|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While an interesting correlation is made between circumcision rates in the USA and other industrial countries and the rate of male violence this seems inherently flawed. There is no empirical evidence for this sort of claim.
What is interested in this comparison is that the way male circumcision is treated in comparison with female circumcision. The AMA has said that infant circumcision is unnecessary. Similarly they have said the same about female circumcision.
The national movements in the US to stop female circumcision have helped raise awareness of FGM. The US labels FGM as political persecution so it can be used as a reason for diplomatic asylum.
The real problem does not seem to be circumcision itself but the way that almost all societies treat men. Men are expected to take abuse with a stoic resolve. The compassion and public outcry for male genital mutilation is basically non-existent. The outcry about the condition of male health in our country is non-existent. The outcry for male depression is non-existent.
In our rush to protect and right the wrongs of others we have ignored what has been happening to us.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 20, @04:40PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Circumcision sucks, that's for sure, but there's no reason to turn it into some big conspiracy theory. The person who submitted this apparently has some issues with women...and I think the credibility of this web site has just gone down a notch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 20, @08:43PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Claiming that someone "must have a problem with women" is a cheap shot unless you can back it up. I read it twice and I don't see how he profferd a conspircy theory. How did you come to find a conspiracy theory in what was written? How do support, based on what he wrote, that he has a particular problem with women? I didn't see this. Could you please show me how? I find this an interesting reaction on your part--perhaps you have the problem; as evidenced by your need to throw out unsupported invectives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 20, @09:36PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Claiming that someone "must have a problem with women" is a cheap shot unless you can back it up."
Too bad I didn't say that. Read my post again, and learn what quotation marks are supposed to mean.
This person, Philalethes, suggests that "circumcision is the American "solution" to the "boy problem," whatever that means. Philalethes also claims that circumcision is a "[major factor] that differentiates American child-rearing from practically every other culture's." That's obvious hyperbole - there are hundreds of other factors that differentiate American culture from others, and only someone obsessed with the issue of circumcision would place it above them.
Then Philalethes goes on to quote Freud, using women as the scapegoat for the circumcision of boys. As if men are just utterly powerless about deciding to have their sons circumcised.
I think the practice is brutal and cruel, but I don't think it's the definitive aspect of American culture, or that it profoundly affects most men's psychology. It reminds me of the way radfems make rape out to be the ultimate expression of male dominance, whereby "all men keep all women in a state of fear" [Brownmiller].
Let's not go down that road. It will only make us (men's activists) look like fanatical fools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 20, @10:59PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't realize you were responding to philalethes, your reply was to tony's post.
I think that in the comparison of a culture that does cut off healthy tissue from a baby's genitalia (sometime without anathesia) and one that doesn't does constitute a major difference. I don't see the hyperbally; it seems a valid claim to me. Just because he doesn't mention all of the hundreds of other cultural influences, doesn't invalidate the claim that this could be a major influence, or *the* major influnce. I still don't see the claim to a conspiracy. There is a history to circumcision that includes sexaphobic and, in my opinion, misandranous religious beliefs. It is my experience that radfems also hold these views (your Brownmiller quote shows this) and so it isn't conspiritorial to speculate about it(with is what he does--he doesn't suggest). I agree; to blame circumcision solely or even primarily on women is wrong-- maybe he is confusing radfems with women and should have been clearer (the lack of which does pose a credibility issue, although I think what he said does apply to many of them). You and I both agree that circumcision is a bad thing--if philethes is an activist--is an obsession with circumcision a bad thing? Would you fault MLK for being obsessed with racism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that circumcison is a barbaric practice, certainly worthy of the activism behind stopping it. But I don't think it's THE defining characteristic of American men versus European men.
I might be, but I'd like to see some more REAL research on the psychology of men who have been circumcised, and by what procedure, versus men who have not. There are SO many other factors, including psychological circumcision. I'm not convinced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 21, @12:01PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
What is psychological circumcision?
