|
On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:
There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two.
As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point?
They are both forced genital cutting on children. Both violate a person's right to intact genitals. The reasons given to justify the two are nearly identical. They are listed side by side here, on a site defending girls from forced genital cutting:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
|
On February 12 2013 03:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two. As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point? Cutting the foreskin desensitizes the dick. If you don't think that literally cutting off nerve endings has no effect, go be a scientist because you're so smart. It also causes physical pain which causes trauma at SUCH AN EARLY AGE. They are both done for cleanliness, for "muh religion", while women are currently "castrated" or their vag stitched up, feminists are advocating the complete castration of all males. http://grisham.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/10/12147695-all-men-should-be-castrated-international-castration-dayThat may not be a media corporation, but if you simply google "all men should be castrated", you'll find some real support. Now, unless you're cool with that, then go ahead and castrate yourself.
I'm not 100% sure why I'm responding to this but I'm kind of bored today so here goes.
It's hard to tell whether or not male circumcision actually does anything to the sensitivity of the penis since comparative studies are next to impossible to perform. And even if such a study was to be done (an adult male who experiences sex while uncircumcised and then get a circumcision) would not be helpful since men who had circumcisions at birth would have different experiences. Since the actual enjoyment of sex comes from the stimulatio of the head and not the foreskin it's possible that circumcised men enjoy it more then uncircumcised men. But because we will never know all we are left with to discuss is does male circumcision prevent men from enjoying sex. Since it doesn't (and if you google some anecdotal evidence that completely proves me wrong then I will google some anecdotal evidence that proves me right) there goes that reason. As far as pain goes I don't imagine there being anything more painful for a human being then being squeezed through a birth canal while your skull literally compresses in on itself (see I can random wikipedia links in as well). And yet somehow not just the cesarean babies turn out to be ok later in life. Human psyche has no problems dealing with pain at SUCH AN EARLY AGE (don't know why that's capitalized). And besides most babies don't even really feel the pain of circumcision since nowadays the area is numbed before the circumcision is performed. So there goes that argument too. Are there no good arguments against male circumcision? There certainly are. It seems that the foreskin helps guard against STDs (especially UTIs) but if you just raise your son right that shouldn't be a problem anyways. And as far as doing unnecessary medical procedures and the risks that come with it there is that too but that's up to the parents to decide what is and isn't necessary for hygienic, aesthetic, and spiritual purposes.
Female circumcision is a whole different ball game and I just don't see the need to argue that any further.
I'm not going to google "all men should be castrated" in order to find out the validity of it. I'm also not going to google "moon landing faking","Sandy Newton faking", or "undeniable evidence of Bigfoot". The internet gives every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or Sally if you're a feminist), a soapbox. Doesn't mean that I have to go listen to them.
And finally not that this has anything to do with anything but
If you don't think that literally cutting off nerve endings has no effect, go be a scientist because you're so smart
I actually am a scientist so I must be so smart?
|
On February 12 2013 03:55 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:
There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two.
As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point? They are both forced genital cutting on children. Both violate a person's right to intact genitals. The reasons given to justify the two are nearly identical. They are listed side by side here, on a site defending girls from forced genital cutting: http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
Here's a list of everything that I feel like i need to know about circumsicions as has been proven by modern western medical knowledge:
Necessery?
Male...no
Female...No
Dangerous in the short term?
Male...no
Female...YES!!!
Harmful in the long term?
Male...no
Female...YES!!!
As far as the right of children to intact genitals...meh. Children certainly have rights but I believe that parents have more rights. I think that a parent's immediate spiritual needs trumps the possible discontent of the future child (as long as the child's life isn't endangered etc...). And again it's almost as if you're saying that every circumcised boy will be unhappy with the state of his genitals 20 years down the line. Trust me that's not true. So nope, still not a double standard in the western world. Sorry.
|
On February 12 2013 04:38 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 03:55 Mothra wrote:On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:
There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two.
