|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Tuesday November 27, @08:34AM EST (#1)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
Both of you! Great writing and just plain excellent news!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Marc. I don't know about Wendy, but after all that happened the news guy in me started itching to write about it. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 27, @12:21PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
After first hear about this issue On Dr. Laura. I was shocked. I have two things to say, as a wife to a man and the mother of ( so far ) 1 son and three daughters.. I am glad Rob. Rowan did what he did. I am sick to death of male bashing and degradation. I am sick of our daughters being fed this cr*p.. and I do not want my son feeling like a second class citizen /door mat for violent girls.
Secondly.. I would like to know how a Domestic Violence groupd could condone such a VIOLENT display. Quite frankly it is just beyond male bashing.. It is PSYCHOPATHIC in it true form. Can you imagine what would have happened if a male artist had strung up some Severed Breasts ....But in all seriousness.. isn't even the thought of severed male members just psychopathic.. how could a anti- violence group even be involved with that? I realize the double standard/angry woman stuff.. but past that.. how could they support such a violent display..
Keep up the good fight here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 27, @12:56PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
If you need support I'll pledge money to support your fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous: Thomas (a regular poster here) has been attempting to launch a protest at the Boulder Public Library. If you're anywhere close to Boulder, you might want to watch this site and join in when the protest happens.
If you want to submit funding, you might want to contact Rowan's attorney and make a donation to his defense that way. I'm considering that action myself since I'm half-way across the country from Boulder.
You can bet, though, that if a protest ensues, I will do my damnedest to be there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 27, @01:09PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Spineless liberals and the ACLU are running scared. Their "political correctness" power grip of fear on this country is eroding fast. Being reared with an "I" and "Me first" mentality, they learned that throwing tantrums and "demanding" their rights would get them their way. Now they are in shock as they find themselves viewed as part of the problem rather than the solution. In trying to keep their heads above water they now throw about elitist words like "jingoism" with the hope that the common man won't pick up a dictionary so that they can continue their reign of gibberish and disinformation.
I'm outraged that I should work for even one minute (via the taxes I pay) to support anyone who is disrespectful enough to display the garbage that bandito rightfully removed from public display. How dare the Boulder public library display trash like this and refuse to display the flag for "FEAR" of offending someone.
Thank God my 80 year old Uncle and my wife's Father who spilled blood on D-Day during WWII didn't have to view this trash.
Bravo to Bandito !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though the weather has turned colder (far colder), I haven't given up on the idea of mounting a demonstration, though it may have to take place in the spring. I have, however, decided that I may have to organize it without Bob's direct input. (He may just be too busy and this fight belongs to all of us.)
I wish I had decided to go it alone organizing this a few weeks ago, but live and learn. What does everyone think about a demonstration in early April?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great article, Nightmist. Wendy's was wonderful too. I just received an email from her saying that she's already received "hundreds and hundreds" of emails in response and all except one has been positive.
I've asked Wendy to call me if she'd like to be part of a demonstration. If I decide to organize it for spring, we can keep the idea alive and even give it more energy by joyfully planning for it. We can make this great!
Always remember, we are winning this war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a fund for Mr. Rowan? I'd like to contribute to his court costs if there is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Bombadil:
Wendy says, (do you confirm, Scott?) that this site together with ifeminists.com will have a chat on Sunday, December 2, at 9:00 PM about the BPL affair and El Dildo Bandido. As far as I know, Bob has a lot of financial support at this time, but come to the chat and find out. If he's all set for funds, you might want to contribute (with your presence?) to a demonstration at the library.
See you, hopefully, at the chat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 27, @02:23PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
How tacky. If I had walked in the library, I would have been disgusted at the display and definitely complained about it. No offense, guys, but I don't really want to see penises hanging on anything, be it a public or private place. It DOES seem pronographic to me. Thank the Lord for the Bandito, who is facing this "uproar" head-on. I'm tired of tv, movies and art being able to have free reign using the free speech and "the audience wants it" mantra. I COMPLETELY agree on the public use/taxpayer money side of it.
This is so ridiculous that people would defend HER right to display it. And I bet, as mentioned by an above user, that the ACLU will come to the defense of the "artist." I'm not a feminist nor anti-male. I'm conservative woman who appreciates wholesome values and WOULD NOT want my kids (when I have them) to see something like that. Not all men are bad -- my friends, family and boyfriend are wonderful gentlemen (but still remain manly and tough). Thank you to the men out there that don't let stereotyping or prejudice in ANY FORM occur.
God bless you all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I had decided to go it alone organizing this a few weeks ago, but live and learn. What does everyone think about a demonstration in early April?
