|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:45 PM May 30th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
As I was writing this submission to Mensactivism a letter came from the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) inviting me to hear Dr. Steven Rhoads speak. Ever the curious one I did a search on Amazon.com to see if he had ever written anything interesting. BINGO!
I just got the book myself yesterday, and have only read a few pages. It reads well and is very interesting so far, but check out the book reviews yourself.
(Click) Taking Sex Differences Seriously
I can already tell you that the book opens discussing the same case/the same person that Wendy discusses in her article.
This next book is a very difficult one in my opinion, but as a dedicated men's activist I felt I needed to know what the heck really happened to John/Joan. This book is out of print, but provides supporting historical perspective on Wendy's brilliant article, and is available through used book dealers. Everyone should at least be aware of the story that has been such a foundation stone of gender feminism, then form their own opinions.
(Click) As Nature Made Him
What would you have done as a child if someone told you, "Hey, you don't need to be a boy." I shudder to think how such a question might affect the lives of young boys today, given the misandry that is preached as gospel in our public schools.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism itself is the best example of the social constructivist ideology, which argues that everything, including gender, is socially constructed in a politicized, Patriarchal, oppressive system based on (male) domination and control.
It's a powerful idea depending on the distortion of language, history, and scientific method, proposing that whoever DEFINES the terms of the argument wins.
The feminists have spent the last forty-plus years in our culture seeking to deconstruct/reconstruct or merely destruct every biological distinction between female and male.
To admit that there are inherent, gendered, chromosome-encoded differences between men and women, which provide advantages and disadvantages to BOTH genders, would mean the end of feminist ideology.
Because it depends for its existence on victimology, the ruse of male oppression, and the insistence that females are perpetual infants, unaccountable for their behaviors and choices.
Except, they would still insist that women are "inherently" the morally superior, less violent, more empathetic sex.
Smell the contradictions and duplicity?
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:16 PM May 30th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but woe to anyone who suggests that fathers are capable of caring for children. No no no, men are naturally incapable of taking care of children. Thus the gross discrimination against men in the mangey donkey ass known as family law. It isn't a horrible injustice to men, it's just natural! (in case you miss my point, register heavy sarcasim)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:42 PM May 30th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, but woe to anyone who suggests that fathers are capable of caring for children. No no no, men are naturally incapable of taking care of children."
This was a troubling claim made by Dr. Rhoads (Mother's are the better nurturers), that I had trouble with too. Maybe women do have the capacity to be wonderfully nurturing Mothers, but many females today have bought into the radical/gender feminist agenda and have largely abducated that role.
Todays Dads being the practical and caring people they are, see the defeciency in childrens lives, and step up to fill the void.
On the other hand, some women have discovered the fallacy of radical/gender feminism and the joys of Mother hood. They have "opted out" of the lunacy taught in women's studies courses, and instead have listened to their own biological drives.
If Mom decides to be a Mom again, all the more reason to have Dad in the children's lives too. Traditional families have never been perfect, but in my opinion families should be nurtured instead of torn apart and destroyed by government policies born out of half baked radical/gender feminist theories.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Traditional families have never been perfect, but in my opinion families should be nurtured instead of torn apart and destroyed by government policies born out of half baked radical/gender feminist theories."
Ah, but where's the money to be made in that?
N.O.W. and all the other feminazi bureaucrats know very well that supporting nuclear families, which, by definition, include men, is simply a retreat from their actual mission...
making every woman a ward of the Nanny State, and criminalizing every man upon birth.
And the feminists have displayed absolutely ZERO concern for the actual welfare of children...
Who's fathers they are intent upon destroying.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:04 PM June 21st, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Got Rhoads' book a few days ago. A great book and most surely worth your time. There's a book website with some more reviews and articles by the author: http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/sexdifferences
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:37 PM May 30th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
...if there actually MIGHT be a shred of truth to this.
Has anyone noticed whitin the past decade or so that American women act ALOT like men, in many ways?
Even the way MANY of them walk (with a masculine gate) and the way they talk.