As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point? They are both forced genital cutting on children. Both violate a person's right to intact genitals. The reasons given to justify the two are nearly identical. They are listed side by side here, on a site defending girls from forced genital cutting: http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html Here's a list of everything that I feel like i need to know about circumsicions as has been proven by modern western medical knowledge: Necessery? Male...no Female...No Dangerous in the short term? Male...no Female...YES!!! Harmful in the long term? Male...no Female...YES!!! As far as the right of children to intact genitals...meh. Children certainly have rights but I believe that parents have more rights. I think that a parent's immediate spiritual needs trumps the possible discontent of the future child (as long as the child's life isn't endangered etc...). And again it's almost as if you're saying that every circumcised boy will be unhappy with the state of his genitals 20 years down the line. Trust me that's not true. So nope, still not a double standard in the western world. Sorry.
I did not say that every circumcised boy will be unhappy with the state of his penis. Not every girl is unhappy with having her genitals cut either. In fact many believe it is good and necessary. Your "proven by western medical knowledge" is rather meaningless because there is a big dearth of studies on the long term effects of male genital cutting. As far a short term harm, in the US the reported deaths hover at around 100 per year. Then there are the "successful" cases where they cut so much skin that the penis cannot accommodate an erection without bending, and hair from the scrotum is pulled up the shaft. I'm amazed that you think surgery, which you admit is unnecessary, on a healthy child is OK because it "fulfills the spiritual needs of the parent". Only if the child is male, of course. Or is it my right to make cuts on my daughter's genitals so long as they weren't life threatening, and I were fulfilling my spiritual needs?
|
On February 12 2013 04:25 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 03:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 12 2013 03:18 FryBender wrote:There is no double standard because they are not the same thing. One is something that has been done since antiquity with little to no harm or long term damage. The other is an incredibly invasive body mutilation that usually has life-long repercussions. Yes accidents happen and if you don't need to do it why risk it, but you simply can't compare the two. As for the nurse going free, that's up to the courts. And you're right if she was doing female circumcisions she would be punished more harshly because female circumsision is not accepted in our society. What's your point? Cutting the foreskin desensitizes the dick. If you don't think that literally cutting off nerve endings has no effect, go be a scientist because you're so smart. It also causes physical pain which causes trauma at SUCH AN EARLY AGE. They are both done for cleanliness, for "muh religion", while women are currently "castrated" or their vag stitched up, feminists are advocating the complete castration of all males. http://grisham.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/10/12147695-all-men-should-be-castrated-international-castration-dayThat may not be a media corporation, but if you simply google "all men should be castrated", you'll find some real support. Now, unless you're cool with that, then go ahead and castrate yourself. I'm not 100% sure why I'm responding to this but I'm kind of bored today so here goes. It's hard to tell whether or not male circumcision actually does anything to the sensitivity of the penis since comparative studies are next to impossible to perform. And even if such a study was to be done (an adult male who experiences sex while uncircumcised and then get a circumcision) would not be helpful since men who had circumcisions at birth would have different experiences. Since the actual enjoyment of sex comes from the stimulatio of the head and not the foreskin it's possible that circumcised men enjoy it more then uncircumcised men. But because we will never know all we are left with to discuss is does male circumcision prevent men from enjoying sex. Since it doesn't (and if you google some anecdotal evidence that completely proves me wrong then I will google some anecdotal evidence that proves me right) there goes that reason. As far as pain goes I don't imagine there being anything more painful for a human being then being squeezed through a birth canal while your skull literally compresses in on itself (see I can random wikipedia links in as well). And yet somehow not just the cesarean babies turn out to be ok later in life. Human psyche has no problems dealing with pain at SUCH AN EARLY AGE (don't know why that's capitalized). And besides most babies don't even really feel the pain of circumcision since nowadays the area is numbed before the circumcision is performed. So there goes that argument too. Are there no good arguments against male circumcision? There certainly are. It seems that the foreskin helps guard against STDs (especially UTIs) but if you just raise your son right that shouldn't be a problem anyways. And as far as doing unnecessary medical procedures and the risks that come with it there is that too but that's up to the parents to decide what is and isn't necessary for hygienic, aesthetic, and spiritual purposes. Female circumcision is a whole different ball game and I just don't see the need to argue that any further. I'm not going to google "all men should be castrated" in order to find out the validity of it. I'm also not going to google "moon landing faking","Sandy Newton faking", or "undeniable evidence of Bigfoot". The internet gives every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or Sally if you're a feminist), a soapbox. Doesn't mean that I have to go listen to them. And finally not that this has anything to do with anything but Show nested quote + If you don't think that literally cutting off nerve endings has no effect, go be a scientist because you're so smart I actually am a scientist so I must be so smart?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
CONCLUSIONS:
The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
As a humanist, forcing this procedure on a person against their will is illogical and wrong. It has no basis other than
>muh feelings
Which is funny, because those who have been circumcised have less feelings because they've been cut off, against their will. (for the most part)
|
How is mutilation of babies' genitals legal in 2013? :O
|
And a new study was just published this month about the importance of the male foreskin in male sexuality: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
If you are truly interested in defending genital integrity for males, please keep it separate from your attacks on females. Some of the most vocal opponents of male genital cutting are women. The rates are dropping in the US largely due to the effort of mothers who are doing their own research and educating each other.
