|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose the submitter of this article assumes that the women in the tribes mentioned in the article enjoy mutilating themselves, and do so of their own volition. Or maybe it is a collectively female tradition. A group of women decided, when they were gathering berries or something, that life would be a whole lot better without the annoyance of sexual pleasure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- (feminist) "So many women are vicitms of violence".
- (masculist) "Men are the majority of violence victims"
- (feminist, dismissing all male victims) "But most violence against men is committed by men."
- (masculist, hoisting the feminist on her own petard) "Well, most female genital mutilation is perpetrated by women. So we can dismiss that. Let women work it out for themselves. Leave men out of it."
Equal treatment. What a wonderful concept. Too bad it's lost on feminists and their male poodles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:32 PM August 28th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Silly Rand, didn't you know that it's just different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:37 PM August 28th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I'm just TERRIFIED of "sexual" women.
Aaaiiie, I'm so scared I'm running away, Watch me, VARROOOOOM!
(sarcasam)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:18 PM August 28th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently you're significantly uninformed about routine and ritual child genital amputation.
It happens to be primarily a method to control parents, by the community around them, particularly the elders -- male and female alike -- and to reinforce the habit of submission to further tribal dictates and directions through guilt, shame, and denial.
Your sarcasm only displays your ignorance, and the degree to which you have contracted the illness of the femelitist meme.
Most of the people in this forum know much more about the subject, much better than you do, and only find your comments stupid, petty, and a poor reflection on you, rather than the submitter of the article.
Perhaps you should go read up on the subject before you stick your foot in your mouth, and then shoot yourself in it to boot, again.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps my sarcasm was unwarranted, and I should have used other means to express myself. I have read many of the articles posted by Hombre and often find his selections and commenents insightful and very relevant.
I do not, however, appreciate being personally attacked in anonymity.
Well, Anonymous Man, I have read up, as per your advice, on the subject at hand. It appears that clitorectomy and other forms of female genital surgery are performed by specialist women on girls as they come of age. This practice is not, as you say, done for the general purpose of domination. Contrary to your "common knowledge," the overt purpose, both in the Muslim and African contexts is to keep women from infidelity and premarital sex. A man won't marry a girl unless she has had an operation like this in certain tribes. Female genital mutilation might be enforced by women, but the pressure comes from the men.
Incidentally, many Muslims circumcise boys; the clitorecomizing ones probably circumcise boys with a greater regularity than average. This has its roots, of course, in the Judaic custom, which itself originated as a sanitary measure. People who don't bathe can get infections under their foreskin. Common practice becomes tradition and tradition becomes law. The oppression in that case is one of overbearing tradition rather than one subgroup dominating another.
If disagreement and debate cannot exist in this forum, then the mens' rights movement has crippled itself. If we become so self-centered that we cannot acknowledge that, in spite of an overzealous western feminism, there are still places where women are oppressed, then all our rants against feminism are hypocrisy. This is not a perfect world for any group. There are people of every race and both genders who experience discrimination, and if we choose to specialize in denouncing descrimination against men, that is fine, but not at the expense of others who are oppressed.
Women are no more inherently oppressive than men are, and no less. Some cultures, some environments give rise to the dominion of one or the other; it is folly to imagine that the whole world is ruled by Anglo-European postfeminism. Our fight is against discrimination, not women. Our charge is to stop useless political correctness and vicious exaggeration, not to stop each other from speaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:30 PM August 28th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you should read, "the joy of uncricumsizing"...circumcision was not about health reasons...
And certainly our modern radical circumcions performed on baby boys is not about helath reasons...It was started up again to reduce sensations in boys penises so that they would not play with themselves, or as much....
It was, and is, about controlling male sexuality...And it is teribly destructive to the male gentilia and it even isn't good for the vagina...
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the modern-day circumcision of non-Jews and non-Muslims was started by Victorians who were uptight about sex. Those Victorians were also the same ones who advocated female circumcision, but I *think* that it occurred less frequently than male circumcision.
Doctors perpetuated the practice because they earned a good deal of money from a simple procedure. I think it is sort of like the way banks and other organizations attach all kinds of "fees" that brings in billions of dollars a year for their respective industries.
These days, circumcision is an outdated custom. Now, if people, when they are adults, want to have circumcisions, then that's okay. That is their choice and they'll have to live with the consequences of that choice. But we should not force children to have circumcisions because they have no choice in the matter.
