Logic – Rolling Doughnut

Teaching through condescension doesn’t work

I love stuff like this, “16 Questions For Men That Reveal The Casual Sexism Women Experience Every Day“, in the sense that I despise it. Human interaction is messy and too often hideous. That isn’t a shaky limb to walk on. However, in my experience, “gotcha” as a teaching tool is unlikely to convince people who don’t already agree. It is built on challenging smug assumptions by making its own smug assumptions. It strengthens defensiveness rather than opening doors.

The list opens with this (links omitted):

Sexism can be hard to point out when it’s so engrained in our everyday lives. Clementine Ford, however, found an awesome way to highlight casual sexism with a simple hashtag.

Even though I disagree with the tactic, which is mostly (but not entirely) on how Huffington Post packaged these questions, the goal of challenging sexism deserves answers. First, the two tweets from Clementine Ford that kicked this off:

Question to the male writers/speakers etc out there. Is it common for you to be called an ‘attention seeker’? Or do just women get that?

A: Common? No. Men and women have told me this in debate, though.

#QuestionsForMen: When you have a hostile disagreement with someone, is it common for them to say you’re angry because no one will fuck you?

A: Common? No. Men and women have told me this in debate, though.

And 16 of Huffington Post’s favorite #QuestionsForMen tweets (source article has the links):

Q1: Have you ever been told your business ideas are cute? #QuestionsForMen

A1: No.

Q2: #QuestionsForMen Are you comfy with the federal government & Christian conservatives holding decision making parties in your “boy” parts?¹

A2: About that… This routinely happens with “boy” parts. So, no, I am not comfy with others holding decision-making parties for my “boy” parts. Yet, others already made my decision.

This question is why the smug, closed-mind “gotcha” approach is stupid. You want me to think outside the box² you think I’m in? Think outside the box your question shows you’re in.

Q3: #questionsformen do you walk home with your keys placed in between your fingers? are you constantly looking over your shoulder?

A3: No.

Q4: @clementine_ford #QuestionsForMen how often do you have to fake laugh at stupid/cringey/creepy/sexist things older men say regarding you?

A4: I’ve experienced those comments based on me being a ginger. I doubt the things said were as stupid/cringey/creepy/sexist as what is said to women.

Q5: #QuestionsForMen have you ever been late to work because you’ve had to change streets 5 times in 5minutes to avoid being catcalled by women?

A5: No. Again, I have had people bother me with rude things about being a ginger as I’ve walked. But I doubt the things said were the same. Nor has it happened a lot.

Q6: Do women jump into your face calling you fat, ugly, or that you “should get raped” for expressing an opinion online? #questionsformen

A6: I’ve been called names equivalent to fat and ugly for expressing an opinion online. I have not had threats of violence, sexual or otherwise. I have witnessed (and challenged) threats of violence against women and their children for expressing an opinion online.

Q7: #QuestionsForMen When out having a few beers, have you ever said “no” to a woman & then been hassled by her for the rest of the night?

A7: No.

Q8: #questionsformen In a job interview have you ever been asked how you will juggle work and home?

A8: No.

Q9: Do you get told ‘you’ll change your mind eventually’ when you say you don’t want to have children? #QuestionsforMen

A9: No. I have been told I should be thankful to my parents for having me circumcised as a healthy infant, even though I oppose it for myself. Similar in the sense that my opinion about myself isn’t relevant to what society may expect of me?

Q10: #questionsformen anyone not hire you on the basis of “you’re a man – you’ll be having a family soon and need to devote time to that.” ?

A10: No.

Q11: Do you send your mates a message to let them know you’ve gotten home safely? #questionsformen

A11: No.

Q12: If you take a leadership position, do you worry about being seen as bossy? Are you called bossy? #questionsformen

A12: No. No.

Q13: #questionsformen when you achieve something great, do you expect the female reporter to say, ‘give us a twirl, who are you wearing?’

A13: No.

Q14: #QuestionsForMen Have you ever been basically told that going home with a woman means that she’s entitled to rape you?

A14: No.

Q15: @clementine_ford #QuestionsForMen How often are you expected to provide an explanation for why you didn’t change your name to your wife’s?

A15: Never. (My wife didn’t take my last name. I couldn’t care less.)

Q16: Have you ever had a coworker refer to you as sweetheart? #QuestionsForMen

A16: In the context implied here, no.

Sexism exists. In many ways it’s systemic. We need to fight it. I don’t have all the answers on how. I’m not perfect. I’m paying attention.

**********¹ This person responded to someone who answered the question with the same point. She wrote:

[@…] Circumcision is NOT in a federal or state law book as a mandate, but is rather a parents’ religious or cultural #choice.

This is how to miss the point, to be inside the mental box the original question demonstrated. 1) Why should a boy care whether it’s his parents or his government imposing non-therapeutic genital cutting without his consent? 2) The state violating a child’s rights is bad. The state permitting parents to violate a child’s rights is also bad. And looking the other way matters when Congress (and states) legislated that “parental choice” is gendered. 3) Read the BBC link from my answer above. A German court found circumcision to be a violation. The German Bundestag, with support from Chancellor Angela Merkel, passed legislation to permit circumcision to continue. Twenty members of Congress publicly supported this.

The only valid choice (i.e. #choice) involved in circumcision must be the individual who would be circumcised. This “gotcha” needs rethinking.

² I’m not saying I’m outside (or inside) that box. I want to deal with this honestly. I think I’m good at not perpetuating sexism. I don’t ass
ume I am to the point I don’t need to consider it regularly.

MRAs Are Probably Wrong, Except When They’re Right

I understand why “men’s rights activists” give some people heartburn. In too many areas it’s warranted. I’ve written about examples before, and sided against arguments associated with the MRA argument. I prefer to have facts incorporated into my theories on how the world should be.

