I’m glad to see you’re addressing circumcision, it’s pretty important and is usually ignored by the squeamish. I do, however, have an issue and a question:
First, I found the claim that circumcision is no more Jewish than latkes or dreidels absurd, especially in concert with the line: “people who take this stuff super-seriously don’t believe in silly things like ‘history.’ ”
More important than that swipe, circumcision, unlike latkes, is essentially the centerpiece of a Jew’s relationship with God, that predates the Ten Commandments and all other Halacha…it’s some old-fashioned Beresheit shit. In addition, circumcision provided an apparent physical difference between Jews and Goyim for millennia, even if other people did it, it was distinctly Jewish. Certainly no latke.
Second, something has always puzzled me about circumcision’s place in modern Judaism. It represents Man’s connection to God, something so deep and important that we permanently alter our penises for it. But we’re egalitarian now, and most Jews believe that a woman can connect with God just as much as a man. So why no female equivalent? It’s probably not a good idea to introduce actual “female circumcision” into Modern Judaism, but if this physical declaration of the covenant is so central to Jewish identity, is there a need for a corresponding female ritual?
Any ideas?

Okay, three things... in order.

First, please don't misunderstand me... I only said it was not a Jewish "invention". Which is to ONLY say it has been around longer than our faith, and performed by other cultures. I don't mean to undercut the importance of the ritual. Awhile back I did a post about how a lot of Jewish symbols are appropriated (and used to fabulous effect) from other traditions. Dreidels and latkes were part of that post. That's all. Of course it's an integral part of the faith, and I appreciate you clearing up any confusion others might have shared.

Regarding the swipe, You're right, and that was a little snarky of me. My point should only have been that the people who root their sense of history in ancient Jewish texts are less likely to care a lot about the secular history of other cultures and their penises. In much the same way Christians are uninterested in the historical Jesus.

Third, and most importantly... this is a HUGELY interesting idea to me, though I dislike the term "female circumcision" since it implies that the two procedures have anything in common. However, I can't imagine what the female equivalent would be, since mutilation is generally frowned upon (so no brands, tattoos, etc... which in a sense, the male circ. is). I wish I had an idea on this one. Something deeper and more physical than the naming ceremony.

Anyone? Anyone?

There have in fact been a number of attempts in the last thirty-odd years to create ceremonies for welcoming girls into the covenant. The [[http://tinyurl.com/3ajmyp|Second Jewish Catalog]] lists several suggestions, most of which are simple wine/challa/blessing rituals. Ritual immersion, as an anticipation of the female's first mikvah, is also suggested. Most radically, the chapter mentions a 1973 Response article outlining a rite centered around the rupturing of the hymen with an instrument. This idea, which not surprisingly hasn't caught on, also appears in the opening chapter of E.M. Broner's Jewish feminist novel, [[http://tinyurl.com/ytjlwa|A Weave of Women]], where the rationale is that it frees women from being judged by their virginity or lack thereof.

I've heard that some Jewish parents have initiated their daughters by washing their feet, a biblical gesture of welcome, but I don't have a source for this. Finally, there's a small selection of female covenant ceremonies at [[http://tinyurl.com/2gan7m|Ritualwell.org]].

From Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed:

"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

I struggled with this issue a lot for awhile, but I read a great article about it recently, and feel a lot les uptight about it now.  Check out http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Ceremonies_For_Newborns/Overvi...

It's a complex issue, and I think it's okay to have a complex response and answer, you know? 

Good on you.

Too many progressive Jews these days will take their egalitarianism and progressive-ness too far. There are certain things that are just so unbelievably central to Judaism that to do away with them is to essentially do away with Judaism. Circumcision is one, the Shma is another, the Saturday Sabbath is another.

 At a certain point, especially with these Jewish people that advocate not religiously circumcising newborn boys what you're talking about is no longer Judaism. I'm sorry, I'm tolerant and accepting, but you can't simply make up your own rules. As far as I'm aware, there is no legitimate Rabbi out there who has given an accepted Halachic reasoning as to how a male could be Jewish and voluntarily not circumcised.

Plus also, there's all this research out there saying it's better to be cut because you're less likely to spread or contract STDs and HIV.  That's pretty compelling to me.  Check out this NY Times article
 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63 for more info.

I wonder if anyone can explain the health problems/benefits associated with circumcision.  I've found plenty of websites discussing the matter, but getting your facts straight is very difficult because everyone who writes about this issue seems to have an agenda, and is therefore unreliable. 

That being said, I believe there is scientific evidence supporting the sexual effects that Maimonides spoke about, which in my opinion is a big negative.  Also, I think the evidence on HIV is very suspect--there's really no indication that HIV transmission slowed down in Africa for the simple reason that circumcized men didn't want to have sex right after surgery.

 Another thought exercise: A lot of pro-choice women often say that men (particularly politicians) should have no say in whether a woman has an abortion.  By the same logic, should circumcision be considered a men's issue?