Yes, we need to know more. Given the nature of the beast I don't think it is wrong to argue that a barbaric practice applied helpless infants could have a major impact on the person's mental health and could create cultural differences. To what degree is really unknown. It is a fair question and a testable assertion in the service of knowing more, though. To make such a statement doesn't mean that you have a problem with women. What I want to known is: if this is a barbaric practice, with little medical benefit--why do we still do it? Why did we ever do it? Why do some people defend it so passionately (even with religious reasons aside). I'm as interested in knowing about the psychology that promotes circumcision as I am in its effects on circumcised men. I think the answer to this question may shed light on other aspects of men's position in society beyond just circumcision. Why do we keep doing it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What is psychological circumcision? "
You like it? I just made it up. But, seriously, gimme a day or two to put together a real definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the practice is brutal and cruel, but I don't think it's the definitive aspect of American culture, or that it profoundly affects most men's psychology.
AU:
This is an absurd statement that is self-contradictory. It is impossible for something like circumcision to be "brutal and cruel" and not have a profound psychological impact.
This is like saying that subjecting a soldier to torture would not have a profound psychological impact. We all know there is posttraumatic stress caused by torture.
There is no foundation to claim that circumcision would not have a profound and life-long impact. Just knowing that a portion of your penis is cut off has a profound impact.
You need to take another look at the movie on circumcision. It is clear and indisputable that part of the penis is being severed. Now to suggest that there is no lifelong impact, both physical and psychological, is the epitome of ignorance and stupidity.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 23, @03:49PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I wholeheartedly agree Warble.
Mikolka.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Circumcision sucks, that's for sure, but there's no reason to turn it into some big conspiracy theory.
AU:
Please take a look at this full video on circumcision. Then after having viewed this video a couple of times come back and tell us how kind mothers are when they insist on this barbaric procedure. Remember, this is done without any anesthesia. Odd those mothers in America don’t insist that their daughters have a similar procedure. Nope only the boys are attacked in this way.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 23, @03:47PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits enjoyed by males who are intact (not circumcised)
1. Full penis length and circumference. The "prepuce" (foreskin) constitutes 50% or more of the skin system of the penis [1]. If unfolded and spread flat, the average adult foreskin measures 60-90 square centimeters (10-14 square inches) [2], or about the size of an index card [see illustration]. The foreskin creates a visibly longer penis, especially when the foreskin extends beyond the head of the penis. Also, the double-layered tissue of the foreskin engorges with blood during erection and creates a visibly and sensually thicker shaft and glans.When the engorged foreskin retracts behind the coronal ridge of the glans, it often creates a wider and more pronounced "ridge" that many partners find especially stimulating during penetrative intercourse. The circumcised penis appears truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact penis.
2. Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and environmental contaminants. The glans is intended by nature to be a protected internal organ, like the female clitoris [see illustration]. The effect of an exposed glans and resulting keratinization on human sexual response has never been studied. Increasing reports by circumcised men indicate that keratinization causes a loss of sexual sensation, pleasure and fulfillment [3, 4].
3. Ridged bands. The inner foreskin contains bands of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue [1]. They constitute a primary erogenous zone of the human penis and are important for realizing the fullness and intensity of sexual response [5].
4. Gliding action. The foreskin is the only moving part of the penis. During any sexual activity, the foreskin and glans work in unison; their mutual interaction creates a complete sexual response. In heterosexual intercourse, the non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth and pleasurable intercourse for both partners [see illustration]. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, dragging vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for non-painful intercourse [6].
5. Specialized sensory tissue. In addition to the "ridged bands" mentioned above, thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors (Meissner’s corpuscles) constitute the most important sensory component of the penis [1]. The foreskin contains branches of the dorsal nerve and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which are capable of sensing slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].
6. The frenulum. This is a highly nerve-laden web of tissue that tethers the inner foreskin to the underside of the glans [see photo]. It is similar to the frenula found under the tongue, the upper lip and the clitoral hood (female foreskin). For many intact men, the penile frenulum is a male "G-spot" that is highly pleasurable when repeatedly stretched and relaxed during sexual activity [13]. Depending on the surgical method used, the frenulum is partially to completely destroyed by circumcision.
7. Proper blood flow. The foreskin contains several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development [1].
8. Immunological defense. The soft mucosa of the inner foreskin produces plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies, and antibacterial and antiviral proteins [7, 14], such as the pathogen-killing enzyme called lysozyme [15 and see explanation]. All of the human mucosa (the linings of the mouth, eyelids, vagina, foreskin and anus) are the body's first line of defense against disease. This benefit of the foreskin could be one possible explanation why intact men are at lower risk of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases [16-21].