Male circumcision is one of the (possibly few) areas where the men’s rights movement has truth¹ nailed down on its side. Male circumcision, as it’s commonly practiced on healthy minors, violates the male’s rights. Where anyone, including an MRA, shoe-horns it into a discussion of female genital mutilation, rather than discussing it if it evolves in a discussion, I understand and agree with the criticism. That’s bad marketing, at least. I’ve probably done it, although I think I’ve learned where raising the comparison makes sense. I strive for better awareness. But the more common argument seems to be that the comparison is wrong, and men’s rights activists shouldn’t try to make it.

For example, Rational Alice started a series of posts on “the most common raisons d’être of the men’s rights movement”. The series starts with male circumcision:

This first topic should be quite an easy one. I’m taken to believe that it’s not even very popular with the men’s rights movement itself, though it is definitely present therein.

I’ll argue here that male circumcision is “quite an easy one”, but that Alice misunderstands the direction in which it is easy. My caveat is that I don’t consider myself a men’s rights activist. (Note: Links removed, unless necessary. Emphasis in original.)

Those MRAs who take circumcision as one of their issues of choice assert that “male” circumcision — that is, the removal of the foreskin of the penis — is on par with “female” circumcision, or “female” genital mutilation, and is not being adequately addressed as a problem by those who campaign against it. I.e., they decry the fact that male genital mutilation is not seen as a problem by the public, while female genital mutilation (or genital cutting, FGC) faces enormous opposition; i.e., society cares more for the treatment of women’s genitalia than men’s.

First, I’m going to acknowledge my ignorance. I have no idea why male and female are in quotes. I assume it involves cis- in some form. If so, it’s odd to debate this from identity when it’s better resolved through basic anatomy intersecting with human rights. The world is more complicated than “boys have a penis, girls have a vagina,” but the principle incorporates women who have a penis, men who have a vagina, or men and women who have both.

That principle is easy to state. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. Or, to put it in narrower words for the comparison: removing the healthy prepuce of a non-consenting individual is unethical. There are more complex issues within this topic, but that gets to the direct anatomical comparison within a framework that views all people as possessing equal rights. Any view that veers from that to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable non-therapeutic genital cutting without consent is wrong.

As for the charge that opponents of female genital mutilation don’t adequately address male circumcision, I don’t expect anyone to expend energy on subsets of a topic that don’t interest them. Focus on female genital mutilation. All I expect is that a person not defend contradictions. If someone is an activist against female genital mutilation, that’s great. The world needs dedicated people to help end FGC/M. If that person also defends male circumcision as commonly practiced on minors, that person is a hypocrite. Don’t be a hypocrite. That’s my only demand.

After a paragraph on tradition:

The universal standard advocated by MRAs is not so different from what is advocated by a great number of progressives: that no infant’s genitalia should be altered without their consent, which they obviously cannot give, except for immediate medical concerns (and the topic of intersex genital assignment is one for another post). What makes it MRA-specific, then? Well, simply the fact that they believe the activism surrounding FGC demonstrates social discrimination against men, and not, as many would have you believe, the facts about the actual procedures of FGC compared to that of “male” circumcision.

I disagree with this assessment. Perhaps men’s rights activists perceive the problem as “the activism surrounding FGC demonstrates social discrimination against men”. I doubt it, and Alice provides no example. (The reason is in the post’s introduction.) I suspect men’s rights activists do not like having their valid concerns over male circumcision dismissed, not what that dismissal symbolizes. Reality demonstrates how society, through law, treats genital cutting unequally based in gender. Disregard for the obvious similarities between female and male genital cutting is the problem that helps allow inequality to continue.

A campaign against (forced) female genital mutilation is not unfair or discriminatory if it doesn’t address (forced) male circumcision (i.e. genital mutilation). A campaign against forced female genital mutilation is unfair and discriminatory where it addresses forced male circumcision and dismisses it or deems it acceptable, for whatever cultural, religious, or prophylactic reasons might be cited.

Again, the principle is universal. It isn’t male versus female, or “male” versus “female”. All human beings have the right to their own healthy, intact genitals, in whatever form that might take, until they may decide to alter them. If a basic human right does not apply to all humans equally from birth, then rights are a worthless concept that serve no purpose beyond being an ideological tool. No.

To that point, let’s talk about FGC. There are four types: Type I involves removal of the clitoral hood and the clitoris; Type II involves removal of the clitoris and the inner labia; Type III involves removal of the inner labia, the outer labia and the clitoris, followed by fusion of the wound — which is only opened for intercourse and childbirth; and Type IV covers various less-severe practices like widening the vagina and piercing the clitoris. Think about all that for a while. …

I agree with Alice’s summary here, although I’ll add that Type IV is generally considered to be “all other harmful procedures”. That’s broader and more useful. (The four types are described in the WHO fact sheet on female genital mutilation.)

The U.S. Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 (18 USCS § 116) criminalizes all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors without regard for parental justifications “as a matter of custom or ritual”. That includes any genital cutting equal to or less harmful than male circumcision. There is no defense to be made for genital cutting on male minors if equal human rights are to matter, barring one’s support for repealing 18 USCS § 116 and all similar laws. That would be inexcusable, but it would at least be consistent.

… What does the foreskin do for the penis? Homologous to the clitoral hood, the foreskin evolved to protect the end of the penis. Recent studies have revealed no significant difference in sexual sensation between circumcised and non-circumcised penises. …

That study is from January 2004. This study, which “confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning”, is from February 2013. It’s illogical to assume that removing part of the penis would have no effect on sexual sensation. But, if only the study Alice presents is correct, so what? Sensitivity is an issue, and I’d argue that changing the functioning (e.g. removing the foreskin’s gliding motion) of the penis is enough to argue against forced circumcision. What does the individual want? The issue is self-ownership and bodily autonomy. Do we own our bodies (i.e. our genitals)? The accepted position here is that females too often don’t but always should, while males don’t and that isn’t an issue. That distinction is absurd. Calling it out for criticism and change is appropriate.

