It is sometimes easier to reject strong evidence than to admit we’ve been wrong. -- Carl Sagan
Truth is not emotion. It simply is. For example, if I said that grass is green, most everyone educated past preschool would agree with me, and other than perhaps think it was silly for me to feel the need to point it out, move on without a second thought. That is, unless they had bet the farm that grass is orange, in which case they would likely get defensive and try to prove that, at least in theory, there was some possible way that under certain circumstances, grass is orange. Being wrong is hard to admit; it is easier to justify, deny or accuse others. It gets even harder when the stakes are high and the results are final.
In a similar manner, when it is stated that male circumcision harms, anyone at least somewhat informed about the foreskin sees the Truth in it and does not take it personally. However, someone who has in any way bet the farm that circumcision is acceptable, even by a refusal to question personal or cultural prejudices, will likely be offended. They made (or intend to make) a high stakes decision, the results are final, they cannot be wrong.
The AAP is an amplified example of this. It is a collection of individuals who have perhaps more to lose than the average person, and not just financially. Like many in this country, they or their partners are circumcised, they have chosen circumcision for their sons and they are prejudiced to think the circumcised penis is "normal." For some, circumcision is part of their faith. Unlike the average person though, they not only have encouraged circumcision, they have performed them. As countries around the world recognize the damage of circumcision and the rights of the child, the members of the AAP are put in a bind. Their entire sense of self is balanced on the notion that circumcision serves a greater purpose. If they are wrong, they not only must question what has been done to them or their partners, what they have chosen for their sons, their own prejudices and perhaps faith, they must also question the harm that they have personally inflicted upon countless children and the financial ramifications of admitting it. That is a heavy emotional burden. Therefore, they try to prove that, at least in theory, there is some possible way that under certain circumstances, circumcision is beneficial. The weaker their case becomes, the louder they shout it, trying to drown out the voice of Truth.
Back to the individual now ... When I hear of "studies" showing the "risks" of not circumcising my son or have been told that my son will hate me because he was not circumcised, I take it as seriously as if I was told the same of a daughter. I do not feel that my decision to keep my son's genitals intact is any more private or personal than I would that of a daughter's genitals. Why should I feel any differently about allowing my son to keep his foreskin than I do his teeth or toes? The only emotion I feel is frustration and sadness that those "studies" and such ignorance will lead to more suffering. I never take it personally. There is no need to. I did not bet the farm on anything. If my son ends up being one of the rare men that have an "incurable infection" or hates his foreskin, he can get circumcised then. My decision was not final.
The interesting thing about perception is, we frequently perceive others as having the same emotion as we feel. For example, how many times have you heard someone say of a crying baby, "he's just mad," when in reality the person was frustrated because they did not know what the baby needed? When a person who has bet the farm that circumcision is not harmful hears otherwise, they are forced to think. Subconsciously they realize the Truth in what you have said and are judging and angry at themselves. The internal conflict and guilt are too much for them to handle, so rather than recognizing their own feelings, they accuse you of what they feel deep within. Those who truly believe with all their heart that they have made the right decision do not feel attacked by facts.
So the next time someone gets upset because you have simply stated circumcision facts, step back, take a breath and respond in a respectful manner. Realize that they have recognized the Truth in their heart and if they can drop their defenses, they will listen to that Truth. Truth speaks to the heart in an eternal whisper, constantly calling, living on after the lies have run out of breath. One only needs to quiet the mind to hear it. The mother who instinctively protects her child is a testament to that Truth.
Truth is not emotion. It simply is. For example, if I said that grass is green, most everyone educated past preschool would agree with me, and other than perhaps think it was silly for me to feel the need to point it out, move on without a second thought. That is, unless they had bet the farm that grass is orange, in which case they would likely get defensive and try to prove that, at least in theory, there was some possible way that under certain circumstances, grass is orange. Being wrong is hard to admit; it is easier to justify, deny or accuse others. It gets even harder when the stakes are high and the results are final.
In a similar manner, when it is stated that male circumcision harms, anyone at least somewhat informed about the foreskin sees the Truth in it and does not take it personally. However, someone who has in any way bet the farm that circumcision is acceptable, even by a refusal to question personal or cultural prejudices, will likely be offended. They made (or intend to make) a high stakes decision, the results are final, they cannot be wrong.
The AAP is an amplified example of this. It is a collection of individuals who have perhaps more to lose than the average person, and not just financially. Like many in this country, they or their partners are circumcised, they have chosen circumcision for their sons and they are prejudiced to think the circumcised penis is "normal." For some, circumcision is part of their faith. Unlike the average person though, they not only have encouraged circumcision, they have performed them. As countries around the world recognize the damage of circumcision and the rights of the child, the members of the AAP are put in a bind. Their entire sense of self is balanced on the notion that circumcision serves a greater purpose. If they are wrong, they not only must question what has been done to them or their partners, what they have chosen for their sons, their own prejudices and perhaps faith, they must also question the harm that they have personally inflicted upon countless children and the financial ramifications of admitting it. That is a heavy emotional burden. Therefore, they try to prove that, at least in theory, there is some possible way that under certain circumstances, circumcision is beneficial. The weaker their case becomes, the louder they shout it, trying to drown out the voice of Truth.
Back to the individual now ... When I hear of "studies" showing the "risks" of not circumcising my son or have been told that my son will hate me because he was not circumcised, I take it as seriously as if I was told the same of a daughter. I do not feel that my decision to keep my son's genitals intact is any more private or personal than I would that of a daughter's genitals. Why should I feel any differently about allowing my son to keep his foreskin than I do his teeth or toes? The only emotion I feel is frustration and sadness that those "studies" and such ignorance will lead to more suffering. I never take it personally. There is no need to. I did not bet the farm on anything. If my son ends up being one of the rare men that have an "incurable infection" or hates his foreskin, he can get circumcised then. My decision was not final.
The interesting thing about perception is, we frequently perceive others as having the same emotion as we feel. For example, how many times have you heard someone say of a crying baby, "he's just mad," when in reality the person was frustrated because they did not know what the baby needed? When a person who has bet the farm that circumcision is not harmful hears otherwise, they are forced to think. Subconsciously they realize the Truth in what you have said and are judging and angry at themselves. The internal conflict and guilt are too much for them to handle, so rather than recognizing their own feelings, they accuse you of what they feel deep within. Those who truly believe with all their heart that they have made the right decision do not feel attacked by facts.
So the next time someone gets upset because you have simply stated circumcision facts, step back, take a breath and respond in a respectful manner. Realize that they have recognized the Truth in their heart and if they can drop their defenses, they will listen to that Truth. Truth speaks to the heart in an eternal whisper, constantly calling, living on after the lies have run out of breath. One only needs to quiet the mind to hear it. The mother who instinctively protects her child is a testament to that Truth.