9. Langerhans cells. These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system and may play a role in protecting the penis from sexually transmitted infections such as HIV (AIDS) [see explanation and 14-16, 18].
10. Proper lymph flow. The foreskin contains lymphatic vessels, which are necessary for proper lymph flow and immunological functioning.
11. Estrogen receptors. The foreskin contains estrogen receptors, whose purpose is not yet fully understood and needs further study [22].
12. Apocrine glands. These glands produce pheromones, nature’s invisible yet compelling signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexual behavior has never been studied [23].
13. Sebaceous glands. The oils produced by these glands lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, so that the two structures function together smoothly.
14. Dartos fascia. This is a smooth muscle sheath that underlies the scrotum, the entire penis and the tip of the foreskin. It is necessary for proper temperature regulation of the genitals (causing these structures to elongate in the heat and shrink in the cold). Approximately half of the Dartos fascia is destroyed by circumcision [7].
15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans. In the intact penis, the glans normally appears moist, shiney, and pinkish-red to dark purple. These visual cues often attract and excite a sexual partner. The glans of a circumcised penis is dry, rough and often light pink to bluish-gray in color [see photos].
16. Zero risk of serious infection or surgical injury. Unfortunate boys who suffer botched circumcisions lose part or all of their penis from surgical mishap or subsequent infection. They are often "sexually reassigned" by castration and "transgender surgery." They are relegated to a life of hormone therapy and are compelled to live their lives as pseudo-females, the success of which has never been fully assessed [24-46].
17. Zero risk of death from surgery. Every year boy die from the complications of circumcision, a fact that the American circumcision industry ignores, obscures, or downplays [29-31].
18. Zero risk of delayed or diminished maternal bonding. Circumcision, even if anesthesia is used, causes unavoidable operative trauma and post-operative pain that has been shown to disrupt bonding with the mother, which in turn interferes with the first developmental task of every human, that of trust (trust in human contact, in personal safety, etc) [47-51].
19. Electromagnetic "cross-communication." Anecdotal reports suggest that, without the mucosa of its foreskin, the penis lacks the capacity for the subtle electromagentic energy transfer that occurs during contact between two mucous membranes (the vaginal walls and the exposed inner lining of the foreskin). Such contact contributes to the full experience of sexual pleasure. These reports deserve further scientific study.
20. The foreskin is necessary for optimal health and well-being of the male, as well as contributing to fulfillment
in his sexual relationships.
Adapted for use by NOHARMM from a list compiled by"
http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
Circumcision IS sexual abuse in my simple opinion.
Here's this article and you might want to read " The Joys of uncircumcising" by John Bigelow.
Or you can go to many anti-circumcision orgs. like this one.
"National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males is a non-profit, educational and direct-action men's network organized against circumcision of healthy male infants and children. It gained its inspiration from an earlier group, The Victims Speak.
MISSION: To raise public awareness about male genital cutting (MGC) practices and increase public understanding of genital integrity as a fundamental human right. We exist to:
educate men about the functions & benefits of normal, intact male genitalia;
document the damage caused by male genital cutting customs and expose them as violations of basic human rights to physical integrity and self-determination;
empower men with the education necessary to oppose male genital mutilation in their own families and at local, national and international levels;
support men in other cultures who want to re-examine their societies' male genital cutting traditions.
NOHARMM stands in solidarity with women against female genital cutting (FGC), and firmly opposes sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia and anti-Semitism. We impugn no gender, race or religion, but assert that an intact body is a universal human right."
http://www.noharmm.org/home.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 23, @03:49PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I posted the above, my online name is Mikolka. I forgot to post that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*sigh*
Nope, this is just another William Pollack type. "Inside every boy there is a nice, loving, little girl waiting to come out if only we have the eyes to see it."
After making the important point that boys are really human beings and actually have feelings he just goes on to recommend treating them more like girls and drumming into them the need for tolerance, diversity, participatory pluralism, etc.
I'm finding that the quickest way to spot an anti-masculine person in more intellectual situations is how they talk about "aggression." It's pretty much a code word for everything nasty about boys and men. If they talk about aggression like it's a bad thing, it's clear they have no understanding of the masculine, it's value and how to nurture it.
Someone who does understand it sees a couple of grade school boys roughhousing and knows they are roughhousing. Someone who doesn't understand it sees aggression and knows it must be stamped out before these boys develop into mass murderers.
