|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:46 PM July 24th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Now I would like to see the involuntary, non-therapeautic circumcision of infants (they're under 12) classified as a violent sex crime, and for circumcising physicians to be tried, convicted and castrated under the bill as amended to include surgical castration.
Other than that, the bill is sexist in an ugly way. It's too bad that so many men's activists don't see the connection between the lack of concern about slicing off portions of male anatomy in infancy and the attitude that it's ok to legistate castration. The female body is sacrosanct, however. The lesson that men should make sacrifices is ingrained early on. We cut thousands of neurons off, cut a main artery and cut off enough skin to limit sexual maturation and growth--check out the experiences of the restoring men and doctors opposed to circumcision on the net if you doubt me for one femptosecond--and tell men that they should be happy to have what we leave them. After all, men they violate the law, they can have more removed. We shame them and ridicule them if they complain. We may even lie to them and say that as long as erection and the ability to reproduce remains, no harm is done. Well, not all of them lie: some believe in the medical equivalent of a flat earth.
This is an extension of the attitude that medical-inductrial complex is free to remove whatever it wants from men without their consent, and they should be grateful for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LibertyUNH on 12:11 AM July 25th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I am sad to see the valid discussion of the issue of cruel and unusual punishment turning into Anti-Semitic stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:12 AM July 25th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
This is absolutely false and intellectually dishonest. The notion that all persons have a right to uninterrupted sexual development is not anti-Semitic. There are Jews who oppose involuntary circumcision, based on changing notions of human rights and medical opinion. The attempt to characterize the right to uninterrupted sexual development as anti-semitic is bigoted against Muslims, who practice circumcision. However, I assert the right to uninterrupted sexual development as a Jew; moreover, it is no more anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim to be opposed to involuntary circumcision, and to believe in the right to uninterrupted sexual development, than it is anti-white to be opposed to slavery.
In any case, I was referring to non-religious non-therapeautic uinvoluntary circumcision, so the attempt to characterize my assertions as anti-Semitic can fairly be called intellectually dishonest and radically misconceived.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LibertyUNH on 05:03 AM July 25th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
It is both Anti-Semitic and Anti-Muslim to try to ban our religious practice. Please understand, that to attack a religion would cause a split in men's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:18 AM July 25th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
It is both Anti-Semitic and Anti-Muslim to try to ban our religious practice. Please understand, that to attack a religion would cause a split in men's movement.
Then the FGM laws must be repealed, on this logic. A split in the men's movement, between those who cannot stand to live with themselves unless they mutilate another person's genitals would be fine with me. I consider such recidivist circum-pedophiles to be genital terrorists.
However, I will repeat this as many times as needed until you understand: I was referring to non-religious non-therapeautic involuntary circumcision, so the attempt to characterize my assertions as anti-Semitic can fairly be called intellectually dishonest and radically misconceived. A law that distinguishes religious from non-religious involuntary circumcision is not anti-Semitic. But you will never admit this. because you are intellectually incapable of separating religious from non-religious circumcision. This conceptual difficulty on your part does not invalidate my right to genital integrity in any form whatsoever.
If you're religious, and you must circumcise your sons, go right ahead. But those of us who are not deserve and demand equal prottection under the 14th amendment of the United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:26 PM July 24th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"The amendment requiring surgical castration for violent offenders who assault children under 12 was introduced by Rep. Steve Hurst, D-Munford."
How do you chemically castrate a woman or was that even considered?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:36 PM July 24th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The pint is that involuntary sexual surgery on men is permissible, and not permissible on women.
When will men's activists get it though their skulls that involuntary sexual surgery on men is detrimental to their sex lives, and all that a healthy sex life depends on? Probably never.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:35 PM July 24th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The MR movement may not have made circumcision its highest priority, but it does address it. NCFM board member Steven Svoboda once even spoke before the United Nations about the harms of male circumcision and NCFM has posted information on its website about the issue. I've sent letters to the editor on the issue and I'm working with anti-circumcision experts right now on a case in L.A.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:29 PM July 24th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
What the hell happens if someone is falsly accused? What is to stop a woman from framing a man with his own child in order to get back at him? What constitutes violent sex crimes?
What if they simply arrest and convict the wrong man?
I cannot believe this got through! I think call to Glenn Sacks may be in order here.
Geez, what is this world coming to?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I'm wondering. This really worries me.
I am opposed to irreversible actions being taken only for the reason that they are irreversible. This is why I'm against the death penalty, and why I am DEFINATELY against mutiliation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 10:45 PM July 24th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Is this some kind of sick joke? Someone please tell me it's a joke.