Is that date close to Bandito's trial date? If so, I'm all for it. And I'll have vacation time coming to me that so I can plan a trip out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob's court appearance is currently scheduled for January 27, if I remember correctly. Unfortunately, it can stay below zero on any day during January. The timing of a demonstration will be problamatic because of this. However, if we plan a more general demonstration about anti-male, perhaps especially anti-boy, hatred, we might be able to put things off until April. We can get a lot of snow in April, but as a rule it's beautiful in the Boulder area then and spring skiing is great (for those who'd like to attach a vacation to a trip here).
What do you all think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Wendy says, (do you confirm, Scott?) that this
> site together with ifeminists.com will have a
> chat on Sunday, December 2, at 9:00 PM about the
> BPL affair and El Dildo Bandido.
That is correct. We've decided to hold the chat in the mensactivism chat room because the ifeminists.com one was giving us technical problems.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's do it in April.
By the way, for the anonymous user who attacked "spineless liberals," please keep in mind that mensactivism.org consists of people from all political backgrounds who are united to promote men's rights. There's no need to create rifts in the unity by attacking each other's background political beliefs. We all disagree respectfully on some things, but this site has been the most successful one I've ever seen in keeping people united toward the cause. I'd hate to see that fall apart due to unnecessary political jabs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's do it in April.
I'm in. By that time, I'll have the funds saved for travel and time off coming to me.
Also, Marc is correct that mensactivism.org has done well in remaining apolitical. I do not ally myself with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or any political party. I'm simply me, and I have points of view that cross those party lines all over the place. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole BPL situation just reminded me of a T-shirt that I saw from Japan once. It was written in Kanji (Chinese characters) and it read "dankon jiman", which roughly means "I'm proud of my male member." I saw it on a website that imports stuff from Japan and sells in the US. I'll see if I can find it again and post the URL if anyone is interested.
PS. Nighmist and Wendy, you two did a great write up on this whole thing. Keep up the great work guys and gals. :)
PSS. Is it me, or does it seem like we got more visitors to the site?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole BPL situation just reminded me of a T-shirt that I saw from Japan once. It was written in Kanji (Chinese characters) and it read "dankon jiman", which roughly means "I'm proud of my male member." I saw it on a website that imports stuff from Japan and sells in the US. I'll see if I can find it again and post the URL if anyone is interested.
I want one. :)
PS. Nighmist and Wendy, you two did a great write up on this whole thing. Keep up the great work guys and gals. :)
Thanks, man. I really enjoyed writing that one, and Wendy did a helluva job.
PSS. Is it me, or does it seem like we got more visitors to the site?
Considering Wendy's mention of this site on a national medium, methinks we're getting more visitors. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want one o' them t-shirts meself. After all, dankon jiman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I applaud Mr. Rowan's act of civil disobedience. He did it the correct way; peacefully, in broad daylight (with wife and daughter in tow), without not destroying the exhibit (he took care not to harm it as I understand it). And he is ready and willing to face the legal consequences. A true example of responsible civil disobedience.
On the flip side, it must be said that what Mr. Rowan did is unilateral censorship (every bit as the librarian's unilateral censorship of the flag). Mr. Rowan made a uni-lateral decision for the whole community to prevent from view the "speech" he found offensive.
This is definitely a slippery slope. Much to applaud and much to be concerned about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
You make a good point, but...
I live in Boulder County and I can assure you that many, many people here were outraged by the visciousness and hatefulness of the castrated penis display.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Lorianne.
I maintain that if the exhibit were privately funded and displayed in a private gallery, the First Amendment would, indeed, apply. In this case, the "property" was public, the exhibit and this particular work of art's creation were tax-funded. Likewise, a very good representation of the community (from what I understood) had spoken out against the display already in the media, which means that the community at large was behind the removal of this display.
I don't think this slope is as slippery as you do. We, as a nation, take great care to make certain public buildings and offices do not contain items widely considered to be offensive to different races and women. This situation was tax-supported hate speech toward men, which should not be tolerated either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm new to this site, and the story on the Dildo Bandito vs. the Boulder Public Library just amazed me. I cannot believe that those librarians would not be appalled by the castrated penis display, much less feature it as an art display! It is insanity, and I am sick to death of male-bashing. The mass media giant, the television networks, have decided to air a number programs revolving around young women beating the crap out of men this season (2001-2). I feel so drained and upset every time I flip the channel and a girl is kicking a man in the stomach or elbowing him in the face. Again, it's insanity, and it's disgusting.
I want to do more to help change our culture for the better! I could go on and on, but I think I'd be preaching to the choir.
-Proud to be a man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Milabee:
It's not surprising that you're drained, upset and disgusted. Male-bashing is based on lies and driven by hatred against the biological other every bit as much as racism is driven by hatred against the biological other.
