What does her stance on circumcision say about her?

[Flip]

Hi All,

Lately I've encouraged my girlfriend to read up on the circumcision debate. I wanted to know whether she would circumcise any sons she might have, and whether she was in favor of involuntary circumcision. So far she's fine with not circumcising any sons she may have, but I'm still not clear on whether she finds involuntary circumcision immoral. She said she wants to read more about it. She likened involuntary circumcision to the fact that parents make many medical decisions for their kids. I'm not sure what to make of this. I want to wait and see how her opinion changes as she reads more, but I can't help but wonder what it means that based on what she already has read, she appears to harbor zero outrage that involuntary circumcision was done to me and remains a widespread practice. She is now aware that a huge number of men remain intact without ill effects, and that circumcision carries risks and long-term adverse consequences. Should I be worried about this woman? There's so much I love about her, but I want our values to line up and for her to be a great wife and mother. 

[barn]

Hi @Flip

What do you think about the following :

Women in general are more aware of social dynamics, are threading much more carefully when it comes to upsetting others, bringing about counter opinions, they use and understand social austerity much more extensively than men. (diplomacy)

55 minutes ago, Flip said:

She likened involuntary circumcision to the fact that parents make many medical decisions for their kids.

I'm not sure why she hasn't got the full picture, clearly circumcision isn't just within "medical decisions" category but clearly belongs in the 'abuse' (opposite to what 'healing, care' would be).

I'd definitely ask her intelligently and with pure curiosity why is she thinking what she does, it could be that the main obstacle for her full admission is to be found within her history & relationship with her parents, their past decisions... and maybe that could rock the boat, that's why she's so cautious. Could be, could be not.

RTR, man. It's perfectly fine and even constructive to try to understand the roots of her thinking, especially when she arrives to her own conclusions. (It looks like to me, you don't really know her as of yet. Being cautious is wise)

[Flip]

8 hours ago, barn said:

Hi @Flip

What do you think about the following :

Women in general are more aware of social dynamics, are threading much more carefully when it comes to upsetting others, bringing about counter opinions, they use and understand social austerity much more extensively than men. (diplomacy)

I'm not sure why she hasn't got the full picture, clearly circumcision isn't just within "medical decisions" category but clearly belongs in the 'abuse' (opposite to what 'healing, care' would be).

I'd definitely ask her intelligently and with pure curiosity why is she thinking what she does, it could be that the main obstacle for her full admission is to be found within her history & relationship with her parents, their past decisions... and maybe that could rock the boat, that's why she's so cautious. Could be, could be not.

RTR, man. It's perfectly fine and even constructive to try to understand the roots of her thinking, especially when she arrives to her own conclusions. (It looks like to me, you don't really know her as of yet. Being cautious is wise)

Hi Barn,

Your first paragraph makes sense to me. I'll have to think more about whether it applies to my situation. I can recall circumstances in which I was the one in the relationship who was more concerned about thinking hard before destabilizing relationships; if she is doing this in this case, it must be very subtle. 

I had a very difficult conversation with her last night, so I'm very hesitant about revisiting this before she's read more and some time has passed. It was difficult because the hour was very late, we had to talk very quietly, and I wasn't really ready to talk about it before she'd read more. Kind of a mess, and now I'm worried she's going to feel like I'm always testing her and will leave her if she says the wrong thing. Relationships are so hard.

[barn]

5 hours ago, Flip said:

Your first paragraph makes sense to me. I'll have to think more about whether it applies to my situation. I can recall circumstances in which I was the one in the relationship who was more concerned about thinking hard before destabilizing relationships; if she is doing this in this case, it must be very subtle.  

Of course, I'm only just going in general terms, specific situations might be different.

5 hours ago, Flip said:

I had a very difficult conversation with her last night, so I'm very hesitant about revisiting this before she's read more and some time has passed. It was difficult because the hour was very late, we had to talk very quietly, and I wasn't really ready to talk about it before she'd read more. 

I think I sort of understand...

Deep, important topics should be discussed 'pronto' but when both parties are able to pay attention and be open to listening. (Though I found it rare when someone actually follows up on their promise and does their research beforehand... if they do, massive respect. If they don't, that's not good... that's soft manipulation, avoidance, lack of demonstrating respect.)

5 hours ago, Flip said:

Kind of a mess, and now I'm worried she's going to feel like I'm always testing her and will leave her if she says the wrong thing.

I don't see anything wrong with 'testing' (as in: seeing one for who they really are).

Why wouldn't you walk away had she not wanted to be open to discussing things in an honest, reason based setup?

I fully agree with the notion of life in its most part being about saying mostly no, while sifting through what's available with a clear image of what is that one's looking for, those things that are REALLY valuable.