For instance, a long time ago women would often use such exclaimations as "Oh my goodness" but now-a-days they swear like pirates. I hear more MEN these days useing such female dialect as "Oh my goodness" and such, than women. I also notice more feminine behavior amoung men, these days. Things that men didn't generaly do a decade ago. (unless they lived in San Francisco) such as the "limp wrist" and soft hand gestures. Women on the other hand do these things less than they used to and now have much firmer hand gestures and their vocal inflections tend to be more coarse.
No offence to anyone but I notice this more amoung White and Black American women.
So as I stated I am wondering if there may not be at least a GRAIN of truth to this theory.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, you won't get flamed. While male or female behavior is generally hard-wired according to genetics, enculturation can also modify these traits to a degree. Whether this is desirable is another matter.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you should be flamed at all, because I believe that there is more than a grain of truth in the idea. But I would see why you would be concerned that you might be. I have noticed on this board more than a few times that there is a tendency to dismiss social constructivism out of hand, identifying it with gender feminism. Having studied social constructivism, I can say that this is not my experience of it. For me, the idea is much more broad than that. While it is true that many gender feminists have taken social constructivism to extremes, essentially all that it comes down to is the idea that there are some things that are physically and psychologically differentiated by sex, and that there are some things that are "gendered" through social processes.
Some are threatened by this idea, but I don't see why we should be. In fact, it is the idea of social constructivism that allows us to show that men can be nurturers for children, just as women can. What is considered "masculine" or "feminine" varies from culture to culture. One book that addresses the variation in masculinity is Manhood in the Making by David Gilmore. He is a bit too much of an old-school anthropologist in some ways, but he offers some convincing evidence from non-western cultures that shows how characteristics that are often considered "masculine" in western cultures can be socially constructed.
Also, social constructivist thinking can be masculinist-friendly. Consider reading The Masculine Mystique by Andrew Kimbrell for an example. He is very much in the same vein as Warren Farrell (who, btw, could be considered a social constructivist as well), but he takes a strong view that the present forms of oppressed masculinity can be changed for the benefit of men, as well as for women.
While it is important to recognize that there may, indeed, be psychological differences between men and women that are "hard-wired," and I believe that the cases of David Reimer and others (you might read some of the literature on transexuality) offer good evidence that there are such genetic differences, we needn't dismiss social constructivism as simply a tool of the "Matriarchy".
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:57 PM June 1st, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Severin.
You just gave me another thought.
What if these men who APPEAR more feminine are doing so intentionaly, to look and be perceived as more "sensitve" and "in touch with their "feminine" side"? In other words they may be ACTING OUT.
That would explain "Metero-sexuals", I guess.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could very well be. Since the way in which most people seem to think of masculinity is insensitivity or unemotional behavior, for many men the only way in which they can express their emotions is to act in a traditionally feminine manner. Maybe they feel that if they are emotional or sensitive, they must be more feminine, and should act that way. Interesting thought.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:30 AM June 2nd, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"Could very well be. Since the way in which most people seem to think of masculinity is insensitivity or unemotional behavior, for many men the only way in which they can express their emotions is to act in a traditionally feminine manner. Maybe they feel that if they are emotional or sensitive, they must be more feminine, and should act that way."
The "nature vs. nurture" behavioral model that was for many years popular in psychology says that our behavior is partly a result of our genetic makeup and partly a result of our environment. I have also heard it referred to as inherited behavior vs. learned behavior.
This last Monday as I was watching the Lakers/Timberwolves play in Game 6, I was disgusted to be interrupted by a commercial that started out talking about boys needing to be taught by men not to abuse women. "One boy said, how else will we find out?" In the credits they briefly threw up on the screen I saw "End Abuse" and "Family Violence Prevention Fund."
This prejudiced one sided view of domestic violence is an abhorrent lie and does not take into account the huge amount of female domestic violence that is committed and excused everyday by FVPF, the police and judges that domestic The aforementioned organizations, bigotedly work under the gender feminist construct that domestic violence is a male trait, and based on that, vilify millions of innocent men with their criminal hate of the entire male sex.
