What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander?

For some reason, my position is still often considered the radical position. I posted a comment yesterday, now deleted, on this blog entry by a mother-to-be. In discussing her lamaze class, she wrote (CAPS in the original, bold emphasis mine):

… We watched videos showing different labors and births, and we did see one C-section, which convinced me more than ever that I DO NOT WANT ONE, unless it is medically necessary. The instructor was very good about saying “partners” instead of “Dads” most of the time, but at one point we did feel very judged when she asked us all about circumcision, and we said we were planning on having our son circumcised.

To which I responded with this:

So you don’t want a C-section unless it’s medically necessary, but it’s okay to circumcise your son, even though it’s not medically necessary. Why would your son feel differently about medically unnecessary surgery than you?

I probably should’ve responded with something like this, too:

I live with my circumcision, which convinced me that I DID NOT WANT ONE, since it was medically unnecessary.

Or I could’ve asked if she’s watched videos of a medically unnecessary circumcision. I wonder what her son would think if he could watch one. I doubt it would’ve mattered since she deleted my comment. I’m not surprised. In my experience, parents who have such a contradictory, narcissistic view of birth medicine tend to hate debates challenging their illogical decision to have their son’s healthy genitals cut.

Circumcision is medically unnecessary, despite whatever mistaken notions this mother may hold about potential benefits. It’s that simple, which is frustrating because this woman understands the concept that medically unnecessary procedures are undesirable and unwanted. But rather than protect her son, she will force on him a standard she rejects for herself.

Anyone want to argue with me on my stance that some parents act as though their sons are their own personal property rather than fully-formed human beings with a basic inalienable right to the body he’s born with? I’m not arguing that they believe it, although I’ve encountered parents who will admit to that abomination. But their actions speak volumes louder than any empty rhetoric offered to justify genital cutting.

4 thoughts on “What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander?”

  1. According to her profile, she’s a lesbian.
    She seems to be worried about people judging her because of her lifestyle.
    She doesn’t seem to be too concerned about people judging her because of her flagrant hypocrisy, though.

  2. I didn’t explore the possibility that her sexuality is relevant. It’s not relevant. Occam’s Razor leads me to it being typical American cultural ignorance.

  3. I only brought up her sexuality because I find it ironic that she seems to be singularly concerned about people judging her because of her lesbianism. If I were her, I’d be more concerned about people judging me because of my offensive double standards.

  4. That makes sense. She’s worried about people judging her sometimes, but filtering her concerns through a broken prism, so to speak. If it must be sometimes, better to analyze what’s important and controllable.
    Being gay, not controllable, so who cares what people think. Cutting your son’s genitals, controllable, so if people are staring, maybe there’s a reason. To put it crudely.

Comments are closed.