If it's real...I don't know what to say. Men are being treated like animals too much as it is, and now this.
Now not only can false allegations ruin a man's life, they can physically mutilate him too...great. Hey, let's have mandatory death penalties for males who jaywalk on tuesdays while we're at it, what do ya say? And if a female accuses one of them and gets a conviction, she wins a free car!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:07 AM July 25th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Have fun in Nazi America, I am out of here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:29 AM July 25th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. These legislators are frightful miscreants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:39 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
This is the country that believes the Middle East where they can chop off your hand for theft, etc., is a backward area that may need to be invaded to bring their people the protection of a Democracy !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:29 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
That's irrational: you need help. There are male legislators responsible for this legal monstrosity. Vote them out of office. Or move out of the state where this is legislated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:02 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Moving out of the state where this happens works as long as there are states where this does not happen. How long will that be true? How long will there be jurisdictions where such a law does not exist? If this kind of legal obscenity becomes popular, there may be no place to go shortly.
I grant you, violence is not a good option. In fact, it will simply be used to justify worse oppression - our opponents use even online comments such as the one above to argue that men are dangerous and need to be controlled even now.
We still have the vote - we need to use it for all it is worth. We still have economic power - we need to use it, as well.
Gender Feminists seem to have gained control over many official and unofficial state institutions, and can use the machinery of the state to (cautiously) work their will. What have they missed? How can we undermine them? how can we turn their own tools against them?
Calls for violence will help Gender Feminists convince those who might have been our friends to be our enemies. Rather, lets do to the Gender Feminists what they have too often done to us - help them pick the knife and pat them on the back as they cut their own political throats. Then we can express shock and dismay while we fill in the grave of Gender Feminism. And drive a stake through it's heart, hopefully.
Tom P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:47 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
That's why _if_ violence is the only workable solution (and it may be) it must be overwhelming. It cannot be a Marc Lepin but instead something on the scale of an IRA (who have fought against the british since the 19th century) (preferably without killing any innocent men, instead only killing guilty women's rights activists of the 'weaker sex').
It is very possible that force is the only real workable solution. If this is so it must be great force.
For all the talk of using the vote... it is not used. Violence is always easier then peaceful means, sometimes peaceful means are not possible (1/2 the population _IS_ against us). With the sheer amout of feminists who belong to the 'weaker sex' finding massive numbers of guilty targets would not be a problem. Yes it is male senators who sponsored this bill but it is the 'weaker sex' vote that puts them into position.
We should not fear our enemy, we should not hold our toungs and cower before them. Let us be heard, one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:51 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Shall I kill my daughter to save my sons? Or allow someone else to do so in the name of Men's Rights? Not bloody likely! I'll support a way that allows my children to have the same opportunities and rights.
If the best idea you can come up with is violence, you will quickly lose many men who might otherwise be with you, simply because you propose to physically attack their daughters, sisters, mothers and wives.
Or are you trying to provoke, perhaps trying to get some good threatening text in so that feminists can point to it and claim that this website is an example of opressive MRAs and should be closed down?
Violence except in defense against a physical attack is symptomatic of bullying - something I'd expect of a Gender Feminist, not an MRA.
Tom P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Acksiom on 11:34 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Shoo, troll. Shoo.
Icky old troll. Yuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:06 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Shoo, bitch. Shoo.
Icky old bitch. Yuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:29 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Ooh, you are soo good! We can't even tell you are a feminist troll trying to get us to say something damaging.
Guess what, people here do NOT hate women. Some of us ARE women. No one wants women back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, in fact many want women out in the work force side by side with men, equal partners in marriages, and being able to share equally in raising the kids. Men like choices too, which only come when women share them.
Go back to your feminist site and spew that garbage there. Radical feminists eat that language up, if you reverse the genders. MRAs do not.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:48 PM July 26th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
If you want women to vote, have power in marraige, and have power in government then you are on the side of womens rights. I hope you die and I hope it happens in a short period of time. The mens rights movement is pro women in power, it only wants women to carry a velvet beating rod instead of the spiked one they carry now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:20 PM July 27th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
You hope I die? Because I would like to keep the vote? I would like equitable power in marriage and government?
Yeah...OK.
Geez, at least the trolls used to be coherant.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Anonymous user writes "The Alabama state House passed a bill yesterday that would require mandatory castration of persons convicted of violent sex crimes against children under 12 years old.
The associated press story is available