… (As a matter of fact, circumcision is recommended by the WHO as part of its program on preventing HIV infections, as risk of acquiring HIV through heterosexual intercourse goes down significantly after circumcision.)

The studies found a reduced risk of female-to-male HIV transmission in high-risk populations from voluntary, adult circumcision. None of that describes the United States or Europe, and the key in that specific scenario — voluntary, adult — doesn’t apply to infants in Africa. Male circumcision in the context of Alice’s post is a different ethical issue than what’s in the parenthetical. This is often the problem. Mixing it all into one simplistic idea leads to mistaken conclusions.

Removal of the foreskin is not so different from reduction or removal of the clitoral hood, which is a component of Type I FGC. But consider the homology of the labia majora and the scrotum, and of the clitoris and the penis. These are essential components of “male” sexual physiology. Not only is FGC exceptionally cruel, …

It’s inappropriate for one person to tell others what is an inessential component of their bodies in the context of what is – and isn’t, allegedly – cruel to permanently force on them without need or consent.

… “male” circumcision cannot even come close to the cruelty inflicted by removal of the clitoris and/or the labia. …

That’s the “heads I win, tails you lose” approach to the comparison. The homology of the female and male prepuce is the consideration, the “not so different” Alice used to start the paragraph. Removing the former by force is illegal. Removing the latter by force is encouraged. That’s the flawed disparity. Criticizing MRAs is often appropriate, but here the facts are on their side, if not always their methods.

In the larger argument, removal of the clitoris and/or the labia is worse than removal of the male prepuce. That isn’t much of an insight. It’s easy to acknowledge that FGM is evil, because it is. It’s possible to accept that FGC/M is almost always worse than male genital cutting (dare I say, mutilation) in outcome, as commonly practiced. Neither of those excuse forced male circumcision. A knife to the gut is worse than a punch to the face. Should we permit the latter because it’s less damaging? Are we indifferent to any assault worse than another? Will we establish a tournament to find the one form of assault that’s bad because it’s the worst? it’s a preposterous argument. Real differences exist in the practices. That should inform criminal punishment, for example, without providing legal or cultural cover for lesser forms of forced genital cutting.

… It is a blatantly misogynist — and also, quite plainly, wrong — argument to say that the two are even remotely comparable, or that the campaign against female genital mutilation is unfair and discriminatory because it doesn’t address male circumcision.

Comparing the two isn’t misogyny. There is no hatred of females or belief that women are less than males. Someone’s strategy could involve misogyny, or confuse silence with discrimination, but that’s not the comparison, which is rooted in principle and facts. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting females must end where it occurs. At the same time, non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting males must end where it occurs. The comparison exists without lessening females or what is done to them. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. That’s the core.

¹ Consider something like conscription. Should women be forced into conscription to be equal with males, or is this an area where the rights of males are violated? (Or the requirement to register for possible conscription that also only applies to males?)

Every Circumcision Includes Affirmable Objective Harm

Disclosure: I am the author of the first link in this post.

The AAP has released its revised statement on non-therapeutic male circumcision, which provides the contradictory conclusions that the possible benefits outweigh the risks (without mention of the costs) and that not everyone will conclude that the possible benefits outweigh the risks for their family. Another prominent libertarian has chimed in on non-therapeutic infant male circumcision, this time with a different take than Doug Mataconis’ flawed non-libertarian advocacy from last week. Today, George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein posted on the revision at The Volokh Conspiracy. He engages in a better approach, but his conclusion is also wrong.

At the risk of provoking the ire of anti-circumcision zealots (you know who are), I thought I’d mention that the American Academy of Pediatrics, reversing a previous neutral stance, is now endorsing male circumcision based on a review of recent scientific evidence.

Zealots. If that’s the word choice, then describe the opposition correctly. I oppose non-therapeutic genital cutting (i.e. circumcision) on non-consenting individuals. That is different than being merely anti-circumcision. I don’t care if someone has himself circumcised. I care very much if someone is circumcised without medical need and without his consent. This is based on the same principle and understanding of facts that forms my opposition to an individual having her genitals cut without medical need and without her consent.

I undertook a reasonably thorough review of the existing evidence myself, frankly with a bias toward finding that circumcision was overall harmful. I was aware that circumcision, like several other medical procedures (think episiotomy during childbirth) was encouraged for decades by an unthinking medical establishment that didn’t undertake the research needed to support its recommendations. I was perfectly willing to believe that circumcision had few if any health benefits, had significant costs, and should be done only for religious reasons if at all.

I believe that. However, it implies a validity for the decision to circumcise a healthy child that is illegitimate. Proxy consent for surgery must start with medical need, not the possibility of positive benefits. The subjective value of the pursued speculative benefits rests with the decision-maker, not the individual who will live with the surgical alteration to his body. The only objective outcome he receives is the unavoidable physical harm from the surgical intervention.

I couldn’t find such evidence. Instead, I found that it has small but real health benefits, and that there is no sound evidence of reduced sexual function (I know, tons of nerve endings, blah blah blah, but where is the evidence that on average it makes sex less enjoyable? Studies on men circumcised as adults don’t provide such evidence). I’m not sure that would be enough to lead me to circumcise my own son (mostly because of squeamishness) [if I weren’t Jewish, and had a son], but I think it’s an easy call if you plan to raise your son Jewish; the last thing you want is for your kid to decide at age 20 or whatever that his religion demands circumcision, and to have to undergo it then, when the risks and pain are much worse. (If there was sound evidence of harm from circumcision, that would be a different story).

I recognize those possible health benefits. I agree they’re small, which I’m glad is stated in Prof. Bernstein’s post. But there are possible flaws, even outside potential methodological flaws. The obvious ethical flaw is declaring results found with adult volunteers should then be applied at parental request to healthy infants who do not consent.