From someone who does understand it:
Searching for Answers, Fighting for Freedom
If you have a masculine sexual essence, a part of you is probably fascinated by aggression and combat, at least in entertainment. You may enjoy action movies involving war, cops, martial arts, or political intrigue. Or, perhaps you prefer more ritualized competition in the form of sports, poker, or even chess. Any kind of combat, from business deals to football to political debate, can arouse a man's masculine essence...
Some of this fascination with aggression and combat is pure biology, a byproduct of evolutionary selection and testosterone-drenched male nervous systems. Some of it reflects the masculine spiritual preference for emptiness, the timeless and deathlike cessation of desire and thought which peak moments of combat and competition can provide in glimpses. Some of it derives from enjoying the quintessential masculine game: putting yourself in a constrained situation or trap (in sports, gambling, philosophy, martial arts, crossword puzzles, or Zen koans), and then fighting/figuring your way out of it. For most men, there is no greater pleasure than finding their way to freedom and achieving their goal, whether in an end zone, an orgasm, or in transcendental being.
This masculine trip can serve to defile or purify you. If you take yourself and the game too seriously, you can debase yourself, losing touch with the depth of who you are as you identify with how the game is going. However, if you can remain aware of your deepest being--and more importantly, if you can live as the expression of this open depth of love--then playing out the masculine game can actually help dissolve the tendencies that trap your attention and create suffering.
(Yeah, I'm quoting David Deida again. I think he's saying very important things.)
This guy (and most educators) wouldn't understand a word of that. Men are aggressive. It's part of who we are. A large part of growing as a man is learning to channel and discipline that aggression to create and find freedom for ourselves and for others.
That growth can be nurtured and most men know how to do it instinctively. You nurture self-respect and integrity in a boy, not self-esteem and the ability to throw the word "love" around. You acknowledge his growth, self-discipline and achievements with your respect.
What do our schools do? When they see the masculine game (putting yourself in a constrained situation and then fighting/figuring your way out of it) they call it aggression and condemn it. They defile it by making it merely "conflict." They tell a boy that what makes him feel most vibrantly alive is shameful and evil.
I can't think of a better recipe for hurt, anger and alienation.
*sigh*
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I think about it the more I beleive that the feminists believe that equality will only be reached when men and women have SWITCHED GENDERS.
Yes, you read me right, SWITCHED GENDERS!
Why else, is it, then, that the feminists and everyone who is beholden to them are, at every turn, incourageing masculine behavior in females and feminine behavior in males?
It's toataly WHACKED, but to my obsevations, this is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Okay, here I go picking on the media again, but this example illustrates what I'm getting at.
If you watch TV shows, for example, have you not noticed all the "tough" "ass-kicking" "strong" women all over the place? These women TALK like men, FIGHT like men, WALK like men, and generaly, over all ACT like men.
The male characters, conversely have a timid and docile demeanor, with regressive postureing, effeminate facial expressions, and at times effeminate hand gestures and body-stance. they are more likely to faint than any female character and more likely to be "emotional".
If this isn't enough, then look at the way boys and girls are taught in public schools.
If boys raise their hands insistantly, they are told they are too "agressive". there fore "we" attempt to feminize them. If a girl raises HER hand in the same way, she is incouraged, and it is said of her that she is being "assertive". thus we incourage her to be "masculine".
These are just a couple of examples of how I see our society trying to switch genders. But my posts have been a bit long-winded, as of of late so I'll stop here.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 21, @06:31PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
About circumcisnion----I'm a guy who has always disliked my circumcision. So for the last 3-4 months I've been restoring my foreskin and I already have positive results in more ways than one ; )
Anyways what I was going to say is that I'm actually glad that this has happened to men here in the US and not women. Of course I destest my circumcision and feel depressed about it sometimes and feel it's rally unfair that it's a complete joke to most people and quite often feminists especially. But I' just glad it happened to men because we wouldn't EVER hear then end of it if this were happening to women and not men. I'm very serious. I'd rather have mygenitals be the ones that are mutilated than have to hear the constant complaining about how privileged I'am for not having this done to me and especially the GUILT. I"m so serious. I just couldn't take it. I'm so frustrated that this ussue is not taken seriously by everyone especially of all people self righteous feminists. UGUUGGH. I'm satying completely anonymous for this post, sorry guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand all the criticism here regarding the choice of breast cancer as a charity to campaign for, and I would ratehr he selected prostate cancer as well. But you have to recognize that what he has done is taken a position that is absolutely unassailable from the feminist quarter. They really can't attack him. Oh, they can say he's a hypocrite for supporting Hootie, but he's really not even doing that in any large way.
