers them that much, guess what? You can change it. It might be a major pain in the ass, but it's an option.

For all I know, regardless of how they're raised, my children might wind up wanting to become Scandinavian Neo-Pagans. Should I therefore lose sleep over how best to accommodate the future religious needs and possible identity crises my not converting to Paganism? I can see the fights now- "How am I supposed to marry Frigurd Power-crystal with such bad yichus?" Ok, they probably won't say yichus, but you get the idea. The best I can do is try and chart a path that's right for me and has the potential for success with my children. It makes no more sense for me to assume that a non-Orthodox (and non-halachic) family and household will hurt my children than it is to assume that they're likely to become vegans and painfully relive every chicken dinner they're subjected to under my roof. This, incidentally, is why the argument only seems to make sense to frum apologists- if you're convinced that everything not-frum is crap, of course you'll assume they'll be miserable if they're raised reform. Never mind that plenty of people don't seem to like being raised frum, either. (Incidentally, the idea that some of these kids may either join religious communities that don't circumcise, or may simply be bothered about it when they become older, never seems to cross the mind of any of the more vocal pro-circ folks. Or is the idea that it doesn't matter what their kids want, because if they're going to turn away from the derech they don't really count?)

What is unreasonable, in my mind, is to ask me to make a decision that runs counter to my own conscience and beliefs for the sake of a choice my hypothetical children may or may not make in their own lives decades from now. Is that selfish? A little, yeah. Sorry, I'm not so selfless as to let my nonexistent, presently imaginary kids, who for all I know will want to become Maoist rebels, raving Pentecostals or Al Qaeda spokespeople, run the show. (As long as they aren't Shakers or Scientologists, I'll be happy.) They'll get their turn once they actually exist.

Who knows, maybe they'll even get a brit.

More than the sum of one's mitzvot

I'm still in the process of reading through the local Jewish newspaper my parents brought back from Florida. Not surprisingly, me and the elders don't see eye to eye on everything. One of the letters to the editor from a gal named Sylvia, apparently in response to a story on some Jews opting out of circumcision, made our divisions loud and clear:

...For Jews today, there is little discrimination, large acceptance and even a grudging adherence to their faith. So, naturally, it is time for some to trot out the golden calf, and just as naturally for some to come and dance around it.

This golden calf, as you call it- this is what, personal choice? Assimilation? Help me out here.

...[Apparently] some of our Jewish daughters are against circumcision for their babies in order to spare them pain. What a novel idea! Why didn't the Jews set afire in the Spanish Inquisition or the millions of Jews tortured and reduced to ashes in the Holocaust think of this? They would have confounded their enemies! Are they Jews or Christians? Fish or fowl? Think of the pain they would have spared their babies.

So... people should circumcise their babies because all the Jews who died horribly throughout the ages didn't mind? Or is this poor attempt at a guilt-trip more substantive than I'm giving you credit? Maybe something like, "you're a disgrace to those who died because you won't?" or maybe, "they risked being identified and killed, so you choosing not to is some sort of group betrayal or selfish self-preservation?"

Seriously, I ask whether it is ignorance of our history, our teachings, that prompts such outrageous lack of respect for our most important covenant? Is it that they have been taught little, spoiled a lot, and terribly self-indulged that gives rise to such selfish disregard for what makes a Jew a Jew?

Hey lady, how about the fact that maybe they think it's bunk? You can know all about the theology and history of the brit and still not BELIEVE in it- and if you don't, it basically boils down to a cultural decision. Is it so surprising that for some people, nostalgia and cultural attachment might not be enough to justify what is (in their minds) unnecessary surgery? What does being spoiled or indulged have to do with it? Does Sylvia really believe that these couples choosing not to circumcise are doing so because their parents caved and bought them that pony for their sweet sixteen?

Do these people think eating chopped liver and lox and mouthing liberalisms makes them Jews? Do they think chopping away at the bedrock of Judaism is healthy for them and their children? Is it a good thing for Jews in general- for Kol Yisroel? Do they realize that being neither fish nor fowl gets the respect of nobody?

First, Sylvia needs to be careful about throwing around verbs like "chopping" in this context. Second, does she really think that circumcision, in of itself, is the defining trait of Judaism? If so, how do we deal with the fact that millions of non-Jews also practice the rite? How do we address the fact that every Jewish woman in history has NOT been circumcised? Circumcision, in and of itself, does not make or break a Jew, and the modern practices of the 20th century, in which many Jews have non-religious circumcisions (which technically don't count as a full brit) only makes things even more difficult. How are we to deal with all these different groups of Jews who may or may not count, according to Sylvia's narrow definition? Sure, she can claim that bloodless brit advocates may not be religious (they're certainly not frum), and might even go so far as to say that they aren't "good Jews" (though I kind of doubt they care what she thinks). But to say that their kids are being denied membership in the tribe? It's just not the case.

Circumcision is a mitzvah. Hallelujah. So is keeping kosher, observing Shabbat and covering your head (be it with a kippah or a sheitel). Hell, so are sacrifices. But even those who argue that a Judaism without the Temple is incomplete would never claim that all Jews since then haven't really counted. Does she think that walking to shul on Shabbos or eating cholent makes people Jewish, or that someone who drives to shul and eats turkey bacon (maris ayin, don't you know) aren't? Get real. Circumcision is a PART of Jewish practice and identity. Eliminating it from an individual's life does not invalidate them, either as people or Jews. And while young Jews having NO identity may indeed be a problem, circumcision, especially in America, is certainly not the single determinant of identity (which would be like saying one tells fish and fowl apart because one of them has eyes). Furthermore, there are many people in modern society who have multiple or muddled cultural backgrounds- maybe not being clearly Jewish or Irish creates a lack of respect in Sylvia's community (you know how judgmental those old folks can get), but I don't know if it's as endemic as she thinks.