The non-obvious physical flaw is that infant and adult circumcision are not quite the same procedure. In infancy, the foreskin is fused to the glans. To circumcise a child, his foreskin must be separated from the rest of his penis. The bond formed by the synechia must be broken, which may inflict additional scarring on the glans of the infant. The circumciser must estimate how much skin to remove and work with an obviously much smaller penis. Too little or too much may be removed, assuming the circumcised is even pleased with his parents making his decision. The circumciser also does not know whether to leave or remove the frenulum. (It is usually removed.) These concerns are minimized or non-applicable when waiting until adulthood. There are trade-offs in both directions, not just the alleged preferablity of infant circumcision.

The obvious physical flaw is more apparent. Circumcision inflicts objective harm in every case. The normal, healthy foreskin is removed. Nerve endings are severed. (The absence of evidence on how that affects sexual pleasure is not an argument in favor of infant circumcision. Prof. Bernstein’s position incorrectly assumes it favors his analysis.) The frenulum may be removed. Scarring remains. And the risk of further complications exists in every circumcision. Some males will experience complications, including possibly severe complications. That is all sound evidence of harm from every circumcision.

The “right to bodily integrity” argument so popular in Europe these days doesn’t sway me. What if your kid is born with six fingers, or with an ugly mole on his face, neither of which are causing harm beyond the aesthetic, and removal of either of which will cause some pain? Does his “right to bodily integrity” mean that you have to wait until he’s sixteen to let him decide whether to remove the appendage? Those strike me as harder cases than circumcision, given that circumcision actually provides some medical benefits. But I think it would be absurd to ban, or even discourage, removal.

This compares either abnormalities or subjective cosmetic opinions to the normal foreskin. I think it would be less compelling to ban intervention on children in those non-therapeutic cases, as opposed to the clear need to prohibit non-therapeutic child circumcision, but I don’t think it’s automatically absurd to intervene in those other cases. Still, different opinions are possible. Is Cindy Crawford’s mole a cosmetic problem for her? Gattaca has a thought-provoking take on extra digits with “Impromptu for 12 Fingers“. There can be unexpected benefits from doing nothing, from leaving the individual his choice.

The crux is to what extent should we value the right to physical integrity more than the possible medical benefits. It’s shouldn’t be a debate when considering that the harm is objective and the benefits are not. It is more than an unprovable moral notion. Most males will never need the possible benefits cited for non-therapeutic circumcision. And we already recognize the legal harm to females for comparable and lesser forms of harm from non-therapeutic genital cutting. (Yes, there are disparities in the two. They are the same in principle and other important aspects.)

If there was sound evidence that circumcision was affirmatively harmful, I think governments (and busybodies) would have every right to discourage it, including by law for minors, regardless of religious sensitivities. Given that the evidence points in the opposite direction,
the movement in Germany and elsewhere to ban circumcision is unconscionable.

That evidence exists. Every circumcision involves objective harm. The science upon which the AAP relies is essentially the subset that supports circumcision, and which is often barely applicable to the United States (e.g. possibly reduced female-to-male HIV transmission in high-risk populations with low circumcision rates). The lack of need – the health of the child – is also science. Less invasive, more effective preventions and treatments for the ailments circumcision may reduce also constitute science. Condoms, antibiotics, Gardasil, soap, and water are science. To suggest a conclusion can be objective on this net evaluation is absurd because that question for each individual is subjective, as evidenced by the AAP’s own contradictory statement.

The decision to circumcise healthy children because doing so might help them is not libertarian. As I wrote in Friday’s post, let’s temporarily assume what is not true, that the foreskin has no purpose. “It’s mine” is sufficient. Even within a limited view of the right to physical integrity where objective harm is not viewed as harm, one’s body is clearly one’s own property. The onus is not properly on the person who may not want his property taken to accept his loss because his property was taken with good intentions for an exchange in value he may not want.

I Prefer FPS Over MMORPG

I’m not a fan of privilege as a foundational argument. It’s confining and limiting. It’s focused on generalizations without regard for the individuals involved. It establishes a hierarchy for problems with the result, if not purpose, of minimizing any X that is less severe than Y according to the person wielding the argument. It’s claptrap that eventually resolves to “Shut up”.

Such is the case with John Scalzi’s recent post, Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. From the beginning it sets out the argument’s flaw as a definitive, justifiable rule that allows anyone who agrees with it to “prove” that the person who disagrees commits an error. Usually being dense, or something similar. It’s a way to shut down debate rather than start or continue one.

I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white males how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word “privilege,” to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon. It’s not that the word “privilege” is incorrect, it’s that it’s not their word. When confronted with “privilege,” they fiddle with the word itself, and haul out the dictionaries and find every possible way to talk about the word but not any of the things the word signifies.

It starts with condescension. Straight white men need to be educated, and if you challenge the argument, you’re proving your need to be educated. It’s stupid. It signals that there are default rules, either implicitly or explicitly assumed, that no one may disagree with. The only real question it allows is who’s next in needing to be educated about their privilege with respect to someone else under a simplified set of rules: straight minority males or non-straight white males.

Mr. Scalzi’s argument on privilege is easy enough to understand:

Dudes. Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?

Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.

As a generalization with no context, sure. But that’s shallow thinking. It’s meaningless. We don’t live our lives as generalizations. Our interactions are more complicated and messy than simple identifying characteristics. Mr. Scalzi’s argument rests on the basis that sexual orientation, skin color, and gender are the three supreme defining characteristics and life should be judged accordingly. All else being equal, would I encounter an easier, harder, or indistinguishable challenge in working with Mr. Scalzi as a Straight White Male than a Gay Minority Female would? I bet on indistinguishable.

He acknowledges other characteristics within the metaphor but makes them subordinate to these three:

Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.

