|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everything that happens to women is the fault of men. Did you miss that meeting of the PC She-Woman Man-Haters Club and Sewing Circle?
For Shame. How politically incorrect of you.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually, I read about a similar study long ago, when I read "The War Against Women." And you should know, it's still the fault of men, because though they may sexually perfer women who are "uncut" so to speak, they will follow tradition and marry circumsized women. And then sexually exploit the dregs of society, the uncut women. So says the sewing circle.
I find it interesting that in any feminist perspective of arranged marriages, the guy is always thrilled and abusive, while the girl is always miserable. I remember a recollection by an 70-year-old Indian fellow talking about the first time he met his to-be wife at sixteen. They didn't marry until they were twenty. They were lifelong friends, if not always red-hot lovers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday June 14, @01:36PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
yeah I agree with ragtime. I've been reading crecentula's posts for awhile, she's cool.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with Crescentluna's past posts, but based solely on this one, I wouldn't consider her a friend of our causes at all.
In the first paragraph, she states how female circumcision is the fault of men and doesn't give any inkling that she might be using sarcasm until the last few words of the paragraph, saying that this is what the sewing circle says. Does she disagree with the "sewing circle"? Agree? I can't tell for sure. This seems very similar to common liberal newspaper and TV tactics that put the meat of what they want to get across in a headline and the first two or three paragraphs. The facts they wish to leave in but not be noticed by most readers are added in an off-handed manner at the tail end of the article almost as an aside.
I saw a good example of this tonight on TV. The subject was cheating spouses and how many marriages continue to be sustained in spite of this cheating. (They were trying to fluff Hillary and her book, justifying her staying with Bill). Every example of famous couples who overcame cheating and staying together (showing pictures of each couple) involved the man cheating on the woman, as though that is by far, the norm when cheating is involved.
Then in the last 5-7 seconds, with no pictures of couples as examples, the woman commentator off-handedly added, Oh and by the way, men aren't the only ones who cheat on their spouses. Studies show that 35% of women cheat on their husbands.
Now considering that people who watch TV remember what they see and almost nothing of what they hear without pictures, which examples of cheating will almost all remember? What will be forgotten?
I don't see much difference between this and Crescentluna's first paragraph.
Her second paragraph, I don't see the point of anything in it. What does anything in it about an Indian man and the girl he married have to do with African female circumcision or whether or not men are responsible for it?
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, C.L> is the only woman I know who regularly comes here who doesn't need to be reminded to take off the blinders on a regular basis.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will, of course belatedly, defend my posting. It was dripping sarcasm.
"In the first paragraph, she states how female circumcision is the fault of men and doesn't give any inkling that she might be using sarcasm until the last few words of the paragraph, saying that this is what the sewing circle says."
I didn't realize that anyone around here would go around saying something is the fault of all men while being serious. Next time I'll use this simple method of identification:
*****SARCASM ALERT!!!!!****
****SARCASM ALERT OFF!!!!*****
Does she disagree with the "sewing circle"? Agree? I can't tell for sure.
I disagree with them strongly.
"This seems very similar to common liberal newspaper and TV tactics that put the meat of what they want to get across in a headline and the first two or three paragraphs. The facts they wish to leave in but not be noticed by most readers are added in an off-handed manner at the tail end of the article almost as an aside."
I wanted to send a quick note saying that the feminists have already argued that just because a survey says men perfer uncut women doesn't mean men are good human beings yet. They don't want to hear it, that sometimes traditions like these make everyone miserable.
This is where my first paragraph ties to the second, the idea that men can always marry anyone they want, whereas women in similar places are always forced to marry someone they probably don't like, doesn't really exist. Men get stuck with wives from arranged marriages they don't like, just as women do. Sometimes they are happy [thus the mention of the indian couple]. Sometimes they're miserable.
Sometimes a man will marry a circumsized woman so he can continue to speak to his family and live in a community a way he wants, even though he does not perfer circumsized women sexually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for stepping up to the plate to defend yourself, crescentluna. I don't mean to demean anyone who misunderstood crescentluna's post. A communication breakdown clearly occurred. Having said that, though, I will now state that crescentluna is a gem. Her posts are always insightful and fairminded. It's a joy to share in her caring thoughts.
I would love to be close to dozens of women like her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
emphasis on the 'dozens' bit, right? ;)
still working on a feature, I want it to be good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
emphasis on the 'dozens' bit, right? ;)
I am monogamous. But if I weren't...