As a side note, I know of one case where circumcision did have a positive medical effect. King Louis of France (the one who was beheaded during the French Revolution) apparently couldn't have sex. So, his doctors gambled that a circumcision would help. It did, and the Queen gave birth to their first child nine months later.
Of course, the doctors first recognized that there was in fact a problem, rather than just giving Louis a circumcision at birth...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:35 PM August 28th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"Our charge is to stop useless political correctness and vicious exaggeration, not to stop each other from speaking."
maybe you should read up on this subject further before speaking as an authority that you have not throughly studied...You haven't even studied it enough to know why circumcion was brought back onto the seen, or to know how these "circumcions" are extremely radical compared to the circumcions of biblical days...
(by the way, there is no such thing as truly restoring the foreskin...and not all FGM are clitorectomy's...some are not, and those ones cut off much less sensitive skin then MGM....)
I suggest you read the above book...
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who don't bathe can get infections under their foreskin.
In which case, the infection is their own fault. It's a wonderful concept called "personal responsibility". If a man wants his penis to be rotten, then that's his choice.
I once ran across a doctor's website in which he argued for male circumcision. He stated that women are more likely to get yeast infections when being intimate with a man who is uncircumcised and unsanitary.
What the good doctor overlooked is that concept, personal responsibility. If a woman is stupid enough to let a man with a nasty dick stick it in her, then she gets no sympathy from me when her twat starts oozing cheese. If she doesn't have enough common sense to insist that he wash, then her subsequently infected quim is her own fault.
In which case, it is still not justification for mutilating infant boys. I suspect there are plenty of uncircumcised men out there who do keep themselves very clean.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:36 PM August 28th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
In Edward Wallerstein's 1980 book, "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy", Wallerstein does a good amount of comparison between the "justifications" for male and female circumcision (he defines "female circumcision" as "cutting of all or part of the clitoral foreskin").
Here's a quote from page 72 of the book (from chapter 8, "Penile Hygiene"):
"Female genital hygiene vis-a-vis circumcision can be considered by reversing the sex roles. Consider the following statements:
1. The clitoris is covered by a foreskin.
2. The inner lining of the foreskin secretes smegma.
3. Some, perhaps many, women do not keep the clitoral area clean;
4. As a result smegma, dirt, germs, and other body materials can accumulate under the foreskin;
5. Such accumulations can be malodorous, irritating, and cause infections and adhesions;
6. Foreskin problems can interfere with coitus;
7. Some physicians believe that over extended periods of time such constant irritations can cause cancer of the clitoris.
Each of the above statements is true. Therefore, the simple conclusion that could be drawn is that if the clitoral foreskin can pose such problems, it should also be cut off in infancy! A startling conclusion? Not really, because if you substitute "men" for "women" and "penis" for "clitoris" in the previous statements, you derive the rationale for male hygienic circumcision. Yet no one in recent years has suggested routine female circumcision to improve genital hygiene. However, should some enterprising surgeon develop a simple nonanesthesia procedure for female newborns to facilitate female hygiene, it would be rejected out of hand as unnecessary and cruel. Yet an analogous procedure is routinely visited on American males!"
As Wallerstein suggests, and others in this thread have opined, hygiene is not a justification for routine infant circumcision (RIC). If you support RIC of males for hygiene reasons, why would you be against an equivalent RIC of females?
(I believe that this book is out of print, but you can probably find it in a library, if you want to learn more.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it amazing how the subject of "circumcised men are healthier" comes up when discussing this issue? Suddenly men's health is of supreme importance.
So where are these circumcision advocates when prostate cancer is the topic? Or male suicide? Or domestic violence against men? Where are the circumcisers when prostate cancer kills almost the same number of men as breast cancer kills women, yet prostate cancer research receives a fraction of the funding?
WHERE ARE YOU CIRCUMCISERS? Where is your concern for men's health?
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my case it wasn't good enough for the doc to cut off the forskin.
If I was a woman, what would that procedure be called? I wonder how many men had this extra bit cut off?
I was ignorant about missing this extra bit until today, and I was looking at the pictures...
In that light, it seems perfectly natural that my health insurance pays for my viagra, but doesn't pay for birth control. A little bit of justice even.
I think I was a lot happier when I was ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the overt purpose, both in the Muslim and African contexts is to keep women from infidelity and premarital sex. A man won't marry a girl unless she has had an operation like this in certain tribes. Female genital mutilation might be enforced by women, but the pressure comes from the men.
