Several weeks ago, I attempted to engage Cara Natterson, M.D. in an online conversation about the two topics named in the title of this open letter. The impetus for this was her recent Times essay, "The Beauty Myth for Boys." Although Natterson's essay reflects what I believe to be an overdue corrective to popular notions about young men's body image, I also believe that what she says and what she does represent an irreconcilable conflict between two fundamentally opposing principles. That is because she argues on behalf of male body positivity on paper but performs non-therapeutic neonatal circumcisions (male genital cutting, or MGC) in practice. I was stunned by this contradiction (not to say hypocrisy). And yet, because of what she wrote in her essay, I was encouraged to hope that this is someone whose thinking I might be able to influence on the topic of genital autonomy. As far as MGC is concerned, if there is a problem with Natterson's essay, it is that it starts down the right path but stops before reaching the right destination. If one genuinely cares about how males view their own bodies, can this lead to any conclusion other than that it is wrong to surgically alter their genitals without their consent? The premise of Natterson's concern for male body image is that what males think about their bodies matters. The premise of the practice of forced circumcision is that what males think about their bodies doesn't matter. How, I wondered, does someone simultaneously entertain such mutually exclusive ideas? It seemed to me that, like most people possessed of the pro-genital-cutting mindset, Natterson wasn't evil: she simply hadn't thought this through. That is why it seemed that she would be an ideal person with whom to share an exchange of ideas in a forum intended to fulfill the promise of the internet - constructive dialogue - as opposed to what has proved unfortunately to be the internet's ugly reality: invective and "echo-chamber" affirmation of entrenched positions. I reached out to Dr. Natterson, therefore, with these goals in mind. Unfortunately, despite several attempts to elicit her participation, my letter has gone unanswered. In order to rescue it from the dead-letter bin, where it would likely remain forever, I am posting it here (with one or two very minor alterations), on my blog.
Dear Dr. Natterson,
Your recent essay in the New York Times, "The Beauty Myth for Boys," both struck a chord and hit a nerve with me.
Your recent essay in the New York Times, "The Beauty Myth for Boys," both struck a chord and hit a nerve with me.
First, insofar as social pressures regarding their
bodies are concerned, while there may be some similarities between the
experiences of girls and boys and women and men in our society, young
men certainly are not subjected to the relentless
sexualization and objectification of their bodies that young women
are. Nor is the male experience even remotely comparable to the female
experience of constant bombardment with demeaning and sexist imagery.
But, leaving that aside, and allowing that the
problem you cite is real, the disparate attention paid to these twin
sets of pressures is at least in part due to a vibrant feminist movement
that has struggled hard to combat the undeniably greater pressures
placed on girls and women in this regard (hence, Naomi Wolf's book), and it is reasonable
that that is where feminism should focus its efforts.
Yet it has also long been recognized that patriarchal
culture harms both sexes, albeit differently. The ways that males (of
all ages) are expected to look and, especially, to comport themselves in
our society is as much a
construct
as the ways that females are. For both sexes, these expectations are
intrinsic to the construction of gender. Key attributes of masculine
gender are stoicism, strength,
fearlessness and taciturnity. When society's expectations conflict
with a boy's authentic nature (whatever it may happen to be) and when
the inevitable emotional and social difficulties result, he is supposed
to "man up," "stop whining and just deal with
it." Our society still discourages males from acknowledging, let alone
exhibiting, weakness and pain, whether the pain be physical or
psychological. It seems to me, therefore, that before we can address
the body-image problems of boys, we need to address
the problem of gender and how it warps human nature to the detriment of
both sexes. To your point, then, about the importance of encouraging
boys to communicate their feelings, boys (and men) must first be
permitted to express their feelings without being
ridiculed, having their masculinity, heterosexuality or even their
sanity questioned, or having their sexual orientation or gender identification (or non-identification) attacked.
From everything I have written up to this point, you
might suppose at least some concord between us on the question of boys'
and young men's body-image problems. And yet, it is because we are
likely on opposite sides of a related philosophical
divide that I am reaching out to you in the spirit of constructive dialogue. You see, it is my belief that, to
the extent that boys
do
have body-image problems, one of the ways that our society contributes
to them is through the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision, or
male genital cutting (MGC). You, on
the other hand, have publicly acknowledged
performing neonatal circumcisions. While I do not believe that you
ever intended or desired to cause deliberate harm to the boys and future
men whose genitals you irreparably altered without their consent, I
do
think that you need to hear from at least one man whose perception of
his own circumcision (performed long before you started doing these
surgeries) is that he
was harmed by circumcision. You make much in your
Times
essay about valuing the male perspective and getting adolescents to
open up about how they feel about their bodies. While I am no longer an
adolescent, I am still connected
to the adolescent that I was by an unbroken chain of days lived within
this male body. And expressing myself both as a male and as a victim of
MGC, I would like you to understand that what was done to my body
without my consent was a violation of my fundamental
human rights. Involuntary circumcision deprived me of the right to
bodily autonomy, the right of bodily integrity, and the right to
experience the full range of my innate human sexuality.
It also occurred to me, when reading your essay, that
there was not just a conflict between our views on body image
(let alone bodily autonomy) but an inherent contradiction between your
own professed views on the importance of boys
having a healthy body image and your practice as someone who performs
involuntary circumcisions. While your support for male body-positivity
and your validation of the male experience come through loud and clear,
involuntary circumcision is a complete negation
of those very principles.
It is universally acknowledged that neonatal male
circumcision is not medically necessary. MGC is, in fact, performed
primarily for cultural and "aesthetic" reasons. Social conformity - "so
he will look like his father" and "so he won't be
made fun of in the locker room" - are among the most common
rationalizations offered by parents for having their sons circumcised.
More broadly, because we live in a culture in which MGC has been
normalized, many if not a majority of Americans conceptualize
a surgically-reduced penis as "normal." Thus, they tend to regard a
healthy, intact penis as abnormal, ergo, deformed. It remains common,
therefore, for intact boys and men to be mocked for the natural
anatomical structure of their genitals (hence the concern
about locker rooms). Isn't this the very sort of harmful social
pressure exerted on male psyches about male bodies that you criticize
in your essay? Think what a toll this social pressure takes on the
body image and self-esteem of intact boys.
The problem, however, for such boys and young men is not that their penises are intact but that their prepuces have been
pathologized by our society. Thus, it is the very
act of MGC and the
normalization of
this practice that have created a culture in which the male prepuce has
been stigmatized. As a result, every boy - whether circumcised or
intact - grows up with the
perception that he was born with a congenital "deformity" of his penis
that either was "corrected" through circumcision or, if it wasn't, ought
to have been. And every time a physician performs a medically
unnecessary circumcision, she or he contributes
to this body-shaming culture.
While I congratulate you, therefore, on your Times
essay and welcome your effort to bring to the attention of the public
the body-image problems faced by boys and
adolescents, I would respectfully suggest that a serious and
comprehensive discussion of this phenomenon must also take account of
the practice of MGC and its harmful effects on male body image and
self-esteem.
David
Balashinsky is originally from New York City and now lives near the
Finger Lakes region of New York. He is a licensed physical therapist
and writes about bodily autonomy and
human rights, gender, culture, and politics. He currently serves on the
board of directors and as Director of Outreach for the Genital Autonomy
Legal Defense & Education Fund, (GALDEF), he serves on the board of
directors and advisors for Doctors Opposing Circumcision and serves on the leadership team for Bruchim.
* * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
No comments:
Post a Comment