On February 12 2013 05:35 BadBinky wrote:
How is mutilation of babies' genitals legal in 2013? :O
Not only legal, it is big business. The procedure costs anywhere from $200 to $1000, and the amount of baby boys cut in the US is around 1 million per year. It is still covered by government insurance in many states.
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526
We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis.
I wish forums were peer reviewed also.
Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal.
|
On February 12 2013 07:09 FryBender wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526Show nested quote +We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis. I wish forums were peer reviewed also. Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal.
I don't personally know any females who are unhappy with their genitals being cut. How is that relevant? It is still an important issue. If I sarcastically called forced genital cutting of "poor little girls" an "amazing injustice" I would get flamed and maybe even banned. Keep pretending there is no double standard.
|
On February 10 2013 15:22 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 10:46 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Did you guys know there are different types of FGM? As stated in the link...
There's a type where it's impossible for the woman to have a child, but there are types where it removes sexual sensation. Removing foreskin also takes away from sexual sensation. Both, for the sake of cleanliness.
Cutting off a baby's foreskin without his permission should be considered assault or something equivalent, if circumcising girls is illegal. Except girls don't have foreskins. I don't see why you're trying to equalise two procedures which apply to different body parts on different people. Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:53 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 10 2013 09:50 sam!zdat wrote:
because you're not actually advocating healthy masculinity, you're just a reactionary anti-feminist stooge You're just a reactionary anti-masculinist stooge. That's easy. Why don't you provide any intellectual argument? Did you know that female genital mutilation is illegal in the US, while male circumcision is not? http://www.nocirc.org/publish/9pam.pdf If you think drawing unanalogous parallels, making illogical inferences, and bringing up irrelevant points constitute an "intellectual argument", then I have bad news for you son.
I don't care about the argument in this thread, but stop calling people son. It makes you sound like an idiot and it's just a stupid and condescending thing to call people.
|
On February 12 2013 07:22 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:09 FryBender wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis. I wish forums were peer reviewed also. Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal. I don't personally know any females who are unhappy with their genitals being cut. How is that relevant? It is still an important issue. If I sarcastically called forced genital cutting of "poor little girls" an "amazing injustice" I would get flamed and maybe even banned. Keep pretending there is no double standard.
I am not pretending that there is no double standard there is no double standard. I can't believe that this has to be spelled out for you but ok here goes. The main difference between female circumcision and male circumcision is this: Female circumcision is overwhelmingly performed in cultures where women are considered second class and sexual norms are very different and by western standards backwards. Women are not supposed to enjoy sex and therefore the genital mutilation is fine since in the eyes of those cultures they don't do anything to women that women don't "deserve." In those same cultures women don't have any power to talk differently and if they speak out and say that sex is painful for them then they will be told that's how it's supposed to be and their only job is to please their husbands and having enjoyment from sex is sinful. The medical procedure itself is also dangerous and needs to be performed by trained medical professionals (which if they are trained medical professionals they will usually refuse to do the procedure anyways). So it is extremely dangerous for a class of citizens who families usually don't care about anyways. Those people need others to intervene on their behalf. On the opposite end of a spectrum is male circumcision. A practice that has been done for thousands of years to males. Trust me if men suffered from circumcisions we'd hear about it. They don't. Period. So no there is no double standard. One is a serious issue that has to be addressed and hopefully eradicated the other is a triviality that people with nothing better to do obsess about.