Sylvia continues:

You better believe candidates running for the presidency of this country know the answers to such questions. They are out there, reaffirming their Christian faith before this great nation every chance they get- emphasizing, over and over, their Christian ties.

And THEY'RE the model for our young people? Duplicitous, obsequious politicians who exploit faith and principles to raise their poll numbers? And even if most politicians weren't, well, politicians, why should their behavior be the standard? On what basis should we be looking to them for advice? Yes, not being ashamed of your heritage is a good thing. But let's be honest, Sylvia- circumcision is, out of just about every Jewish practice, one of the most private ones (at least after the fact). By and large, no one's really going to know one way or the other what you had done, and when, and under whose auspices or whether it "really" counts or not. From a communal standpoint at least, this seems to sharply reduce the whole question to a red herring. Indeed, precisely because circumcision is private, not public, most couples' motivations for not circumcising probably come from personal belief and/or apathy, not trying to "pass" as Gentiles- particularly since, at least nowadays, a majority of non-Jews in America are circumcised.

The biggest problem of Sylvia's letter is that she misses the forest for the trees, arguing that a particular rite of the Jewish experience is the defining totality of that experience, implicitly suggesting that a life denied that mitzvah is less than authentic. You could turn that around and apply it to any Jewish life cycle, or really, any mitzvah. Maybe, if you're frum, that worldview actually works- you're basically here as a mitzvah machine, and your primary function is to accumulate bullet-points on your list, fine. But for me, I can't relate. To me, Sylvia's view of any single act as THE single most important Jewish decision (R) is simplistic and demeaning, both to the parents in question but especially to their children. It's reminiscent of TherapyDoc's argument here, and, IMO, flawed for some of the same reasons.

My understanding is that if a Jewish boy is not circumcised according to tradition he is still a Jew, but hasn't fulfilled the commandment of having had a brit milah, meaning he has not accepted the covenant.

A boy who hasn't had a brit hasn't been properly initiated as a Jew. He's not really of the Jewish People. He's not entered the covenant as commanded by the Old Mighty...

Not to contradict the illustrious rabbis of old, but I've got news for you. Regardless of what the law books say, being snipped doesn't determine whether or not you accept the covenant. How many Jews throughout history were given brits according to the "proper" tradition and have actively rejected the covenant? And I find it hard to imagine that there weren't a few Jews over the course of the last thousand years who weren't circumcised and still turned out all right. Again, what about all the exceptions to Sylvia's would-be hard-fast rule? Hospital circumcisions? Women? Is Sylvia herself any less of a Jew for not having this rite? Are Jewish women to be pitied? Here's a question for the super-halachic thinkers: if the brit is the key to Jewishness, what about properly circumcised children who only have Jewish fathers? If the brit is the equivalent to a membership card, what about people that are supposed to be automatically excluded from the club?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I don't accept that Judaism is all or nothing, and I'm certainly not convinced that I have to follow certain practices that have been deemed "super important" by people that have made their own decisions over what to pick and choose. Even the Orthodox, if they're honest, are picking and choosing (or following in the traditions of others who made their own choices). One of the founding principles of Rabbinic Judaism is the legitimacy of interpretation and of looking beyond mere literalism. We don't do sacrifices or have altars anymore because Yochanan Ben Zakkai and his buddies were brave enough to change the system when it needed changing. The key of Ben Zakkai's revolution was not merely in switching observances from the Temple to the home and synagogue, but in saying that this change was legitimate, and declaring that innovation was not automatic heresy. How could he have done that, his peers might have asked. The Temple, with sacrifices and pilgrimages, was what made a Jew a Jew. It says so right in the Torah. Who was Ben Zakkai to do otherwise?

We know what happened to Ben Zakkai and the rabbis. We also know what happened to their counterparts. I'm not saying that Sylvia is going to go the way of the Sadducees, but it's important to realize that while the bloodless brit is new, innovation, even of the radical kind, is not new to Judaism.

Sylvia doesn't have to like bloodless brits (and to be honest, I think they're a little silly), but she should get off her high horse when it comes to determining other people's Jewishness based on what mitzvot they follow. When she starts sacrificing goats with the Samaritans or sitting at home on Shabbat with the lights off like the Karaites, she can get back to me. Until then, she should watch who she casts out of the club for daring to pick and choose.

It's not about being spoiled. It's not about not caring about Judaism or Jewish identity. It's about what people honestly believe and trying to follow through on those beliefs as best as they can. It's about believing that a Jew is made up of more than merely the mitzvot and life cycles they managed to keep and follow and the decisions they're lucky enough to have others decide for them- including brit, bar mitzvah, or a Jewish burial. People like Sylvia can write off "the youth" all they want. I'm sure they're used to it, and they've got thick skins. But I can only hope that regardless of what Sylvia's generation thinks of the parents who choose not to circumcise, they will remember not to hold it against the children affected by the decision. Circumcision is an important issue, as are many questions of modern day Jewish observance. But at the end of the day, these parents are motivated by their personal consciences, their beliefs, and wanting the best for their children. Whatever our positions, on that we can all agree.