If you haven't already done so, start speaking with other men about this. You're far from alone. Male-bashing in the media, driving men out of the nation's colleges and universities, stealing men's children from them, refusing to acknowledge the victimization of men in domestic violence, destroying the lives of innocent men through false accusations: These are now hallmarks of the industrialized world, particularly the English speaking countries.
We are making progress in fighting this vileness, but we all need to work together. Again, start to speak up with other men, and stay open to the possibility that some of the women you know may have their hearts in the right place. (Just be especially cautious about discussing these matters with women, particularly those with whom you work.)
We're a long way from defeating the evil of mainstream feminism, which has such a stranglehold on our culture, but at least now the battle has been joined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, Nightmist and Thomas.
This is the webpage that has the Japanese T-shirt that says "dankon jiman," which means "Proud of my big root." I will warn that the page does specialize in mostly adult entertainment from Japan, but they do have some neat non-adult stuff.
This is a link directly to the page that has the T-shirt if you want to skip everything. The T-shirt is about a 1/3 the way down, and its
black.
Now, I wonder how much this will cost me in Canadian dollars?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a link directly to the page that has the T-shirt if you want to skip everything. The T-shirt is about a 1/3 the way down, and its
black.
I may wear mine to work. ;) If it's in Japanese, then my co-workers won't really know what it means and I can't be charged with sexual harassment. ;) (My standard work wardrobe is blue jeans and some kind of shirt, anyway. Thankfully, I work in a very freedom-of-dress environment). ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a little something about Thomas's remark (#24):
"These are now hallmarks of the industrialized world, particularly the English speaking countries."
A while back I read a small article about the 'problems' feminism was having in countries like France and Germany in attempting to destroy men (I think they put it as 'eliminate sexism'). The 'problem' is caused by the intrinsic gendered nature of the languages spoken in those countries. Unlike English, French, German and some other European languages assign a gender to words, and so positive associations with the male are kind of locked into the language.
------------------
The T-shirt sounds great, by the way. I wonder if anyone makes one with an electron microscope picture of a Y chromasome on it. Or how about one with all the achievements of men written on it in very small print (OK, not all, but lots). And I know someone else has already said it, but doesn't it seem like there's suddenly a hell of a lot more activity on mensactivism.org these days? I wonder if Scott has any stats on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 28, @07:02AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
As a woman, I am offended by the fact that a public library would hang a string of penises up in our faces. It's a copout to say they do it in the name of abused women. I'm no expert, abuse does seem to keep running in cycles in dysfunctional families, but how does promoting hate against men help any of that?
Hats off to the man who took the display down!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the description of this art display, I find it vile and offensive.
However, art is not meant to make everyone all warm and cozy. Was this a work of art? That could be debated. I find it to be a work of hate – art imitates life, hatred is part of life – so I guess this could be called art.
The bigger concern of mine is censorship of art in any manner – whether public or private. Wendy’s article already started to delve into the censorship issue. A large flag was not hung in the library because the library feared offending someone. Yet, they are not afraid to offend men with vile and repulsive art. Should we stop displaying anything that is offensive? Nudes are offensive to some. Paintings depicting horrors are offensive to some. Abstracts are offensive to some. If we keep removing offensive artwork, will we be left with public museums filled with boring portraits and peaceful farm scenes?
As Lorianne said, this is a slippery slope. If the library is going to censor art, then this artwork should not have been displayed. I would prefer that art not be censored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great piece, "nightmist"! A real pleasure to see this event stirring up some excitement and public awareness.
By the way, isn't it becoming obvious yet that the Great American Infant Male Circumcision Program arose out of - and continues to prosper because of - the (apparently) vast reservoir of feminist misandry in White North American culture? It's clearly a symbolic castration: they can't cut it all off - at least not until cloning technology has been perfected - but circumcision has all the punishment impact while still leaving its cowed survivors capable of providing necessary stud service - and still with enough testosterone to be easily manipulated into cannon fodder.
As for being "proud of my big root," the painful truth is that since I learned what my Tribal Grandmothers had done to me when I was born, I've felt mostly embarrassment and shame. And, be it said, a more-or-less white-hot anger. Funny how it's good for women to express their "righteous" anger (as in this "art" display) but bad for men to feel any at all, even in secret. In our Brave New World, some genders are clearly more equal than others.
I'm not even slightly surprised to read that Boulder Public Library official Karen Rippy assures us that women find the display "amusing." The near-universal prevalence of such sentiments in our culture is what decided me some time ago never to get anywhere near another American White woman. I talk and deal with them cordially enough, as I do with men (which is what they all apparently want to be), but I will not place myself in a position of vulnerability with one. I note that Japanese Web site also sells another T-shirt that advertises the wearer's search for "a Japanese girlfriend." The Japanese women I know are charming and sweet (not to mention attractive); they control their men as well as (or even more skillfully than) their Caucasion "sisters," but they don't seem to be motivated by hatred.