Even Child Protective Services rampant abuse and "stealing" of our children is primarily a trickle down effect of the Stalinist, gender feminist war on family and heterosexuality. Under the guise of protecting children, they follow the Stalinist, gender feminist construct of "government as parent" so as to allow Mom and Dad to work in the factories and fields, unencumbered by the oppression of raising children."
The gender feminist/gender reconstructionists are out there as we speak dictating what men and boys (and women) should behave like according to a gender model (their gender model) which is based on a lie. The day is long past due that the silent sheep in the men's movement speak up for the positive males that are out there, going about their daily lives, who are victimized by this kind of targeted hate. The silent sheep need also to speak up about the violent/abusive women and organizations that are out their battering men with actual physical violence and then later with prejudiced, vilifying commercial advertisements (paid largely by taxpayer dollars).
Men everywhere today need to ask themselves, "Do we want to band together to create Men's Commissions to address the numerous issues that are so negatively affecting men or do we want to let the feminists dictate what our lives and the lives of our children's and families will be based on the "feminist model for men." The gender feminist behavioral reconstructionists have already made their decision, what's yours?
Ray
(click) We Don’t Subscribe To The Gender Feminist Model for Men
(click) Men's Commission Now
(click) Get Government's Big Nose Out of Family
(click) Gender Feminist Laws Commit Human Rights Atrocities
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ray,
I read your reply, and I'm still trying to figure out whether you were agreeing with Thundercloud or me, if you were disagreeing with either or both of us, or if you were simply adding a message that had no relevance to the discussion. If it was the last one, that's cool, I just wasn't sure, so I couldn't tell how or whether to respond.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:56 PM June 2nd, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
This may be a little wordy, but here goes. Actually I was trying to agree with both of you in that we are all significantly influenced by our environment (education, social norms, religion, politics, etc.) as well as our inherited traits. There are many facets that make up our awareness of our existence in this world.
Each and every one of us born into this world is individually cast adrift in a huge sea of human existence, made up of all the factors that make us who we are. Added to the complexity of our individual lives is the complexity of interacting with other human individuals. Other human beings have traits both different and similar to the traits making up our own personalities, but in varying degrees. I would not want to deny the influence of any of the myriad nuances that make up the existence of any human being.
True equality for each individual adrift in such a turbulent sea of human existence is certainly an elusive goal. From my male perspective it seems particularly unjust that misandric, myopic, intolerant, tyrannical ideologues like gender feminists should be allowed to advocate so unscrupulously for policies and laws that result in the epidemic of human rights atrocities (committed against men), that we have today. I would be far more accepting of their ideology, if in advocating for their rights, they did not so eagerly seek to violate mine. I am not automatically violent, or a criminal, just for having been born male, but that gender feminist prejudice is actively at work in our societies today.
As far as I’m concerned the roles that men and women must play in life are fully open for discussion. On the one hand I am not willing to concede that, “We each have inherited drives that at least partially make us who we are.” On the other hand I am not willing to concede that, “We men and women are higher order beings with conscious wills, able to control to some degree, many influences that act on us in the physical realm.”
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying. I've often found it quite striking that many gender feminists take a hardline constructivist outlook, but still look at men as "naturally" violent or domineering. Something doesn't quite fit there.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really DO think that gender differences are artificial constructs, constructs that wind up screwing over people from both genders. People have it in their minds that men are visually oriented, unemotional, highly sexual tough guys while women are intellectual, emotional, virginal innocents. That's not how it bears out in real life. Some women DO swear a whole lot; some men DON'T. Some women NEVER cry; some men ALWAYS cry...nothing wrong with either one. These are just a few examples....
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember the story of Dr. Mengele, the Nazi-era doctor that experimented on Jewish children? Dr. Money reminds me of him, except that you need to subsitute "male" for "Jew."