I disagree that these three are the complete, highest characteristics. Is a straight white female born with genius-level intelligence, a trust fund, and a respectable family name playing on a more difficult level than a poor, stupid straight white male? What’s the scenario, fixing a flat tire on the side of the road? Being treated respectfully at the Mini Mart?

A later argument demonstrates the largest hole (emphasis in original):

And maybe at this point you say, hey, I like a challenge, I want to change my difficulty setting! Well, here’s the thing: In The Real World, you don’t unlock any rewards or receive any benefit for playing on higher difficulty settings. The game is just harder, and potentially a lot less fun. And you say, okay, but what if I want to replay the game later on a higher difficulty setting, just to see what it’s like? Well, here’s the other thing about The Real World: You only get to play it once. So why make it more difficult than it has to be? Your goal is to win the game, not make it difficult.

My goal is to “win” the game? According to whom? Judged by what criterion/criteria? By whose criterion/criteria? In which game? The argument fails because it neglects the reality that straight white male, gay minority female, and everyone in-between are people with unique, complex mixes of characteristics playing – or not playing – the game to which Straight White Man is the lowest difficulty setting. There are many games. There are different players. And there are different game masters. Context matters. Generalizations bludgeon.

Money Is a Tool, Not an Inverse Proof of Personal Value

A mindset exists around money and choices involved in acquiring it that I don’t understand. I comprehend that this exists, but I’m not sure why or how it develops and persists. Lauren McLaughlin writes about a New York Times article on Wall Street layoffs:

According to this New York Times article, young wannabe bankers are the first to go in the most recent round of financial sector lay-offs.

I know. Boo hoo, right?

I won’t ask anyone to shed a tear for these youngsters who still have plenty of time to rethink the trajectory of their professional lives. Besides, looked at one way, the recession is the best thing to happen to this generation of young, ambitious college grads. Without easy access to the lucrative field of magical fairy dust mortgage derivatives, they might actually do something meaningful with their lives.

Having two degrees in finance and multiple friends who entered the field in the mid-’90s, I’d take issue with the idea of “easy” access to the financial industry. But that quibble aside, I’d ask why Ms. McLaughlin should spend her time in the (potentially) lucrative field of magical fairy dust novel writing. If she couldn’t do that, she might actually do something meaningful with her life, to be determined by me for her.

I only offer that in jest. Novel writing is a respectable, useful profession, and I admire anyone who can a) do it and b) make a living at it. It doesn’t matter if the author writes books I would read or not. I’m not silly enough to demand that my tastes, preferences, and needs be the only criteria by which everyone must decide what is worthwhile in the world.

The same applies to the world of finance. I think the impulse to condemn finance in total rests on the same misguided notion that all bankers from 2008 were criminals who should be arrested for causing a financial crisis. It’s a simplistic approach to a complicated topic. The industry doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful.

This is not to say I admire the banker lifestyle described in the article or in Ms. McLaughlin’s post. I don’t, but again, that’s because it doesn’t appeal to me, not because it’s inherently flawed or bad. And there are real people suffering in that story. Should we only have empathy for someone until they make a certain income?

Which brings me to a great post by Jason Kuznicki:

The economist Justin Wolfers tweeted an interesting poll result yesterday, from Kaiser (though I’m having trouble finding it at the moment):

As far as you are concerned, do we have too many rich people in this country (31%), too few (21%), or about the right amount? (42%)

As far as I am concerned, 73% of the country appears to have lost its mind. I’d like everyone to be rich, which means, obviously, that we have too few rich people.

He’s right. If we’re going to focus on artificial, ever-shifting definitions of class in America, we should be working to help everyone move up, not knock the “right” people down for being “wrong” in some way.

Krugman says, “I’m Rubber, You’re Glue…”

It’s been a decent chunk of time since I last posted, but I have things to say again. (And Google removed shared items from Google Reader.) We’ll see how long it lasts.

What better (i.e. easier) way to jump back in than to comment on Paul Krugman saying something stupid and lacking in self-awareness. As always it’s “you shouldn’t do that, but ignore that I’m doing it.” Consider this, from last week:

Over the last couple of days, I’ve been getting mail accusing me of consorting with Nazis. My immediate reaction was, what the heck? Then it clicked: the right wing is mounting a full-court press to portray Occupy Wall Street as an anti-Semitic movement, based, as far as I can tell, on one guy with a sign.

I have a lot of sympathy for this complaint, given one of my major interests. It’s a pathetic generalization and an embarrassing reflection on the person willing to dabble in stereotypes without individual evidence. It’s a dishonest tactic, which suggests fear dominates rather than confidence. Any large-ish movement is going to attract its share of crazies who value conspiracy theories over logic. Unless the movement is based on the conspiracy theory itself or a plainly evil belief, the extreme views are probably not widely held within the group and many group members are likely fighting the nonsense out of public view. Generalizing in this way is flawed and stupid, as any case of being uninterested or unwilling to think is.

So, one paragraph in, Krugman has my sympathy. If this had been the issue Krugman intended to pursue, fine. He didn’t.

My first thought was that OWS must have the right really rattled. And there’s probably something to that. But actually, this is the way the right goes after everyone who stands in their way: accuse them of everything, no matter how implausible or contradictory the accusations are. Progressives are atheistic socialists who want to impose Sharia law. Class warfare is evil; also, John Kerry is too rich. And so on.

Krugman makes no distinction between those making accusations and those who share (some) similar, conservative views. It’s “the right”, without specificity. That stroke is too broad.

The key to understanding this, I’d suggest, is that movement conservatism has become a closed, inward-looking universe in which you get points not by sounding reasonable to uncommitted outsiders — although there are a few designated pundits who play that role professionally — but by outdoing your fellow movement members in zeal.