As for the question of "art" and "censorship," this subject is confused only by our common public-school training, which did its best to prevent our learning how to think clearly (and not by accident). "Art" is of course in the eye of the beholder. "Censorship" is when the State, with its monopoly of force, forcefully favors one view or expression over another. The problem here exists only because everyone is forced to support the tax-funded "public" library, so everyone feels (rightly) they should have a say in what the library does. In a plural society, this can only lead to intractable conflicts. The solution is simple: get the State out of areas of social life where force has no business.
I happen to be a major patron of the local Public Library, but would rather it were privately owned and funded, in which case it would clearly be answerable only to its members, and such knotty questions of "censorship" would not arise. You could have a bunch of libraries: one operated and funded by patriotic Americans could display the flag, another operated by feminists could mount "amusing" displays of amputated male body parts. Everyone would be free to choose which to patronise and freely support. This is called a "free society." What could be simpler?
Andrew Main
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for the question of "art" and "censorship," this subject is confused only by our common public-school training, which did its best to prevent our learning how to think clearly (and not by accident). "Art" is of course in the eye of the beholder. "Censorship" is when the State, with its monopoly of force, forcefully favors one view or expression over another. The problem here exists only because everyone is forced to support the tax-funded "public" library, so everyone feels (rightly) they should have a say in what the library does. In a plural society, this can only lead to intractable conflicts. The solution is simple: get the State out of areas of social life where force has no business.
My thoughts exactly, Andrew. Thanks for posting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew, if the state is removed from public institutions like libraries and museums, then the state would also remove the tax supplied funds it provides to them. These funds allow the libraries to be open to the public without fees.
To remove free public access to museums and libraries would restrict access to those that can afford to pay. Wouldn't this lead to an elitist society? (I'm not sure if I'm using the correct term - elite - in this sentence. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
There has to be a better way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I would characterize it the other way around: remove libraries, museums and all other institutions/activities not concerned directly with defending citizens' rights (the only legitimate use of force, thus the only legitimate function of the State - "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; it is a dangerous servant and a terrible master." - George Washington) from the control of the State.
Yes, of course, then the State would not use tax supplied funds, collected by force from all the population, to support the interests/hobbies of only part of the population. That's exactly the point. No preferences. And no State control of what such institutions say and do. No censorship.
Interesting that you assume, apparently without a moment's thought to the question, that taxpayer funding is the only way a library or similar institution can be open to the general public. Don't know the details, but I have the impression that the first "public" libraries in America were privately funded. Is there some law that would prevent a private library from being open to the general public? You don't have to be a card-carrying Christian Scientist to enter a Christian Science Reading Room.
The assumption that "to remove free public access to museums and libraries would restrict access to those that can afford to pay" is a perfect example of the socialist programming we have (nearly) all undergone in the State-controlled education system. Natural enough: just as you wouldn't expect a Catholic school to turn out good Muslims, you can hardly expect a State-run school to teach children that they can take care of themselves without government help.
I don't know what you mean by "an elitist society" - "elite" is a buzzword that's been made to carry a huge load of negative connotations, and its use in discussion hardly clarifies the issues. The truth is, even with "free" public libraries, museums and so on, there are large sectors of the population who never choose to enter either - and, I feel, should not be required to pay for them, if they'd rather use their money for beer and football, or whatever such people do for amusement. (Nor should I be forced to fund a football stadium which is of no use to me.) People are different.
Yes, there is a better way. It's called a free society, based on individual responsibility and mutual respect. If you feel strongly that there should be a library open to the general public, you are free to create one, and fund it any way you can - for instance, by peacefully persuading your friends to help - short of taking others' property by force to support your dream.
By the way, I live in a state capitol city, where there are three state-run museums - all of which charge admission. Eventually all such institutions probably will do the same, since they are run by bureaucracies which are financial black holes. So then we'll have the best of both worlds: exorbitant taxes and pay-per-use "public" facilities. Won't it be nice?
Andrew Main
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 28, @02:47PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
I think circumcision is stupid, but my fiance is circumcised, and we have a terrific sex life. He's not angry or ashamed that he is circumcised. His father wasn't, and had frequent urinary tract infections. His father actually said that he was glad the boy was cut, because he thought a cut penis would be easier to care for.