Kind of telling that his name is "Dr. Money" in light of the funding he received for this abomination.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just added this to the Men's Hour Blog
Once when I was young (shortly after the Ark landed) the words gender and sex meant the same. I usually only heard the word "gender" in French lessons at school, so I could tell which sex a table was in French. It didn't seem to matter much except to another table. "la table" is feminine by the way. Later on it seems feminists, having decided that men and women were the same, decided that something must be getting in the way of men and women being equal, even interchangeable. This they decided was "gender". Now gender came to mean a social conditioning imposed above and beyond the physical sex of the child. Gender and sex meant two different things and since gender was an ephemeral thing, not really having any definition or form, then it could be changed. About this time Dr. John Money started saying that you could bring up a boy as a girl or vice versa and they would act the way you bought them up. This seemed to work in his experiments with babies of indeterminate sex. It's clear where he got his ideas from. As little as 10 years previously any idea that men and women were interchangeable and that you could get boys to like dolls and girls to like train sets would have been dismissed as nonsense. In 1966 Bruce Reimer, a young baby, along with twin his brother, was circumcised. Both babies had had trouble urinating and this was to be the solution. Unfortunately for Bruce Reimer this turned out to be the start of his troubles. The circumcision went drastically wrong and his genitals were all but destroyed. The parents looked around for someone to help this now seriously damaged baby. They found Dr John Money. He said that Bruce could be surgically altered and become Brenda and everything would be alright. They thought they had the solution. Brenda Reimer was expected to grow to be a happy girl and women. The trouble is that Brenda didn't like dresses or dolls and was unhappy as a girl and didn't make friends with other girls and acted a lot like a boy. Eventually when Brenda was older they told her/him. Brenda immediately declared himself David and became a man, including surgery to turn him back into a man as near as possible. The public didn't know what was happening to David. While this was going on Dr John Money was being lauded as the man who proved that men and women were interchangeable. Although the change back helped, David had psychological problems and there were suicide attempts. At age 38, David Reimer killed himself on 4th May 2004.
Politically correct beliefs have encouraged the idea that men and women are the same. Dr John Money subscribed to this idea and was seen as a hero. Others who disagreed weren't heard. We will not have a sensible discussion about men and women in society until we get past the idea that being equal (rights) means being equal (ability) and that if any women doesn't succeed in male dominated areas it must be a patriarchal plot against women, and if men don't behave the way women want then they must be taught, effectively bullied, into being what women want. Clearly already boys are being taught to be quiet and concerned about others, especially girls, but not about themselves, and girls are being taught to be aggressive and selfish and demanding. It's like they claim men and women are the same, but then they have to make them the same to suit their theory. As you can see from the books I mentioned there, for most people common sense prevails. There is a difference. For others the evidence is never enough. It never will be enough. Until this ridiculous position is pushed aside then men and women will pay the price a political ideology in ways both large and small and few will pay the ultimate price for this ideology. Unfortunately David Reimer is unlikely to be the last of these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:41 AM May 31st, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a quotation from Dr. Steven Rhoad's book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously:
"As the real story of the reconstruction of David was made public, responsible researchers on the John Hopkins medical staff decided they would find out what had become of the many boys born without penises, most of whom had been castrated and subsequently raised as girls. Of twenty- five located (ranging in age from five to sixteen), every single one exhibited the rough- and- tumble play more characteristic of boys than girls. Fourteen had declared themselves to be boys, in one case as early as age five. Two children were found who had been born without a penis but had not been castrated or sexually reassigned. Both these children, raised as boys, fit in well with their male peers and "were better adjusted psychologically than the reassigned children." On hearing this John Hopkins paper, Dr. Margaret Lagato, a Columbia University professor of medicine and expert on sexual differentiation asserted: "When the brain has been masculinized by exposure to testosterone [in the womb], it is kind of useless to say to this individual, ‘Your a girl.’ It is the impact of testosterone that gives the males the feelings that they are men."
The only thing I could possibly add to this is:
GENDER FEMINISM
IS CRUEL & UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT
FOR THE CRIME
OF HAVING BEEN
BORN MALE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:42 AM May 31st, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, forgot to sign that one.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Had the parents never HEARD of a circumcision before? I'm definitely not pro-circumcision but BURNING!?!