C'mon, guys, back off a bit. This is a tactic, a wise one, and it WILL work, though probably not by itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone above mentioned the possibility of starting our own website. Might I suggest a domain name? http://www.ncwo.com/ is available. (The National Coalition of Women's Organizations owns http://www.ncwo.ORG/)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While an interesting correlation is made between circumcision rates in the USA and other industrial countries and the rate of male violence this seems inherently flawed. There is no empirical evidence for this sort of claim.
Well, no, I don't guess there is. Nor can there ever be. "Empirical evidence" is a myth, really, in relation to non-quantifiable factors like human feelings and behaviors. Nevertheless, since I became aware a decade ago of what circumcision did to me, (1) I have been in a state of severe shock and post-traumatic stress, and (2) I've noticed a consistent psychological pattern which I consider significant: infant-circumcised men are subconsciously* terrified of women, while intact men are not. I can't "prove" this, no. But I think it's interesting to note that it was precisely when the first universally-circumcised generation (mine, born during WWII) came of age, that feminism took over the culture. There are few men in America today who know how, or why, or when, to gently but firmly say "No" to a woman. We just can't do it. And the consequences have been and will be disastrous for women as well as for men. Because--feminist dogma notwithstanding--even women are not perfect, and we all need someone in our lives to tell us "No" now and then. When our most infantile impulses are given free reign, we suffer.
(*Note: "Subconsciously" means we aren't aware of it, but it profoundly affects our behavior. We can become aware of such subconscious influences, however, and try to compensate; as I have been doing since I became aware of this.)
What I was pointing out was that the radio segment made a big point of comparing the rates of "male violence" (a term I don't generally use, since it's a code-word for misandry) in America with those in other countries, but somehow neglected to note what, as I said, I consider the decisive difference between those countries (Britain, France) and ours in the rearing of male children. And I have observed an identical neglect in every other commentator on the question of "what's wrong with [American] boys?" who has received any media coverage.
And no, I don't think it's exactly a "conspiracy." It's a lot deeper, a lot bigger than that. It's a symptom of a deeply rooted, pervasive cultural psychosis. "Denial is not a river in Egypt."
What is [interesting] in this comparison is ... the way male circumcision is treated in comparison with female circumcision.
Precisely. When in the mid-1990s immigrants from East Africa and neighboring regions began bringing their daughters to American hospitals for this traditional procedure, American feminists rose up and had female circumcision outlawed, in probably the swiftest Congressional action since December 8, 1941. Nevertheless, these same feminists continue to actively support the American "tradition" of infant male circumcision. A doctor in Cairo will give exactly the same reasons of "health" and "hygiene" for female circumcision that you'll hear in this country for male circumcision. So why is it bad to do this to girls, if it's good to do it to boys? This, I gather, is what feminism calls "equal treatment."
On the other hand, I've never yet come across a man involved in the effort to stop male circumcision in America who is not also appalled and horrified by the genital mutilation practiced on girls elswhere in the world, who does not want to see both practices stopped. I can only guess that this apparent discrepancy must be related to the male inability (which I've been hearing about all my life, ad nauseam) to experience the finer, more superior form of compassion naturally demonstrated by females.
Men are expected to take abuse with a stoic resolve.
A remark from a feminist quoted in Say No to Circumcision summed it up pretty well, I thought: "Well, if he can't take that, what can he take?" (I remember reading this in the book, but haven't been able to find it again; if someone can tell me the page it's on, I'd appreciate it.)
However, I don't think this is entirely "wrong," or that the "solution" is for men to become more like women in this regard (or any other). From the beginning of time it has been men's task to protect and defend women and children. It's the natural order, also seen in many other species. To this end, males must learn to, in 'Enry 'Iggins immortal words, "take a position and staunchly never budge." Which means being able to endure suffering without complaint, to die if necessary. As millions of men have, in various ways, to give us the world we have now. What's changed is that we used to get, as Otis Redding said, "a little respect" for our sacrifices.