This post isn't meant to be pro or con on circumcision, but to demonstrate that this is an area where men are very deeply divided. I've seen men who are against circumcision go totally off on men who are for it, not on this board but on other boards, and I don't think that helps anyone. Those men just end up feeling alienated, and then feel that they have no part in the men's movement.
Oh, and BTW, I am white and American. My fiance was abused by his last girlfriend. If he had stayed with her, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have ended up another Phil Hartman. His best friend actually told him this. She was an Asian woman who also abused her children from a previous marriage, so brutally that they were taken away from her. They were only toddlers, and she openly admits she beat the hell out of them. She feels no remorse about this. In fact she blames it on them, says it's all their fault because they drove her to it. If they hadn't been so bad, she wouldn't have "had" to beat them.
I would never tell anyone who to be attracted to, but to say that all white women are butch dykes who hate men is racist. Also, if you marry an Asian woman just because she is Asian, not examining anything else about her, because you assume all of them are sweet and loving and whatever, you could end up getting exactly that which you are trying to avoid. Violence and mental illness do not discriminate according to race or culture.
Just my $0.02, posted anonymously because I know I've brought up some very controversial stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 28, @02:55PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who limits themselves to only one race when looking for a mate, whether their own race or one other, is doing themselves a disfavor. You could end up passing over someone who could be your soulmate, and the most devoted, loving mate in the world, all because you couldn't get past their color. It's difficult enough to find a compatible lifemate without limiting yourself like that.
Again, I'm not telling anyone who they should find physically attractive, but relationships should be based on love, not color. You're supposed to love the person, not the shell that contains their spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think circumcision is stupid, but my fiance is circumcised, and we have a terrific sex life. He's not angry or ashamed that he is circumcised. His father wasn't, and had frequent urinary tract infections. His father actually said that he was glad the boy was cut, because he thought a cut penis would be easier to care for.
I'm in the camp that believes that not only do women have the right to their own bodies, but men do also; in particular, I maintain that a man has the right to decide for himself, when he reaches the age of consent, whether to undergo circumcision. Involuntary circumcsion isn't merely stupid: it's a deliberate, socially sanctioned act of sexual mutilation.
Men's activists are often blase` about the subject, but if it's ok rip off sexual tissue from an infant without his consent, then by extrapolation it's ok to take his wallet when he becomes an adult, and his life; he's expected to take it like a man, according to the beneficiaries. Regrettably, I have to spell out the moral argument: if a man doesn't have the right to his body, then he doesn't have the right to his children, or to the money her earns, or to his life. Thinking of men (and not women) as the appropriate targets of violence, because they are held to be violent pigs who get what they deserve leads to the thinking that circumcision is no big deal, but this error of thinking insinuates itself into other aspects of what it means to be a man, and begins to undermine arguments for equitable divorce settlements, child support awards, and on and on. It starts at birth, ladies and gentlemen, but you refuse to see it.
At one point I was consumed with this subject, but that was unproductive; these days, except for occasional backsliding as evident in this post, I make my opinions known among my friends and relatives. All of my male friends have expressed regret that they were circumcised.
The attitude of competitive feminism holds that for any apparent injustice done to men, there is a far greater and vastly more important injustice done to women that must be addressed before any "alleged" problems that men face can be addressed. Involuntary infant circumcision is one of those subjects that often receives a competitive feminist response; at one point this disgusted me so much that I invented a slogan intended to stigmatize circumcision in the strongest possible way; I'll repeat it here:
Anyone who performs or condones routine infant circumcision is morally no better than a paedophile.
I had to get this out of my system. Thanks for indulging me; now I can return to my mathematics without fear of obsessing on this virtually invisible, socially accepted injustice against innocent infant male civilians ;).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At one point I was consumed with this subject, but that was unproductive; these days, except for occasional backsliding as evident in this post, I make my opinions known among my friends and relatives. All of my male friends have expressed regret that they were circumcised.
I know that all-consuming feeling well. It's happened to me on many men's issues (most often on male bashing in the media and the unequal sentencing issue). I do not regret being circumsized... but I do regret that the decision was made for me rather than allowing me to make it myself as I grew up.
Not to get too sexual, but I can't say for certain that my sex life has suffered as a result of my circumcision (although I certainly agree that it's not right to do it to an infant). My last girlfriend completely adored my penis (luckily for me :), and I've always enjoyed sex. However, I will admit that I have no idea what it would feel like if my foreskin were intact, so I may simply not know what I'm missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 29, @10:39PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
You just said that the wonderful, caring, warm, generous, kind, giving man I love, and have pledged to spend my life with, is worse than a pedophile. I don't know how you feel about your spouse, or if you even have one. Maybe you hate her guts. Maybe you wish the bitch would drop dead where it stands, and you wouldn't care if someone told you the bitch was no better than Andrea Yates. OTOH I happen to love my soon to be spouse. He is a treasure, and the single best thing that ever happened to me. I DO NOT take kindly to people calling this wonderful man filthy names, for no other reason than his views on circumcision are different from yours.