I think it's fair to say that men would not suddenly become celibate if women were to discontinue the practice. This argument simply sidesteps the issue of female responsibility for their actions. As always when women are opressed, the feminist response is to "cherchez la homme".
Well, in this case, men are peripherally if at all, involved. It would be just as valid, and better supported by the information available, to say that it is not men afraid of their wives straying but wives afraid of their husbands straying to those nubile young women that they mutilate. They can't very well control their husbands, but making a coming of age ceremony which removes the incentive for young women to pursue their husbands is well within their power. When the tradition started, they didn't have to give up their own enjoyment of sex, merely that of young people under their authority. Better yet, they get to blame those nasty evil men for their own heinous acts.
As the submitter to whom you earlier referred, I don't subscribe neither the thesis that it is a result of fearful men or the result of fearful women, being equally skeptical of both theses. I think it is entirely reasonable however, to object to slander that is pure speculation on the part of feminists.
If you wish to have a respectful discussion, it would behoove you to behave in a respectful fashion. If you don't, there's no point in crying foul when you are treated in an equally disrespectful fashion, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take a look at my member#, n00b.
After recently upgrading my OS and security, my automatic registration here went south. Being *too busy with actual activism* to bother searching through my massive email archives for my old password, I've simply been posting AU -- but with my standard sigline, more than sufficient to identify me to the old regulars here and to the mods.
I suggest you try to take a life lesson, about not shooting your mouth off, from the responses of others regarding your shallow knowledge of the subject. I happen to be just *one* of the specialists here on the topic, and as you can see, I was correct about the relative degree of informedness between you and the regulars.
We have *standards* around here -- traditional *male* standards, not modern, multiculturalist, postmodern femelitist ones.
We're not likely to pay attention to your criticisms when you fail to take full responsibility for your own behavior, and then try to rely upon multiculturalist, postmodern femelitist dogma as a rationalization to justify your victimization whining about getting your nose whapped with the paper for running your ignorant, sarcastic mouth. To say nothing of your false accusations about people trying to stop you from speaking.
All your current behavior is likely to get you is a classification as a fifth columnist trying to screw with us. Because nobody is calling for you to be silenced. The only thing you're being told is know better what you're talking about before you start spouting off.
And when you blatantly misrepresent that as some kind of attempt at censorship against you in particular, let alone in principle as a common occurrence around here, it sets off our 'troll' alerts.
It's not about others stopping you from speaking.
It's about you refusing to listen when *they* do.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't intend to be subversive, just to keep others honest.
Out of all of the responses to my last message, only one was not on the subject of male circumcision, which was a small tangent of what I was saying. I don't take that particular one as a refutation, but as an equally valid opinion.
Please inform me where I am using "postmodern femelitist dogma." I have very rarely been accused of not listening to others' opinions. So opinion away.
If possible, try not to attack me when you do so! Criticize my arguments, but save the personal attacks for when you need them, eg, against a real postmodern feminazi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scratch that. Personal attacks are not a good way to get your argument across, period. Neither is sarcasm, but I already apologized for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:47 AM August 30th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Acksiom, what the hell does your sig line mean, anyway? I've always wondered about that... :)
Something like, "don't let the bastards grind you down", I presume?
-h
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:17 AM August 30th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
We have *standards* around here -- traditional *male* standards, not modern, multiculturalist, postmodern femelitist ones.
Yes. I agree. We do have standards like logical/rational argument based in obvious notions of right and wrong. Unlike the feminist opposition. We actually need to be able to document our claims .... unlike our feminist opposition. We actually need to be honest ... unlike our feminist opposition. We actually need to justify our position .... unlike our feminist opposition. We are actually right ... unlike our feminist opposition. We are actually good ... unlike our evil feminist opposition.....
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of genital mutilation are men. The number are not even comparable, and to call it a womans issue is insulting.
Man have been routeinly mutilated for thousands of years. I know I was. Just about all the men i know were. I don't know of a single woman this has been done to. You have to go to some small tribe in some far away place to find any example of it at all.
On the other hand, I had to neary threaten the doctors and nurses at my sons birth to prevent them from abusing and mutilating my son. THEY STILL DONT USE ANESTEIC.
Next up is the flamers who will claim all sorts of specious and indefinsible things about male genital mutilation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:39 PM August 28th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Next up is the flamers who will claim all sorts of specious and indefinsible things about male genital mutilation."
yeah, I know...we mustn't complain about our genitals being mutilated in front of women who not have not had a knife anywhere near their genitals to be mutilated, but who also had 0% chance of this happening to them in the first place...