In a difficult and dangerous world, the freedom to "be in touch with ones feelings" is a luxury, which men have forgone so that women may enjoy it. There's just no time or energy to waste on "having a good cry" when home and family must be defended, right now, against a savage attack.
This is where I--regretfully--must disagree with Warren Farrell, much though I respect his work. Farrell thinks the solution is for the sexes to become more alike--which only shows he has not yet completely recovered from his former lapdog role. The solution is for men to be men again, and for the two sexes to respect each other. Which begins with mothers respecting their sons. The relationship between the sexes is not circular; it's a spiral, which begins with Mother, as do all things.
In the larger context, it seems like this sort of thing happens in every decaying empire. Life becomes comfortable, people forget about hard the world is outside their limited, temporary prosperity, and women start to think that the security they have is just naturally theirs, that they don't "need" men anymore. "Fathers are redundant." Since the necessities of life have resulted in women having an exclusive copyright on all the "virtues" (it's ironic that this word itself comes from the Latin word for "man": vir)--gentleness, compassion, caring, etc.--for the protection of which men have made themselves hard and "unfeeling"--women begin cultivating contempt for the men they see around them--the men they themselves have made.
And eventually, of course, the empire rots from within and is invaded and conquered by another culture whose women have kept their men strong. There may be no help for it, really.
The person who submitted this apparently has some issues with women...and I think the credibility of this web site has just gone down a notch.
Yes indeed, I do have some issues with women--American women especially. There will always be "issues" between the sexes, as between any pair of complementary opposites. I see the relation between the sexes as like that between sparring partners: we help each other by being difficult for each other, giving each other opportunities to learn and grow. But that can only work if there is some parity between us, if we are "worthy opponents." Since in fact there is no such thing as "equality" between the sexes--the creature (the male) cannot be "equal" to his Creator (the female)--then the entire relationship rests on how mothers bring up their sons: whether to be strong, independent, adult men who are secure in themselves and can hold their own with the women they will encounter later in life, or to be weak, dependent Mama's boys whose assigned role is to gratify women's infantile greed for power.
In the last century, American women seem to have decided on the latter. To that end they have embraced the Tonya Harding strategy: since the point, as they see it, of the relationship is to win--by whatever means necessary--it makes sense to cripple the "enemy" before the contest even begins. So Tonya hired a couple of hit men to kneecap her rival in women's skating competition--and American mothers hire doctors to torture and cripple (physically, yes, but even more important, psychologically) their newborn, defenseless sons. It's sick, that's what it is. And it was done to me, and damned right I have "issues" about it.
I am what's fashionable these days to call a "survivor" of severe childhood abuse--all, the overt part anyway, from my father. Trained to seek refuge with my mother, I was brought up to believe all the feminist dogma about how men are "bad" and women are "good" (a gross oversimplification, but that's what it comes down to). Only at age 50 did I begin to understand what my mother had done to me--unconsciously and thus in "innocence," but nevertheless the consequences for me are very real--and that the beginning of it, my circumcision at birth, unlike everything my father did, is permanent and irreparable.
So yes, I have "issues." And no, I'm not mad at my mother about it--she didn't know what she was doing. But I have no patience with lies, or those who prefer lies to the truth, or offer lies in response to truth. Like the Man said, the truth--and only the truth--will set us free.
"Let us speak the truth." - George W. Bush, Berlin, Germany, 23 May 2002 (Scuse me, I couldn't resist. He really said it; I heard him on the radio.)
And I will say this: if you are a circumcised American man and you don't have "issues," you're in serious denial. Ironically, I get more ridicule from men on this than from women. But I understand why.
I don't think it's the definitive aspect of American culture, or that it profoundly affects most men's psychology.
Well, of course you don't. But refusing to see something doesn't mean it's not there. The fact is this: only two cultures on the planet practice infant male circumcision: the Jews (whose psychology in this regard--and its wider implications--deserves a whole essay in itself) and the White Anglo Protestant Americans--who got the idea from the Jews. (And formerly the other English-speaking countries, though Britain itself has almost entirely abandoned the idea since 1950.) It's also become popular in South Korea, due to overwhelming American cultural influence. Given this fact, and what a horrendous thing it is to do to a newborn baby (those who aren't permanently scarred bleed to death), I think it's a pretty "definitive aspect" of a culture. Why do they do this? Women in other countries--continental Europe, for example--find the idea ridiculous/horrifying. But American women not only consider it perfectly "normal" but actually become hysterical (look that word up in the dictionary) when it is questioned. This is not like a difference in how various cultures clip their nails or comb their hair. And how do you know it doesn't "profoundly affect" men's psychology? Have you even thought about it?