I really don't know how you expect to get through to people by saying things like that. You're all talking about how to recruit more men into this movement, yet at the same time any man who disagrees on this subject will be labeled worse than a pedophile.
I typed and retyped this post. At first I was sorely tempted to hurl the same filthy name-calling at you that you chose to hurl at the love of my life. However, that would lower me to the level you chose to lower yourself to. I will say that my fiance has more integrity and humanity in a single hair than you have in your entire, miserable, hate-filled, intolerant body.
Go ahead, respond to this post. Hurl more vile insults at the man I love. Throw in a few directed at me while you're at it, even though I'm just a stranger on the Internet. Prove that what I am saying about you is entirely truthful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't know how you expect to get through to people by saying things like that. You're all talking about how to recruit more men into this movement, yet at the same time any man who disagrees on this subject will be labeled worse than a pedophile.
Once again, I must point out that one man's opinions on one aspect of the men's movement do not necessarily reflect the opinions of another man in the same movement. There are several issues on which men in the men's movement disagree, and attributing one opinion to the entire group is just wrong.
That said, Dr. Matrix is free to have the opinions he does of parents who perform that operation on their children, and you are free to have your opinions of those opinions. In fact, I am quite certain he would have a low opinion of my parents because of my circumcision, but that doesn't bother me because I believe my parents to be the most wonderful people in the world.
When I was circumsized, my parents believed they were acting in my best interests based on what people in the medical profession were telling them at the time (1970s). I don't fault them for that, although I *do* wish they hadn't taken the choice out of my hands.
Those were different times. If I had a son today, he would remain uncircumsized unless he decided to have it done himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should stress that I invented that slogan at a time when I had obsessive thoughts about the subject--it reflects my state of mind at the time. It does not reflect my state of mind now.
It's more appropriate to feel regret than anger, especially when routine infant circumcision was the cultural norm at an earlier time. Now that medical and social opinion is changing, one can no longer consider the procedure so benign. Advocating involuntary circumcision for others is medically unsound, and it is unethical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightnist, I wouldn't have a low opinion of anyone who happened to believe they were acting in the best interests of their children, according to their physician's advice. It's regrettable that their doctors were mistaken.
These days, it's less defensible. Circumcision ought to go the way of foot binding in China.
One more thing: it's useful for the men's movement to have a guy who so expertly knows how to push people's buttons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One more thing: it's useful for the men's movement to have a guy who so expertly knows how to push people's buttons.
Touche. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Anonymous, it seems that, like most women who consider themselves "sympathetic to men's concerns" on this issue, you also see it as not such a big deal. To "think circumcision is stupid" strikes me as rather like my having the same opinion of rape - a mild objection to a minor issue. Most women, I suspect, would feel rather more strongly about it - and let me know in no uncertain terms.
I've heard other women claim that they have "a terrific sex life" with their circumcised male consorts; of course, it's not the women who're missing half their sexual nervous tissue. Easy for you to say.... Again, I suspect few American women could contemplate the sexual experience of a circumcised woman with such equanimity. Of course, African/Muslim husbands of circumcised women will (nearly) all tell you their wives are missing nothing of importance in bed. (Actually, in that situation at least there is some parity, since cultures that circumcise females also do it to males: the blind leading the blind.)
One of the major reasons for the ongoing, overwhelming success of the Circumcision Program is that it is extremely difficult for a man to admit to himself, much less to others, that he has been permanently unmanned in this way. As with other cruel and shameful human habits, it's a lot easier to go on imposing the same disability on the next generation, and the next, than to face the truth. And of course, if it's done at birth the subject has no real way of knowing what he's missing. If you put out a baby's right eye at birth, he'd probably go on to cope well enough, never knowing what real binocular vision is like.
That so many men seem to be so positive about circumcision has less to do with any rational thinking than with the psychological truism that an abused child will usually come to desperately love both his abuser and the instrument used to beat him. To a baby, Mother is God; if this is what God wants, who am I to argue? What's the quickest way to get any man - especially an American man - furious at you? Insult his Mother. The Infant Male Circumcision Program is perfectly designed to be self-perpetuating.
As for going "totally off on" a man who's so psychologically brainwashed (sexual torture can be extremely effective, I know) as to be "for" circumcision - well, I wonder if you'd really feel entirely comfortable and palsy-walsy with a woman who was "for" rape? Might you not question such a woman's sanity, before accepting her "opinion" as simply another, equally-valid view on the subject?