He’s closer here, since it’s clear that “movement conservatism” implies “professional”. But his aside is not enough to excuse what he’s doing. Most people see the distinction between Rush Limbaugh and a neighbor, perhaps even when the neighbor praises Limbaugh. I hope the same is true of anyone tempted to make a professional pundit like Bill Maher the spokesperson for every ~~liberal~~ progressive everywhere. It’s a silly, immature way to view the world (and a key reason I hate partisanship).

Krugman continues:

It’s sort of reminiscent of Stalinists going after Trotskyites in the old days: the Trotskyites were left deviationists, and also saboteurs working for the Nazis. Didn’t propagandists feel silly saying all that? Not at all: in their universe, extremism in defense of the larger truth was no vice, and you literally couldn’t go too far.

Many members of the commentariat don’t want to face up to the fact that this is what American politics has become; they cling to the notion that there are gentlemanly elder statesmen on the right who would come to the fore if only Obama said the right words. But the fact is that nobody on that side of the political spectrum wants to or can make deals with the Islamic atheist anti-military warmonger in the White House.

The last line says it all. (It’s not the last line in the post; just the last important line.) Is it only “that side” engaging in heated, sweeping accusations? “That side.” Krugman is in pot-meet-kettle territory. Everyone who believes anything and shares that belief is a propagandist, literally. In the pejorative, as Krugman implies here, he’s claiming that only the right propagandizes. It wouldn’t take long to find instances of the left engaging in the same tactics against the right, considering I read Krugman’s post.

Congressman Brad Sherman Is Wrong On Circumcision

This is why I don’t like the political process for ending non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors.

Congressman Brad Sherman announced today that he will be introducing the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, a bill to prevent San Francisco and other municipalities from banning the circumcision of males under the age of 18.

Sherman’s new bill is in reaction to a measure that has qualified for the November 2011 ballot in San Francisco that would make the performance of circumcisions on males under 18 a misdemeanor—with a possible $1,000 fine and one-year prison term.

He’s framing the problem incorrectly, which allows him to protect a “right” that doesn’t exist and ignore a right that does. The proposed bill in San Francisco would prohibit non-therapeutic circumcisions on males under 18. Healthy children do not need surgery, even if the parents’ god says so. California law already restricts the rights of parents to cut the healthy genitals of their daughters for any reason, including religious claims. Is that an infringement? Of course not. Likewise, there is no First Amendment right to inflict permanent harm on one’s ~~children~~ sons (only).

Sherman expressed concern over the motivation of the provision. “To infringe the religious rights of so many Americans, San Francisco should have some compelling medical reason; however, the medical literature actually shows clear benefits of male circumcision.”

The provision, shown by its generally-applicable wording, would protect the right of all healthy males to keep their normal body intact and free from the objective harm of non-therapeutic surgery to which they do not consent. It’s the same right U.S. and California law protects for their sisters. That right is being violated. It must stop. This is a way to achieve that, even if it may not be the best way.

But if we incorrectly assume this infringes a legitimate religious right, San Francisco (and every other locality) has a compelling medical reason to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision: it’s non-therapeutic genital cutting imposed on a non-consenting individual. The healthy child does not need circumcision any more than he needs an appendectomy. If he has an appendectomy, he will never get appendicitis. That is a potential benefit. Should we therefore allow parents to have a surgeon cut their healthy ~~children~~ sons (only) to remove his potentially harm-producing appendix? In the name of parental rights? No, because that would be stupid. The ability to chase some possible benefit can’t be an ethical justification to perform an invasive, unnecessary surgical intervention on a healthy child.

Congressman Sherman added:

“Congress has a legitimate interest in making sure that a practice that appears to reduce disease and health care costs remains available to parents,” Sherman said. “And, nothing in my bill prohibits statewide law ensuring that male circumcision occurs in a hygienic manner.”

To the extent that Congress has a legitimate interest¹ here, it’s in protecting the individual rights of every citizen, including male children. It already protected female children with the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996. That prohibits non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting female minors for any reason, including religious claims by the parents. Does that infringe on parental religious rights? Are we illegitimately denying religious rights by not permitting other acts by parents sanctioned by various religious texts? Are the healthy genitals of male minors beneath the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment?

“Congress has historically legislated to protect the free exercise of religious rights from state and local intrusions,” Sherman said. “In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, designed to protect religious institutions from unduly burdensome local zoning laws.”

The logic of the law Congressman Sherman cites favorably requires the conclusion that his proposed bill is flawed. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act establishes that the government may not impose a burden

…unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution–
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(A) Protecting children from unnecessary, objective harm is a compelling governmental interest. Circumcision, as surgery, inflicts objective harm in every instance. When there is no offsetting medical need, the harm is the only guaranteed result. Preventing that is the premise behind prohibiting all female genital cutting on healthy female minors, even genital cutting that is less severe, damaging, or permanent than a typical male circumcision. The government recognizes that girls are individuals with rights that deserve to be protected. Infringing on a non-existent parental right to cut the healthy genitals of their ~~daughters~~ children is a legitimate state action.

(B) The least restrictive means would be for parents to understand that non-therapeutic genital cutting on healthy children is ethically and medically wrong and, thus, refrain from imposing it on their sons. Yet, religious and non-religious parents alike cut the healthy genitals of their sons. How else is the state supposed to stop it without exercising its legitimate police power?

Congressman Sherman should withdraw the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 immediately. He should also introduce a bill to remove the gender bias from the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 to create the Anti-Genital Mutilation Act of 2011, if he’s serious about using the powers of Congress correctly to protect the rights of all American citizens.

Update: More from Congressman Sherman:

Sherman said he did not consult the text of the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 in composing the bill he will put forth in Congress.

“I think people who make that analogy are so wrong that their thinking does not color my thinking,” Sherman said.

Since he’s working with a closed mind, I’ll simplify: non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting person is wrong. The extent of the damage is irrelevant. The reason cited is irrelevant. The gender of the victim is irrelevant. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong.

