|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it interesting that the feminists want to have and own all the positive masculine abilities, yet don't seem to want to own the negative ones? Like you can pick and choose your biology! ;>)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That’s only consistent with a fundamental principle of radfem ideology - that women are entitled to equality with men in spite of any inherent differences, and are entitled to special privileges based on inherent differences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting to note that Ann Landers, like all Prominent Women across the political spectrum (from NOW to Dr Laura) is firmly in favor of infant male circumcision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 20, @12:43PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Andy, have they really said that? you got any links on that? Just curious.
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Andrew is correct, but I'm not really sure if it was Ann Landers, Dear Abby, or both. I can certainly recall one of the aforementioneds columns claiming that male circumcision is good for "health and cleanliness reasons." I will seek out links for this column myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam,
Sorry it's taken me a little while to respond to your question. No, I don't have any links on the subject, but thanks to Nightmist for finding some documentation on Ann Landers' promotion of the ritual sexual torture and mutilation of infant boys (a great letter, too). (BTW, you probably know that Ann Landers and Dear Abby are sisters, twins I believe ... keep it in the family.)
As for NOW and Dr Laura: The documentation I have on NOW is on paper, dating from when I was first becoming involved in the anti-circ "movement" (after reliving my own experience in 1993, as a kind of "celebration" of my 50th birthday). In the mid-1990s, just about the time that NOW was engaged in a brief (and entirely successful) campaign to have female circumcision outlawed by the Federal government, someone, I recall it was a woman who was a member of the organization, happened to notice that NOW's employee health plan paid for infant male circumcision as part of its natal coverage. Numerous letters were written to NOW regarding this rather obvious example of feminist double-standardism; so far as I know, none were ever answered (certainly I never heard from them - but then, I wasn't holding my breath). So while I don't know that NOW has ever publicly stated a policy in favor of infant male circumcision, I know where their money is. Nor am I the least bit surprised. (There may be more about this on one of the anti-circ Web sites like the one where Nightmist found his link.)
I haven't had/taken the time to research the history in detail, but I know that the American infant male circumcision program had its roots in the same cultural region and time - the mid-19th century Protestant, Puritan Northeast - as such other phenomena of American culture as the "temperance" movement (which resulted in Prohibition, the other great American female effort to "improve" men by force) and the feminist movement (whose 150th anniversary, dating from a meeting in upstate New York in 1848, was recently celebrated with fanfare).
Interestingly enough, another related cultural phenomenon was the "hygiene" movement of the late 19th century, also related to "eugenics," which resulted in Europe finally in the excesses of Nazism - yet another effort to "improve" the race by amputating "undesirable" parts. All these things are related, all spring from the same Victorian busybody punishing schoolmarm mind.
I don't believe it is an accident that feminism took over America exactly when the first universally-circumcised generation of American males (mine) came of age in the 1960s. So I'm not surprised to find Prominent Women from all sides of the political spectrum pushing the idea; they may disagree on the details of who gets to run the Matriarchy, but they know a good thing when they see it.
As for Dr Laura, as a converted Jew she is well-known for her enthusiasm for circumcision (but only of boys, of course). I actually tend to agree with a lot of what she says (though not with her rather harsh, confrontational style, which seems to me must cover a deep insecurity in her own mind), and used to listen to her program now and then, until I heard what she had to say about circumcision, not a subject I can think about often without slipping into nonfunctional depression.
------------------------------------
Excerpts from the Dr. Laura Schlessinger show of March 4, 1998:
Dr. Laura: There is OVERWHELMING medical evidence of the medical and health benefits of circumcision.
Hedy: I disagree... I disagree...
Dr. Laura: No, no, no my dear, you can't disagree with fact. I know it... it annoys your opinions, and it's not what you want to believe, but if you would like me to put you on hold, we can send you REAMS of it.
Hedy: Oh well, and, and...
Dr. Laura: And you're not a medical doctor, and neither am I, but I read the literature and it's OVERWHELMINGLY positive.
Hedy: Actually, it's a Jewish organization that's against circumcision.
Dr. Laura: No... uh, I doubt that, dear. It can't be by definition. But there are organizations which pretend to be Jewish, which are basically anti-Semitic, which promote LIES, deceptions, distortions and just bad information to keep you from joining the covenant. Now, if you want to be that naive because you don't value your religion that much, I understand. But I'm still going to put you on hold and we're going to forward you the information... and I really think that it is basically anti-Semitic propaganda because the medical community way overwhelmingly gives evidence for the medical benefits of not having that foreskin, much less your covenantal obligation with God. ... [reads excerpts from various newspaper stories quoting pro-circumcision medical "experts"] ... So the bottom line for all of this is that there's nothing bad about it and it has benefits. If you want to crinch about about absolute numbers, I still contend most of the anti-circ business is anti-Semitic. So the "anti" is valid. The thing that they do suggest is some anesthesia. I've been to so many Brises, as you would hear the word said... Never once did I see a mohel have anesthesia per se... and the kid cried for like six seconds and it's over... So I'm not sure that's a major issue. I mean this has been going on for thousands of years... I don't think, you know, you'd have Islamic and Jewish families torturing children... for thousands of years... I don't think so.
------------------------------------
Well, Dr Laura, I do think so. It seems those Semites are a bunch of sadistic fanatics; they've been carving on their children's genitalia going back at least to Egyptian times. The considerable sympathy I once had for "the Jews" and their "pain" has just plain worn out. Like "feminists" and "people of color" they seem to believe that they have an exclusive on suffering, and that it entitles them to mistreat others any way they happen to want. I don't think so. Any "religion" whose chief deity is a sadistic sex pervert is open to serious question, seems to me. Gee, have I hurt somebody's widdle feelings?
The bottom line on types like Ann Landers and Dr Laura is that, for all their pretense at intellect, they're really just loud herd animals, following the "consensus" whatever it may happen to be at any given time. Had they lived in Germany in the 1930s, they'd be quoting "scientific experts" on the "genetic inferiority" of Jews, Slavs and others whom the "right people" of the time considered subhuman. There's no intelligence at work here, just more mental fascism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a Feb. 25, 1993, response to Landers' support for male circumcision as printed in the Chicago Tribune. I also found other more recent columns of hers where she talks about circumcision "being controversial in recent years, but most doctors do not consider it mutilation."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 21, @11:25AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Much appreciated guys.
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
story (also here ) covers a depressed
woman who systematically killed 5 (FIVE!) of her children (aged 6 months to 7 years) by drowning them in the bath. At
seven years, a child would be capable of significant resistance to being drown, which just makes it all the more creepy that it
happened. Creepiest of all: her call to her husband (at work) "you'd better come home". This has kept me from sleep so far
tonight.
I hope I don't appear to be trashing women (seeing as my only posts so far have been very negative in that aspect). I'm
just fascinated, in that morbid way, to see how this turns out. What will the sentence be? Will gender bias play a role? How
could we determine if it does?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 21, @09:36AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
My bet is that she'll plead insanity and be let off with counseling. Or maybe she'll just blame her husband and let him do the time for her.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