Well, I wasn't so much making a pitch for Asian women in particular, as expressing some of the, well, shock and horror I have felt in recent years as I've come to realize just how thoroughly the women of my own culture/tribe hate and despise me. I mean, can you imagine a male-majority library committee anywhere in America putting up a string of amputated breasts as an "art exhibit" and then telling you it really wasn't such a big deal because "most men find it amusing"? That there are men who have such feelings about women is indisputable; but such men are (quite rightly, I feel) regarded as insane, while such attitudes seem to be considered "normal" in women. Certainly they are dominant in inter-gender relations in America today.
And of course it's not so much a racial as a cultural issue; in America women of all races seem to take their cue from the white women of the dominant culture - though among Africans, Hispanics, Asians, et al the circumcision rate is much lower than among Anglo-Americans. Nevertheless, it was the white women who thought it up, and applied it to their own men first.
Certainly the anti-male hatred that is at the root of the circumcision program is not limited to women of any particular race; and certainly there are hateful, cruel women - and men - everywhere. But the bottom line is this: Some women routinely torture and mutilate their sons' sexuality; some do not. Asian women - to mention one group anyway - are in the latter category. (Except for the South Koreans, who've picked up the habit from a half-century of heavy American influence.)
As a woman, you must be aware that men, as a species, are basically not very smart, and easily fooled by the infinitely more subtle and complex female; most men are completely oblivious to what women really think of them while they are led around by their ... er, neckties. It can be a real shock for a typically naive, dull-witted male such as myself to wake up and see a little bit of reality.
Like any good American boy, I was taught and grew up convinced that all females were/are my moral superiors. Gradually, however, from bitter experience and advancing age - releasing me from the total hormonal dominance that is the primary element in the youthful male psychology - I've come to realize that female words and actions often don't add up. If "to say that all white women are butch dykes who hate men [which, BTW, I didn't] is racist," what about the idea that "all men are rapists (brutal, insensitive, cruel, domineering, etc. etc.)" - which not only seems to be shared by the great majority of American women, but has been enacted into a gigantic legal framework which now defines American society?
Not to mention the pro-active punishment imposed on nearly all male infants in America, long before any of us could have committed any crime which could possibly justify such retribution? Infant male circumcision is clearly a punishment, along the lines of the traditional Islamic penalty for theft: cutting off the offending organ, for theft the hand, for "excessive" sexual pleasure that part of the body whose only function is providing/protecting sexual pleasure.
After all, we are not some horrible alien species from another planet. We are your own sons, every one of us. Whatever is in us was once - probably still is - in you as well.
Actually, I wouldn't characterize circumcision as "paedophilia" - which literally translates as "love of children" - because it's clearly motivated by hatred. "Paedophiles" may have their wiring messed up, but they don't usually set out to torture and mutilate the objects of their inappropriate affection. (It would be interesting to learn how many pedophiles were infant-circumcised - in comparison with the percentage of the total male population.) Yes, it's true that most parents (i.e. mothers) who do this to their sons are not consciously motivated by hatred; they're just doing what their doctors recommend. And their doctors are recommending what they were taught was best, i.e. what American mothers want. Demand rules supply.
I disagree with the common expedient of "blaming" doctors; after all, they're "only following orders" - meeting the market demand. The circumcision program didn't appear full-blown out of nowhere; trace it back to its roots and you'll know the whys. My Victorian-era (a time when women spoke of the "limbs" of a table because "legs" was too "suggestive") grandmother was not kidding when she called me a "dirty little boy." Yankee ingenuity came up with a "cure" for my male failings.
Nightmist, even a cursory reading of circumcision-issue literature will yield many reports from men circumcised in adulthood who found their sexual experience seriously diminished thereby. Though we can't know directly what we're missing in that regard, I'll take it on faith from reports of those in a position to know. And I don't know about you, but since I've become aware that my present condition is not natural, I've also become aware of certain discomforts that I'd always taken for granted as simple disadvantages of being born male.
No, I wouldn't say that Anonymous' boyfriend is a "pedophile" - but I would say that he is a deluded fool on this subject (though I understand the reasons for his state, and feel more pity than anger about it) - and, like the overwhelming majority of American males, a sexual cripple. Sorry, but it's the truth. Until this truth is recognized, it won't stop.
For my part, I am willing to agree that parents (i.e. mothers) who circumcise their sons are acting out of ignorance rather than malice - but only if this excuse is offered, and without any pause to think about it. If you have to think about it, you don't "get it." It's interesting that this defense - "I was only following orders" - was supposed to have been forever invalidated by the Nuremberg Trials, which "established" the principle that you are responsible for your acts even if you did them in ignorance.