Let us waste no unnecessary time in incompatible value sets with those that are choosing to stay where they are, what and how they think is irreconcilable because of the different principles for foundations. No hard feelings, life's too short for 'all that jazz', instead choose those that ARE 'your tribe'.

5 hours ago, Flip said:

Relationships are so hard. 

This is interesting, I think of it very differently.

How about this :

"Relationships with the wrong people are so hard ."

-> (because they don't want to or avoid understanding, want completely different things)

Whereas :

"Relationships with the right people are so easy ."

-> (because they are joy to be around and always easy to act and expect curious, constructive attitude)

[CygniAustralis]

A couple of things first:

1). Women cannot experience male circumcision, just like men cannot experience birth, and so her views and perspective must always be seen within the context of there being a wall between her and you in terms of absolute understanding. The most important part is that she is willing to listen to your perspective, take your word as having greater weight than her own simply out of a lack of experience on her part, and being willing to shape her views in accordance with any logical and reasonable argument you present. 

2). Presenting your views to someone who cannot, truly, understand your perspective simply out of biological difference takes quite a bit of finesse. Male or female, we have to tread carefully. You cannot expect her to understand the emotional turmoil male circumcision had on you, and so you should not take her lack of outrage as a lack of moral objection to the practice. Don't mix empathy and sympathy with one another. To empathize with a person is to truly understand the feelings and experiences of another. To sympathize is to often feel sorrow or pity without the emotional attachment on a person's circumstances. You cannot empathize with a murderer who killed his wife because she cheated on him if you believe murder is wrong (unless, of course, you murdered your wife for cheating on you); but you can sympathize with his motivations, wrong as they are. So please keep that in mind. Do not word your sentences in an accusatory manner; it will most certainly cause her to withdraw. 

Be patient with her. Do not put an unreasonable time limit on her. Let her absorb both her own findings and your opinion before making any decisions. You would want the same for yourself; do it for her. In many cases, an individual simply has never thought of the subject and needs time to immerse themselves in the facts and evidence as well as the anecdotal and personal before making a decision on where they stand. People don't change overnight; neither do beliefs. 

[Flip]

3 hours ago, CygniAustralis said:

A couple of things first:

1). Women cannot experience male circumcision, just like men cannot experience birth, and so her views and perspective must always be seen within the context of there being a wall between her and you in terms of absolute understanding. The most important part is that she is willing to listen to your perspective, take your word as having greater weight than her own simply out of a lack of experience on her part, and being willing to shape her views in accordance with any logical and reasonable argument you present. 

2). Presenting your views to someone who cannot, truly, understand your perspective simply out of biological difference takes quite a bit of finesse. Male or female, we have to tread carefully. You cannot expect her to understand the emotional turmoil male circumcision had on you, and so you should not take her lack of outrage as a lack of moral objection to the practice. Don't mix empathy and sympathy with one another. To empathize with a person is to truly understand the feelings and experiences of another. To sympathize is to often feel sorrow or pity without the emotional attachment on a person's circumstances. You cannot empathize with a murderer who killed his wife because she cheated on him if you believe murder is wrong (unless, of course, you murdered your wife for cheating on you); but you can sympathize with his motivations, wrong as they are. So please keep that in mind. Do not word your sentences in an accusatory manner; it will most certainly cause her to withdraw. 

Be patient with her. Do not put an unreasonable time limit on her. Let her absorb both her own findings and your opinion before making any decisions. You would want the same for yourself; do it for her. In many cases, an individual simply has never thought of the subject and needs time to immerse themselves in the facts and evidence as well as the anecdotal and personal before making a decision on where they stand. People don't change overnight; neither do beliefs. 

Thank you for that perspective. I was very anxious this morning and afternoon, thinking about this subject and worrying that there may be some unbridgeable gulf of values suddenly uncovered. I'll be patient. I haven't mentioned it at all today; we've been having a very pleasant evening video chatting (she's in another state at the moment). And just tonight I've found out more to make me want to keep moving forward with this person. I'll give us more time. 

[barn]

On 07/19/2018 at 5:17 AM, Flip said:

we've been having a very pleasant evening video chatting (she's in another state at the moment). And just tonight I've found out more to make me want to keep moving forward with this person. I'll give us more time.  

If you don't mind me asking:

How long have you known her? Have you ever met in person?

On 07/19/2018 at 2:10 AM, CygniAustralis said:

1).

2).

 

Hi @CygniAustralis

(I felt it necessary to share some of the thoughts that came up while reading, I'm aiming to clarifying things, at times pushing back, with examples... Though, it's all for the sake of constructivity and hopefully my views will be a benefit... maybe you'll choose to re-examine stuff, point out new things for me... hopefully.)