¹ I want to be proved wrong on this, but Sherman’s statement is further evidence of my prediction that ceding power to the government on health care would lead to arguments that child circumcision provided fiscal benefits to the nation. It wouldn’t change the ethical violation involved, but Congressman Sherman doesn’t provide a cost-benefit analysis for his claim. Only in Congress can spending money always mean saving money.

Much Ado About Individual Rights

Timothy Sandefur links to essays by two secular humanists regarding the San Francisco proposal to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision. The essay in favor of the proposal is by Tom Flynn of the Council for Secular Humanism. Mr. Flynn is correct. The essay against the ban is by Ronald Lindsay of the Center for Inquiry. Mr. Lindsay is wrong. I wish to address his essay.

Mr. Lindsay begins:

First, let’s cut through the misleading rhetoric. Some proponents of the ban refer to male circumcision as genital mutilation and equate it with female “circumcision,” the term sometimes used to describe a clitoridectomy, or complete removal of the clitoris. Clitoridectomies are carried out in some cultures, principally in rural Africa. (In some instances, not only is the clitoris excised, but the labia minora and parts of the labia majora are also removed.) Obviously, the removal of the clitoris results in loss of sexual pleasure.

To equate clitoridectomies with male circumcision is nonsense. The latter is a clip job, resulting in removal of the foreskin from the penis. …

It is not nonsense. They are different in degree, not kind. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. That principle is universal, not gender-specific or discounted if we can figure out some possible benefit. Anything becomes acceptable if we accept possible future benefit as a relevant standard for intervening on healthy children. Of course female ~~circumcision~~ genital cutting is mutilation. Western societies agree on that almost universally. We’ve demonstrated that understanding by enacting laws against any procedures involving the healthy genitals of female minors.

But Mr. Lindsay is incorrect in limiting his point to a comparison of male genital cutting (i.e. circumcision) and clitoridectomies. The latter is an example of FGM, not the definition of FGM. The scope of what qualifies as mutilation mirrors what is illegal in most locations in the United States, including California. The World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as follows (emphasis added): “Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” In other words, any surgical intervention less damaging than male circumcision, inflicted for the exact reasons we cite for male circumcision, would still qualify as genital mutilation. Every one of those procedures (i.e. Types I – IV) is already illegal to inflict on healthy female minors. Applying the principle and rights in that accurate definition equally, non-therapeutic male child circumcision is genital mutilation.

After mentioning various possible risk reductions from male circumcision, Mr. Lindsay writes:

The foregoing medical discussion is important because it undercuts the argument made by some secularists that there’s no valid medical reason for this procedure. Granted, the possibility that a newborn boy will experience some avoidable health issues unless he is circumcised is very small. Furthermore, depending on how one evaluates the risks, the potential benefits may be outweighed by the risks of harm. But isn’t this precisely the type of decision we usually leave to parents — and which we should leave to parents unless we want to become even more of a nanny state?

To avoid confusion, any reason for circumcising a healthy male is non-medical. Again, if we are to pretend that chasing potential benefits counts as a medical reason for non-therapeutic surgery, then parents may impose any intervention they wish, unrestrained by society. Protecting children from that is not a nanny state action. It’s the legitimate role of government to protect the rights of all its citizens, including male minors. We shouldn’t need new laws here. But parents shouldn’t mutilate their children.

Mr. Lindsay raises a legitimate question:

Speaking of the state, do we really want to give more power to the government to control what can only be described as a sensitive, highly personal matter? How exactly is this criminal ban supposed to be enforced? Are we going to have special police units to stamp out circumcision? Undercover cops posing as physicians willing to carry out back-alley quick cuts? Will there be search warrants issued based on confidential information that Johnny was seen at the urinal less than fully intact? I don’t know about you, but I don’t care if my junk is scanned or touched at the airport security line, but I do reject the notion that the government can tell us how it should look.

I agree that enforcement is a challenge. That assumes it would be enforced, which I don’t believe would happen in the unlikely event it passes. Still, the question is relevant. What I think it would most likely do is provide better support for circumcised males to sue for the obvious battery inflicted. That’s not everything, but it’s something.

The biggest flaw in Mr. Lindsay’s approach is the conclusion he draws. I care if my genitals are scanned or touched at the airport security line. Do my rights not matter because Mr. Lindsay thinks differently? Are individual tastes and preferences not unique to each individual?

While I also reject the notion that the government can tell us how our genitals should look, that isn’t what this law would do. It would prevent parents from dictating how their ~~child’s~~ son’s genitals must look for the rest of his life. It would leave the individual male himself to say “yes” or “no” to non-therapeutic circumcision. I’m no more mollified that my parents mutilated me than I would be if my government had ordered it. The result is the same.

Later, he inadvertently proves that he misunderstands the issue:

I’m tired of secularists fighting the wrong battles. We shouldn’t care whether Johnny, Joel, or Jamal keeps his hood on.

I don’t care whether Johnny, Joel, or Jamal “keeps his hood on.” I care that he gets to choose whether or not to keep his healthy foreskin. The emphasis is on his and healthy, not foreskin. That’s the debate, not this incorrect view that male circumcision is “a clip job” that may be imposed at the will or whim of parents.

Opposition to Circumcision and Anti-Semitism: Follow-Up

Continuing on yesterday’s post, I’d like to expand a bit with evidence. For context, consider this from a post at Hot Air Green Room on the Foreskin Man comic book:

Note that these circumcision-haters could have addressed the issue as one of science, medicine, personal autonomy, or even just a social issue on which reasonable people can disagree.

My archives demonstrate exactly that. But the issue is obviously larger than me, and currently focused on the proposal in San Francisco. The question is whether we’re going to rightly hammer those involved in the creation of the Foreskin Man material for pushing anti-Semitic filth, or are we going to set aside logic and tarnish everyone opposed to circumcision who favors the plain language of the proposal, regardless of their demonstrated determination to engage the issue only as one of science, medicine, and personal autonomy devoid of anti-Semitism? Do we criticize and ostracize those directly involved or do we simply stop thinking altogether, ignore the issue involved and just self-congratulate?