Additionally, it is hidden in another article but apparently because girls are easier to construct physically all "intersex" children are thereby to become girls? That just doesn't sound right. Though I'd be a proponent of "letting the child pick" but I can also understand how society wouldn't be able to handle. Ugh, what a problem. I'm honestly not surprised the parents bought into Dr.Money's "oh, we can just change it" but you'd think after several years they'd start listening to their own child.
Ugh, this whole thing is just sickening.
anyone notice his brother died and his wife and children left him? guuh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:58 PM June 2nd, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
It makes me sick, too, Crescentluna.
Our society needs to learn an old adage. And that is; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..."
Of course trying to get feminists and wussie-poopie men to listen to that bit of common sence is like talking to a bowl of oatmeal. (Which is what most of them have for brains.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIME Magazine published an article about this poor boy's case back in 1997; here's a letter I wrote then (unpublished, of course):
26 March 1997
Editor, TIME:
Re "A Boy Without a Penis" (March 24): The most remarkable thing about this article is that apparently it has occurred to no one that this whole tragic story would never have happened had those entrusted with this baby boy’s care seen fit to simply leave him the way he was born.
This was not "a circumcision that went awry." On the contrary, it could more accurately be called a circumcision perfected. The American circumcision program has always been intended to cripple male sexuality; in this instance it was simply carried to its logical conclusion--wiping out this boy’s original sin by surgically altering him into an imitation girl.* Apparently it didn’t take. Perhaps Nature (or Whoever) actually had something in mind when She created the male sex.
Infant male circumcision was originally marketed in nineteenth century America as a "cure for masturbation"--by drastically curtailing sexual feeling in boys. (Girls, of course, being naturally pure, didn’t suffer from any such problem.) Later, as Victorian attitudes toward sex began to go out of fashion, the original purpose was camouflaged with bogus "medical" claims. (More than four out of five men and boys on the planet are not circumcised and they get along at least as well as noncircumcised women and girls.) The article says the family finally "stopped coming to see its doctors." Well, duh.
When African immigrants began to request circumcision for their daughters in American hospitals a few years ago (offering the same reasons used to justify the American practice of male circumcision), women’s groups lost no time having the practice (labeled "female genital mutilation") outlawed. Yet these same groups continue to condone and support the genital mutilation of American boys. Apparently the right to own and control one’s own body is possessed only by females.
Every day more than 3000 American baby boys scream in agony as they are brutally tortured and mutilated; if anyone were listening to these kids the "answer" would have been heard long ago—"Leave my body alone!"
A Reader
* "The first males were mutants, freaks produced by some damage to the genes caused perhaps by disease or a radiation bombardment from the sun. Maleness remains a recessive genetic trait like colour-blindedness and haemophilia, with which it is linked. The suspicion that maleness is abnormal and that the Y chromosome is an accidental mutation boding no good for the race is strongly supported by the recent discovery by geneticists that congenital killers and criminals are possessed of not one but two Y chromosomes, bearing a double dose, as it were, of genetically undesirable maleness. If the Y chromosome is a degeneration and a deformity of the female X chromosome, then the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female." --Elizabeth Gould Davies, Feminist Dictionary (1974)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a note, in the story they did not have their sons circumsized to begin with. It was when they had difficult urination at 8 months old that their physician suggested circumsizion - though not a peculier "burnt off" one. They later sued over it.
[I don't support it anyway, just clarifying]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Circumsized"? Is that intentional? Pretty good. It's all about cutting us down to size.
(The official term comes from Latin: "circum" = around, "cision" = cut.)
And would that same doctor have recommended circumcision in the case of an eight-month-old daughter with urinary troubles? Care to bet?
Did they sue regarding the circumcision itself, or merely over the "botching"?