"1). Women cannot experience male circumcision, just like men cannot experience birth, and so her views and perspective must always be seen within the context of there being a wall between her and you in terms of absolute understanding."

Not sure if I can process this. What is "absolute understanding"? Is it that:

Likewise, FGM (female genital mutilation) can't be understood neither sufficiently by men, for what it is -> physical abuse / forced mutilation, since it ISN'T something that men can experience?

On 07/19/2018 at 2:10 AM, CygniAustralis said:

The most important part is that she is willing to listen to your perspective, take your word as having greater weight than her own simply out of a lack of experience on her part, and being willing to shape her views in accordance with any logical and reasonable argument you present.   

Are you saying here:

Authority from empiricism, being one of the genders?

As in: Even if something could be objectively examined (independently what gender the observer was) , still it's better to 'believe'/defer to the word of a women about 'women things' because she's a female and the other gender (male) should just straight defer to females therefore?

Maybe I'm not getting what you were going for but it looked highly inaccurate. (The only thing I can imagine here is the exact & subjective experience being somewhat untransferable, though could be described and it doesn't change morality in the slightest, right?!)

On 07/19/2018 at 2:10 AM, CygniAustralis said:

2). Presenting your views to someone who cannot, truly, understand your perspective simply out of biological difference takes quite a bit of finesse.

What does "truly - understanding" means according to you here ?

If it is about empathy, like you wrote it "To empathize with a person is to truly understand the feelings and experiences of another."

That would mean, reasoning with someone can't be done without empathy. To evaluate truth can't be done objectively, that facts are subjective ... That's... not accurate. (to put it mildly)

ie. - If I was in a car accident and I were to sue the culprit, the judges can't dismiss my claim on the basis of them not having been in the accident with me, or not being able to understand what I'm feeling for being crippled as a result, themselves never having experienced an accident... No.

There's evidence of wrongdoing, there's facts like 'intact before', 'maimed afterwards as a result of the accident' and even if the judges don't sympathise with me, their decision must mirror what's morally right & wrong regardless. Responsibilities must acrew or the arbitration is benefiting someone unfairly...

As in: In the case of FGM or male circumcision, that's like saying: it's acceptable to abuse a newborn, to take away from it something that none has the right to do so because self-ownership, but we won't punish those that willfully break that. Evil stuff.

On 07/19/2018 at 2:10 AM, CygniAustralis said:

You cannot expect her to understand the emotional turmoil male circumcision had on you, and so you should not take her lack of outrage as a lack of moral objection to the practice. Don't mix empathy and sympathy with one another. To empathize with a person is to truly understand the feelings and experiences of another. 

I think you are right in pointing out that empathy and sympathy shouldn't be mixed.

(°Empathy°:

{mirror neurons,} the ability to process, to place ourselves in one's situation and be able to have an approximation, a rather accurate description of an emotional experience, a description for what might have been the other person feeling. Doesn't necessarily lead to sympathy, highly dependent on early parenting. Empathy is a value that only grows with more understanding, information, doesn't diminish. '-> + possible, -> - not possible' )

(°Sympathy°:

{liking someone, entirely subjective}, an emotional reaction in us, making us feel drawn to, protective, supportive for someone. Can be present without empathy, can change with additional information to its contrary. '+ <-> -' possible, they are states)

I believe you are also correct when you say: "... you should not take her lack of outrage as a lack of moral objection to the practice."

However if she demonstrated sufficient understanding (case made, taken through it, checking for absorbing meanings... etc.) and then chosen to see it still as a "medical decision"... that's... that's cooooold, a towering-huge-red-flag stuff! (a person lacking the ability to empathy, proper, or maybe protecting others who should be exposed instead... etc.)

A warning sign (in the present and for the future) that shouldn't be taken lightly as it reveals a person's attribute for preferring someone innocent suffered and the culprits being let off, their horrendous act(s) being explained away...despicable stuff, (very) not good.

Annnd so

"You cannot expect her to understand the emotional turmoil male circumcision had on you..."

You're right again. People don't have to (it's not an obligation  to) demonstrate sympathy for having suffered a heinous act.

Although, what does it mean if they don't show sympathy, being in possession of the information and arguments? (that their cognitive capabilities are underdeveloped, that their moral compass is off/non-existent?)

(... I mean, of course 'each to its own ability', but shouldn't it be reasonable to expect a virtuous and sane person to come to the same conclusions about FGM or male circumcision after having presented with just the basics as: force is bad-> breaching self-ownership is bad -> mutilation is force = bad, especially since it's done to the most defenseless being with un-repairable and forever lasting negative consequences... the category of 'vile' , 'satanic' )