Again, the plain facts are these: (1) There's no end of wringing of hands (and lucrative book contracts) these days over the question of "what's wrong with American men?" and (2) The fact that only American men, relative to all other major nations on the planet, are subjected to this treatment is never mentioned in any of this voluminous "what's wrong" literature. If this doesn't look funny to you, you definitely need to see an optometrist. Or some kind of healer.
"Inside every boy there is a nice, loving, little girl waiting to come out if only we have the eyes to see it."
Excellent! What frustrates me most is men like this, who've bought the feminist line and are doing their best to "justify" men within a system where ultimately it cannot be done. Either men are men, or they are poor imitations of women. There is no middle ground on this. Because, while women can, to some extent, do anything men can do, men cannot do what women do. Nothing will change this truth. The real question is, do women want men, or not. Because, while women can live without men, men cannot exist without women. If women do not want men, the best solution would be to get rid of them entirely, and turn to cloning, as some other species have done (See Why Males Exist ). That is a legitimate solution, because it is women's decision. But if they do want men, they are only harming themselves by crippling the men they make. It's insane.
The real insanity is feminism itself, whose bedrock foundation is the "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" fallacy. The truth is, women are from Earth, and men are from women. We are two parts of the same being. As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." But this is even closer to home: Feminism is one hand cutting off the other and calling it "equality," or "justice" or "progress" or any of a million other senseless buzzwords. It's truly insane.
Well, enough for the moment. My thanks to anyone who's taken the trouble to read this, and to all who made this a fruitful discussion. And to Scott for allowing my "inflammatory" post. At age 59, I no longer have the time to pussyfoot around. Why not the truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the beginning of time it has been men's task to protect and defend women and children. It's the natural order, also seen in many other species. To this end, males must learn to, in 'Enry 'Iggins immortal words, "take a position and staunchly never budge." Which means being able to endure suffering without complaint, to die if necessary. As millions of men have, in various ways, to give us the world we have now.
With all due respect, this is just plain B.S.! The idea that a "natural order" demands that men be killed so that women and children can survive is a chauvinist ideal that is based on the hatred and devaluation of men.
For example, we can find many instances in the animal world where the female species will protect their young from predators. Using natural law theory this would suggest that the females of the species are the natural protectors of the children. To illustrate, we can simply look to the black bears to observe the female of the species protecting the young from predators. This pattern is found all over the animal kingdom.
In the human species, the female has refused to accept the risks associated with self-defense. Instead they oppress males and require them to be killed or maimed on their behalf when there is conflict. This practice is contrary to the natural order found in the animal kingdom.
Men being killed for women is yet another example of female privilege. There is nothing natural about it. It is the females that have used their power to oppress men that has resulted in this kind of absurd logic.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warb.
And don't forget that it's now been established that MEN are the "weaker sex".
So like I said in a previous posting, 'Then let THEM (Women) be drafted and get their heads blown off and THEIR guts blown out in some war, while we "weaker men" stay home and reap the benifits of THEIR sacrafices!'
Women tend to forget that it is ONLY because so MANY millions of men have sacraficed their lives, that women have the right of free speech to say how much they HATE MEN.
TC.
(Women gorge themselves at the table of men's ingenuity, all the while curseing the founders of their feast...,)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes wrote:
We are two parts of the same being.
I read that and thought "If he hasn't discovered non-duality, he's certainly ready for it."
A quick search on "Philalethes" confirmed it. I've kinda wondered if there were others like me who spent long enough twisting their brains into knots trying to understand the masculine and feminine that something went "SPROING!!!" :-)
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yikes!
A quick search on "Philalethes" confirmed it.
Confirmed what? I assure you, I have nothing to do with the "Philalethes Society," or anything else Masonic. I was looking for an online nom de plume which would translate as something like "truth seeker" as well as express my affinity for "ancient wisdom" -- those things I find most interesting that have always been true, that don't change with whatever happens to be the current politically-correct fashion.