I agreed with your whole post..and I know very well the frequent comments of disgust for even talking about it being unfair that this happens to boys/men...
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man I wish I knew an ambulance chaser who was involved in mens issues. I bet I could make progress on ending this brutal practice, because of my case. I know for a fact they filed an incident report on my verbal abuse of them when this happened. I wonder if I have a case to sue them for emotional damage, because they were insensitive to my own mutilation.
Also it would have the side benefit of exposing these people for who they are. I am pretty sure the OB/Gyn was a gender feminist. I would pledge all my winnings to ending this practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:27 PM August 28th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Full name, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child?
Intactivist legal representation is their speciality. Here's their webpage:
http://www.arclaw.org/
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black shit with big block letters
In the spirit of "I had an abortion"
"Genital mutilation victim"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:27 AM August 29th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Great idea.
Hey Ray, if you make such a t-shirt I'll sure buy one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
black shit?
Umm, I really don't think I would walk around wearing a shit, black or other. sorry.
:-)
Couldn't resist!
The Biscuit Queen
Actually, that is a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:21 PM August 30th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think they have black shirts, but I'll try to throw something together. I like it. I was talking with a friend over the weekend that we are most effective when we publicize specific ways that we are discriminated against or treated abusively. Great idea.
When you wear something like that in public you can usually spot the feminists right away by their reaction. They're ones with their heads spinning in 360 degree circles at about 100 mph.
Ray
=================================================
Jen:
I haven't forgot about the other shirt regarding domestic violence, just got side tracked doing a protest about a week ago.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:43 PM August 30th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the T-shirt
Click Genital Mutilation Victim
Please don't feel anxious about cronstructive criticism if you don't like the color or style, etc. Anything made bad or made well can always be made better.
Sincerely, Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item. All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:27 PM August 28th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"Look at our reactions to women who wear mini-skirts, cleavage-revealing tops, thong bikinis."
Yeah-- I am totally terrified of women who dress like that. No, wait, I didn't mean 'terrified'.
I meant I totally LUST-AFTER women who dress like that and I wish to God that they would do so more often. That's how terrified I am.
How the deuce is it that men FEAR sexual women? If us men are so freaked-out and terrified about female sexuality, then why on earth do men buy porn which portrays women who love sex? Why aren't men prone to suing women for sexual harassment? Give me a break!
"Yet we also fetishize highly-sexed women..."
Gee, how about that? On one hand, men FEAR sexual women and yet men FETISHIZE sexual women. My God-- us men must be a bunch of schitzophrenics who demand impossible things! Poor women-- they just can't win in this male-dominated world!
Or-- perhaps he's merely describing two oversimplified extreme aspects of a complex world and conflating them in a way that bears no relation to reality but makes powerful emotional appeals on the theme of 'women in peril'. Take your pick.
This article doesn't even deserve the honor of being called 'foolhardy'. How the deuce do people come-up with this malarkey?
"Brian Alexander is a California-based writer who covers sex, relationships and health. He is a contributing editor at Glamour..."
Ah. Glamour. There we go.
http://niceguy.dearingfilm.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:17 PM August 29th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
"How the deuce"
I love STEWIE, from "FAMILY GUY"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While we may or may not do all of the stuff listed in the article to female sexuality, it all pales compared to what's done to male sexuality, criminalization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have always hated the human rights abuses and superstition promulgated by the church, but shit, it turns out it was all my fault all along! The Spanish Inquisition was just another one of the bad things that men do to women. 'Religion is just a cover - men are scared'. Feminists do enjoy a good conspiracy theory, don't they? It's interesting to note that the most church-goers are women.
Feminists also enjoy taunting men. Courage is the principal male virtue - men have no right to be 'scared', and those who are deserve nothing but ridicule. It makes them feel tough to think that men are scared of them, but the fact is, if someone has the capacity to harm you, then they are scary. Feminists DO have power, and they ARE prepared to abuse it, and that IS scary.
Whose sexuality is most marginalised by society?
Sex toys used by women are glamorous, but sex toys used by men are shameful and ridiculous. When a woman masturbates, it's because she's liberated, when a man masturbates it's because he's a loser. Male (hetero)sexuality is characterised as being essentially coercive, destructive and predatory. I'm sick of listening to these middle-class women whining about how everyone is picking on them. They are the most privileged human beings in the history of the world, and all they can do is complain.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