To demonstrate what I wrote yesterday about my behind-the-scenes efforts, this is an e-mail I sent on December 3rd when I first encountered Foreskin Man issue #2. (I’ve omitted references to the recipient because, as I said yesterday, I don’t wish to embarrass, if appropriate. Those involved rectified the problem immediately.)

To whom it may concern:

I do not believe [you] should be promoting the Foreskin Man issue #2 comic in any forum. The caricatures within this issue suggest that those of us against non-therapeutic infant circumcision can’t see the difference between what is done and why it is imposed on healthy children. We understand the reality of circumcision and how parental intent does not justify or improve its imposition. But we must act against the procedure being forced on children without engaging in stereotypes and ad hominem. Issue #2 isn’t close to being acceptable on those points.

We already encounter mindless accusations of anti-Semitism by people who refuse to engage in any critical thinking beyond the silly notion that challenging circumcision is an attempt to destroy Judaism. This charge is nonsense, but we are able to counter it with our words and deeds. The wording of the various MGM bill initiatives demonstrates this neutrality in seeking only that individuals choose for themselves, not the complete elimination of circumcision. Promoting anything the [sic] depicts “Monster Mohel” wielding machines [sic] guns and stealing children from parents who already don’t consent to a bris for their son is damaging to us.

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, although I can only hope this was promoted because no one reviewed it before … . Such an action wouldn’t be acceptable, but it would be a forgivable one-time error. However, I will not be associated with this type of material or anyone who supports it. …

Thank you for your time.

Tony

I should’ve stated rather than implied that Foreskin Man #2 is anti-Semitic. But I think the understanding is sufficiently clear. And in an e-mail I sent to alert someone I knew would be equally furious, I wrote this on December 2, 2010:

I don’t know if you’ve seen it yet, but the 2nd issue is appallingly vile and anti-Semitic. …

I can’t control who creates anti-Semitic filth in a mistaken push against non-therapeutic child circumcision. I can somewhat influence who promotes it after it’s been created, but that’s limited where there is no organizational structure among independent activists. What I can do is expect to be treated fairly based on my own words and actions. If you’re inclined to disagree with me, do so fairly on the principled arguments involved, not because some other guy created something disgusting to ostensibly support the same goal.

Gun Violence: Method versus Reason

The murders and attempted murders in Arizona yesterday at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ constituent gathering doesn’t need any specific comment from me. Nor am I much interested in the partisan nonsense that predictably followed. My only response was to wield a clumsy, permanent “Unfollow” hammer on Twitter on anyone who blamed someone other than the (alleged) murderer for his crimes. Productive for nothing other than my sanity, but that’s something for me.

I am, however, interested in one inevitable angle of the aftermath that I think is worth discussing. Two comments that crossed my Twitter feed. First:

It is unacceptable to defend the legality of firearms. It is both irresponsible and horrifically misinformed. Guns kill. Fuck guns. End of.

Second:

“England, where no one has guns: 14 deaths. United States…23,000 deaths from handguns. But–there’s no connection…” ~Bill Hicks

To be fair to both persons, they are Brits, so an American perspective has a way of slanting away from their understandable sentiments. But, both are still flawed, regardless of the cultural difference.

The obvious reason is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As long as that is still valid, guns will be legal in the United States. Simply pretending that it’s not would fight chaos and lawlessness with chaos and lawlessness. Neither of the comments above implies that America should ignore the Second Amendment. We still need to explicitly accept its existence.

Details on why the murderer felt this was justifiable are still unclear. (Mostly, but I’m not going to speculate.) Lost on too many is the idea that guns aren’t the only way to kill people. Sure, it’s a simple process, but plowing a car through a crowd would have similar results. We recognize how stupid it would be to outlaw cars, so it’s reasonable to me to expect that level of thinking applied to guns, as well. Whatever the underlying motivation, the cliche is true: guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

The second Tweet above is slightly off, since the U.S. has approximately five times the population of the U.K. The difference between 14 and 70 is trivial when compared to 23,000, but it raises the question of adequately comparing countries. (I’m ignoring the context of the 23,000 figure and its validity because it’s tangential to my point.) Too many cultural differences exist to compare directly. What are the underlying issues? Why do people shoot/kill other people? And so on.

For example, whatever the percentage, I’m sure much of that number is related to the drug war in the U.S. Other countries are fighting the same war, but the consequences are influenced by culture. The U.S. tried the same war with alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century. We’re now recreating the same results. To mangle another cliche, you can’t legislate for the country you wish you had. You must legislate with the country you have. The human response to prohibition is predictable. But the U.K. and its gun prohibition isn’t the U.S. and its Constitution. What to do isn’t as simple as the seductive “no guns, no murder” mantra.

**********

I have a final point, which I’m separating to hopefully avoid the perception that I’m engaging in a logical fallacy. Understand that this informs nothing other than my personal experience and is not meant to prove me any more an authority or voice in the discussion.

My father died of a gunshot wound when I was three-years-old. He and a friend were playing a game of quick-draw in the front seat of his friend’s car. My father’s friend apparently didn’t realize his gun was loaded. Upon pulling it out, it discharged a fatal blast into my father’s chest.

If guns were illegal, it’s unlikely they would’ve been playing quick-draw knife throw. But there’s also no way to know that they wouldn’t have been playing quick-draw with guns. Life happens. There are legitimate reasons to detest guns and legitimate reasons to value them. There’s a large measure of subjectivity in each of these. It adds nothing to simplify the discussion into a belief that 300,000,000 Americans should fit one mold of thinking, or that an opinion in favor of gun ownership implies a desire, preference or acceptance of gun violence.