I recently met a young woman (in her 30s) here in Santa Fe whose "pediatrician" had made the same recommendation for her two-year-old son. She didn't like the idea, and noticed some books I had lying around when she visited for computer help. I gave her some literature and referred her to another doctor. Her son remains intact. Small victories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:21 AM June 2nd, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"When African immigrants began to request circumcision for their daughters in American hospitals a few years ago (offering the same reasons used to justify the American practice of male circumcision), women’s groups lost no time having the practice (labeled "female genital mutilation") outlawed. Yet these same groups continue to condone and support the genital mutilation of American boys. Apparently the right to own and control one’s own body is possessed only by females."
Modern gender feminists strike me as being the exact opposite of the proverbial "Good Samaritan."
### These self righteous hypocrites (gender feminists) wouldn't lift a finger to help a man for any reason, yet they think men are remiss for not being eagerly supportive of any woman's issue they choose to run up the flag pole on a minutes notice.
### These self righteous hypocrites (gender feminists) think nothing of viciously bashing and battering men for perceived injustices against women by men, even when the facts don't support their claims.
### These self righteous hypocrites (gender feminists) only concern themselves with what helps and advances women's issues, and do nothing for men, even when it costs them nothing to help, i.e. male genital mutilation.
By the way, I have been told that it is females who perform female circumcisions in all of those 3rd world countries where female circumcisions are performed. Of course it's all the patriarchy's fault as usual, and females are completely the victims, even though it is females in those countries that wield the knives.
In many of those countries, and others, young boys are also circumcised under similar conditions, but no one cries out about that.
How about a fair and balanced report on 3rd world circumcision (including both sexes) if anyone is going to make that an issue for one sex.
Ray
(click) Women's Studies Blames Half the World
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:48 AM June 2nd, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
This is great timing. Here is an excerpt from the announcement for this coming Sunday's broadcast of Glenn's Sacks radio program.
"Next Show - Sunday, June 6, 2004
The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl
When David Reimer was eight months old he suffered a botched circumcision which destroyed his penis. Desperate for help, David's parents sought the advice of sexologist Dr. John Money. Money, who believes that children are born psychosexually neutral, convinced David's parents to have their son completely castrated and raised as a female. Because David had an identical twin who was being raised as a boy, it was an ideal test case for the popular feminist idea that it is nurture, not nature, which differentiates between males and females.
David's mother Janet says of her first outing with her the first public outing with her baby 'girl':
"I got some fabric and started sewing dresses. He was trying to rip off the dress and I thought, 'Oh, my God, what have I done?' "
Also:
Dr. Milton Diamond of the University of Hawaii is a longtime critic of Dr. Money's theories. Fox News Columnist Wendy McElroy is the author of Death by Theory? A tragic suicide disproves a feminist theory and is a critic of the idea that gender can be reassigned through social conditioning. Diamond and McElroy will join Glenn on His Side with Glenn Sacks on Sunday, June 6 at 9 PM PST.
For more info got to HisSide, (click) HisSide
Thanks Mensactivism. I'm glad we've all had the opportunity to discuss this really important topic here at Mensactivism, before hearing these well informed people discuss this further.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Ray, for the heads-up on the Glenn Sacks show. I note, however, that apparently he intends to raise only the question of whether the boy should have been left alone after the "botched" circumcision -- not why the hell he wasn't left alone in the first place. Same old, same old. So long as the feminists are allowed to set the parameters of the discussion, the real questions are never asked. It's always "Do you want to be executed by electrocution or lethal injection?" "Wait a minute -- when did I ask to be executed?" "Sorry, that's not up for discussion; Mother knows best."
I have been told that it is females who perform female circumcisions in all of those 3rd world countries
In some, many, cases, yes; in others it's done by male shamans ("witch doctors") while the girl's female relatives hold her down. In "modern" Arab cities like Cairo, it's done by regular doctors, just like infant male circumcisions are done here. (And the doctors, if challenged, give the exact same "medical" reasons as are given here.) But everywhere the women of the tribes are adamant supporters and promoters of the practice.
The first news item in an American newspaper I saw about FGM was in the early 1990s, about an African immigrant couple in New Jersey who were fighting about whether to have their daughters circumcised: the father was against it, the mother was for it. Lotsa Freudian stuff going on there, you betcha. (This was before it was outlawed in the U.S.)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