(Lookin' forward to your feature.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday June 14, @04:39PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
...between 85 percent and 89 percent of women in Sudan undergo the procedure, according to the report...
In another article I read that it is women who perform this barbaric procedure to other women. Someone needs to send a message to the feminists that they should stop blaming men for what women are doing to women. Women who are constantly looking for new ways to alter their appearance so they can seudce men are in my opinion stupid for doing so. Only foolish looking women get boob jobs and wear high heels to enhance their beauty. ...but then I don't eat sugar or salad dressing either. I also like my bread unbutterd.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, I've read that it's women who do the circumcising. Well, sometimes, though my impression is that the actual physical operation is generally done by men, either doctors or village spiritual practitioners (a.k.a. "shamans," formerly known as "witch doctors") who are practiced in this fairly specialized procedure. However, the women of the girl's family and clan certainly enforce the tradition, hold her down for the operation, etc.
I never had the opportunity to confront either of my grandmothers on the issue of circumcision, but I'm sure either would have responded with that disapproving stare that is the female elder's so effective means of enforcing behavior standards on the young.
Several decades ago I read an article that gave me a major insight: it described how marriage customs were changing in Japan, moving toward Western style ceremonies in which the men wore Western suits, while the women continued to wear Japanese kimonos. I realized that, although women are usually seen as the more politically "liberal" sex, in fact they are usually more conservative than men in maintaining traditional social customs.
Thus I haven't been surprised to learn that women in Africa and the Muslim world continue to facilitate the tradition of circumcision. I don't really consider it to be a conscious decision on their part, just an expression of the innate female need for security, clinging to the comfort of staying in the middle of the herd, continuing to do what's always been done because ... well, that's how it's always been done.
I still have somewhere a news story from the mid-1990s, about one of the first female circumcision controversies to become widely known in the US, which resulted eventually in the outlawing of the practice here. A Somali immigrant family in some Eastern Seaboard state: the mother was insisting on the daughter being circumcised in a local hospital, while the father was desperately resisting the idea. I have no idea what the feminists made of this; I get the impression that many (perhaps most) women are simply incapable of seeing anything that doesn't fit their preconceptions. That comfort zone, again.
I am repeatedly brought up short by the realization that although it's been well over a century since Freud discovered the unconscious mind and revealed it to the world, still very few people seem to be aware that much the greater part of human behavior is ruled by needs and impulses of which we are mostly unaware. Such phenomena as the persistent tradition of sexual torture and mutilation of children can be made sense of only in the light of awareness of how the unconscious rules us all. No, it's not rational by any measure, but neither, much of the time, are we. Though, once we become aware of this fact, we can choose to be rational. Most people, however, use their power of reason mostly to rationalize their unconsciously-driven already-made decisions. A century of constantly changing justifications for infant male circumcision in America - a solution in search of a problem - is the perfect example of this.
If the mother allows it, she is at fault because she is her child's primary guardian. That's why women are given custody of the children in virtually all divorces unless there are grossly extenuating circumstances. This is exactly my point regarding circumcision of children of both sexes, though I'd use the word "responsibility" instead of "fault." As I wrote over at "ifeminists" - to their derision - where power is exercised, there lies responsibility. This I consider a fundamental truth, not a political decision or value judgment. But where responsibility of any kind is concerned, truly women seem to be made of teflon.
I speak of "responsibility" rather than "fault" because my interest, unlike that of the feminists, is not to determine who's to "blame," but to put a stop to needless suffering. I'm not out to condemn anyone, only to identify who's in a position to put a stop to it, and it's clear to me that it's women who rule this arena of human life, thus women who could stop it if they wished. All the efforts by men will avail nothing against continuing female resistance.
The supreme irony of this whole situation is that even while women bitterly complain of being powerless, truly they do rule the world, and could have it be any way they want it - subject, of course, to natural law, which is exactly what they are so constantly, desperately trying to change. If only they could give up their stubborn refusal to see the truth.
No man marries a woman he doesn't prefer, unless tricked into it by the woman. Well, not true at all, especially in the cultures that practice female circumcision, where arranged marriages (which may very well not be the preference of either participant) are still common.
BTW, I read crescentluna's post as ironic, not a feminist rant. In my recollection, her past posts have been both sensible and entertaining. No need to look for enemies; we have enough already.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