I went to the Perseus Project, which has a great collection of classical Greek, Latin and other material, did some searches in their Greek dictionary for "truth," and found my way to a line from Aristotle's Nicomachaean Ethics that I liked, and took the word from there ("the lover of truth"). I figured it might be obscure enough that nobody else would have stumbled on it and used it. Appears I was wrong; shoulda done a search. Depressing. I really don't want anyone to associate me with the Masons, whose connection with the Ruling Elite/Illuminati et al I don't care for. I'm going to have to give this some serious thought. I really liked the name Philalethes; it expressed almost exactly what I wanted to say ("truth seeker" would have been exact, but I don't know enough Greek to translate that; and besides, it felt neat to quote from Aristotle).
As for advaita, certainly I know the term, have been a student of Asian wisdom traditions for going on 40 years, most specifically Buddhism, where "nonduality" is a common term in English (not certain what the original is in Buddhist Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan or Chinese texts). Though I try to be cautious about this slippery subject, about which I find the old Zen saying most exact: "Not two; but not 'one' either." Nice page with some good material; thanks for the reference.
Having like so many of us been born into a war zone--and I don't mean World War II, though I was born in 1943--I have indeed been trying to figure out the whys and wherefores of the "battle of the sexes" all my life. Study of the writings of Japanese teacher Georges Ohsawa offered a valuable insight: that the sexes are really like each other turned inside-out. Yes, of course we are separate, individual beings who must each make our own peace with the Absolute; but still, what unites us is greater than what divides us. As the Dalai Lama says, all beings want to have happiness and avoid suffering: all beings, without exception. Starting from that, maybe we can find a way to live together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yikes!
Sorry. Didn't mean to startle you. :-)
Confirmed what?
Well, I was looking for a nondual-compatible philosopher or mystic. I was startled by the Masonic thing, but dismissed it and went on. A site with his treatises (which appear to be Western-style alchemy) had articles about kundalini yoga, Taoist internal alchemy and other such methods for tinkering with consciousness and awareness. I figured that was close enough and stopped there.
Philalethes does seem to have quite a mixed bag of associations, but that just means you'll keep'em guessing.
Though I try to be cautious about this slippery subject, about which I find the old Zen saying most exact: "Not two; but not 'one' either."
Indeed. I came upon this subject bass-ackwards. About a year ago I stumbled upon an experience that was ... beyond... my everyday experience and I didn't have words or even concepts for. I started fishing through traditions that seemed to know about such things - Taoism, Zen-Buddhism and eventually Advaita.
Not two, but not one... Yeah! That's what I'm talkin' bout!
As for masculine and feminine, they are not-two. They are opposite poles of the same thing. They arise together. To have one without the other is impossible. As you have pointed out, therein lies the insanity of radical feminists, who would wipe out the masculine in the world, destroying the feminine as well. (Well, actually I think wiping out either is impossible, but it's still insanity.)
There is also the folly of less radical feminists who would subordinate the masculine to the feminine, obstructing the whole point of sexuality in the first place:
"Neither masculine nor feminine is superior or inferior. Both are part of the same process whereby men and women learn to recognize their oneness and love their twoness." - Deida
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes does seem to have quite a mixed bag of associations, but that just means you'll keep'em guessing.
Thanks again. In my initial shock over finding the connection with the Masonic cult, whose philosophy of secrecy and elitism is 180% opposed to mine, I neglected to look further in the Google results, and see that the name had also been used by a mediaeval/renaissance scholar--who was probably associated with the Masons himself, and may have been the source for the name of the modern Masonic organization. Well, on consideration I may keep the name; I came by it honestly, and have as much right to it as anyone.
Regarding the Masons, and the subject of this forum, I came across this interesting quote from the Buddha: "O disciples, there are three to whom secrecy belongs and not openness. Secrecy belongs to women, not openness; secrecy belongs to priestly wisdom, not openness; secrecy belongs to false doctrine, not openness.... the doctrines and the rules proclaimed by the perfect Buddha shine before all the world and not in secret." This reminds me also of Rich Zubaty's insight in What Men Know That Women Don't that politicians and priests are like women in their love of costume and ostentation.
(I've not been able to find the exact source of the quote from the Buddha; if anyone can help, I'd appreciate it.)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