As most Americans must now be aware, circumcision of girls is widely practiced in Africa and the Islamic world. In the more "modern" Islamic nations - e.g. Egypt, where the female circumcision rate is 80% or more - all the same "medical," "health" and "hygiene" reasons are given for the practice as are offered here for male circumcision. When African immigrants began requesting American hospitals to circumcise their daughters in the early 1990s, feminists raised an immediate uproar, resulting in the quickest Congressional action since Pearl Harbor, a law making female circumcision a Federal crime. I wonder: Why is it that women, who, we all know, are invariably models of compassion, wisdom, etc., are immediately able to see the egregious fallacies in the promotion of female circumcision, but apparently totally unable to see the same fallacies in the infant male circumcision program (which NOW actively supports)?
The first news story I saw about the female circumcision issue in America, interestingly enough, told of a Somali immigrant couple somewhere back east: the mother was insistent that their daughters must be circumcised, while the father was resisting the idea. Kind of turns feminist dogma on its head (if it has one).
For a little education, check out The Sexually Mutilated Child and the Circumcision Information & Resource Page, for starters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I wouldn't characterize circumcision as "paedophilia" - which literally translates as "love of children" - because it's clearly motivated by hatred.
No such characterization was made. First of all, the statement made a moral comparison based on contemporary connotations that the term paedophile has that are widely understood by anyone who reads the newspapers; the attempt to impose an earlier etymological meaning on my use of the term--which today is so stigmatized that it no longer merely means love of children--is such as obviously willful misreading that nothing further need be said about it.
I coined that slogan at a time when I was obsessed with the subject of routine infant circumcision--a low point in my psychological health, perhaps. It's an obviously manipulative use of language, but there is a point to it--the extreme defensiveness that it sometimes elicits (we have seen this illustrated in this thread) suggests there might be something to the notion that there is a will to mutilate behind routine infant circumcision, and that there may very well be a deeply ingrained anti-male component to it that society must keep hidden, if it is to persist in its treatment of males, as opposed to females, as appropriate targets of violence.
That said, it's unnecessary to take the view that we have to hate the past to be appropriately grateful for our enlightened present, as if there could be no progress without some struggle, and so my attitude is one of regret over so many unnecesary procedures in the past. There is no excuse to tolerate the procedure now, given what we know, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that circumcision is different for everyone. Labelling it a hideous crime? I don't agree. Solid medical reasoning stands behind it. Circumcized men are at much lower risk for things like urinary tract infections, such as yeast. The incidence of urinary tract infection in infants is of particular relevance; the lack of foreskin makes it difficult for infection to take hold, and many parents do not want to mess around with their infant sons' penises any more than absolutely necessary. Also, there are no reported cases of penile cancer in circumcised men.
Many men, myself included, do not mind it. I do not believe that my sexual sensitivity has been adversely affected. I may not get off as fast (why would I want to anyway?), but the best orgasms are enhanced by mental imagery, and are mind-bending, for me at least.
An uncircumcised friend of mine, on finding out that I was cut, said, "I tried oral sex with my fiancee, and I hate it. You probably enjoy it more than I do, because I'm too sensitive down there." So oversensitivity can occur. It is also not uncommon for other problems to develop, like the foreskin being too tight during erection.
I will agree with one point, regardless of the aforementioned urinary tract infection rate in infants - it would be nice if I had been given the choice. However, I do not silently curse my parents or the doctor who snipped me. In the '70s, it was just done. Today things may be different; I really don't know.
One more thing.
Comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is like comparing apples and oranges. Male circumcision does not damage the glans penis, which is where the Big Nerve terminates. Female circumcision destroys, at the very least, the clitoris, which makes sexual pleasure impossible for the girl. Male circumcision takes place under sanitary conditions, and using medical instruments. Female circumcision is often accomplished by rubbing nettles across the vulva or simply hacking it up with sharp things and then sewing up the terrible scar-wound. It is common for circumcised females to have to be literally "ripped open" on their wedding-nights, and many die from infections and hemmorhaging that result directly from the circumcision or the "ripping."
In fact, it is curious that we have chosen the term "circumcision." A circumcision is a cutting-around (in Latin, anyway). Female "circumcision" is more along the lines of wanton hack-and-slash mutilation. I know some people refer to male circumcision as male genital mutilation, but I suppose you could say, by that logic, that getting an earring is (fe)male ear mutilation.
I think male genital mutilation would be more along the lines of getting a full-blown "Prince Albert," in which the penis is filetted lengthwise into two, four or more slabs, and then bound together by (pierced) rings, so that the whole, uh, assemblage, looks like it should belong to a character from Hellraiser. (A "normal" Prince Albert is just a single piercing; call that what you will.)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