If modern age has proven anything it's that if you said you had a way to end all suffering on earth and bring eternal peace and bliss to everyone there would sprout a "serious" movement of people who would be against eternal bliss because it infringes on my personal right to be miserable. Enough of this phony activism. Aren't there enough real problems in the world?
|
I don't feel like I'm educated enough on the subject to claim whether circumcision should be accepted or not, but arguing that it's "fine because it's been done that way for a long time" is pretty dumb :p There are dozens of examples of really stupid practices that are still considered acceptable 'only' because it's been that way for a long time, even though everyone knows it's stupid.
|
Everyone should have autonomy over their own body. I think it's the most important fundamental human right.
|
On February 10 2013 09:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:09 Myles wrote:
Wow, even as someone who agrees that feminists go a bit overboard sometimes, the reasoning by the OP makes me sad.
Yes, there are double standards when it comes to male/female molestation and circumcision, but you're not the first person to bring this up and that they exist is not some black mark on feminism in general. My reasoning is that if "feminists" are really for "equality" then why make a word that implies femininity be considered for "equality", yet doesn't imply anything about masculinity? Why not just say, "I'm a humanist" or "I'm an equalist" or something. But hey, if me being for equality makes you a sad panda, then I don't know...
What a stupid argument. The reason the word is 'feminism' is because the movement started at a time when women were considered to have vastly less rights and opportunities, thus it made sense to approach gender equality starting with women's issues (being perceived as greater in magnitude and number). Regardless, the goal of the movement (at least by definition) is still only equality for women... Which, if you're not an idiot, is quite obviously the same as equality for men, at least regarding issues which involve both sexes.
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the feminist movement either, but that argument is terrible.
|
On February 12 2013 07:09 FryBender wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526Show nested quote +We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis. I wish forums were peer reviewed also. Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal.
"Significantly" here is the key word. Still reduces the pleasure. So, it's okay to literally reduce the pleasure of sex for one gender, but not the other, in your eyes? So barbaric.
On February 12 2013 09:16 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2013 09:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 10 2013 09:09 Myles wrote:
Wow, even as someone who agrees that feminists go a bit overboard sometimes, the reasoning by the OP makes me sad.
Yes, there are double standards when it comes to male/female molestation and circumcision, but you're not the first person to bring this up and that they exist is not some black mark on feminism in general. My reasoning is that if "feminists" are really for "equality" then why make a word that implies femininity be considered for "equality", yet doesn't imply anything about masculinity? Why not just say, "I'm a humanist" or "I'm an equalist" or something. But hey, if me being for equality makes you a sad panda, then I don't know... What a stupid argument. The reason the word is 'feminism' is because the movement started at a time when women were considered to have vastly less rights and opportunities, thus it made sense to approach gender equality starting with women's issues (being perceived as greater in magnitude and number). Regardless, the goal of the movement (at least by definition) is still only equality for women... Which, if you're not an idiot, is quite obviously the same as equality for men, at least regarding issues which involve both sexes. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the feminist movement either, but that argument is terrible.
If the movement is only for the equality of women, where the fuck is equality for men? Honestly, is that what you think? Do you not know that in France, if a mother wants to say that someone is her child's father, getting a paternity test isn't exactly legal? And that fatherhood is defined socially, not biologically, which it is for mothers? Shit like that is not making sure men are protected in the process, it completely leaves them out of the equation, or puts them on the other side of the positive aspects for the movement.
http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-france
In India, I believe, there's a recent law passed stating that a women can divorce her husband within 24 hours and take 50% of his property. The husband, however, is fucked, because he can't do the same. I guess they should be trolled and mocked and trivialized when they stand up for themselves, which is funny, because that's what women usually look for in a man. I'll see if I can find the video coverage, but it was in a different language, so I can't remember the title.
|
On February 12 2013 09:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 07:09 FryBender wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526We present a comparative analysis of uncircumcised and circumcised men using a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests that evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function. Our study controlled for factors, including age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension, that have been shown to alter neurologic testing. In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis. I wish forums were peer reviewed also. Anyways you guys can keep fighting this amazing injustice against poor little boys (although I personally don't know of any men who are unhappy with their circumcision I'm sure they exist outside of activists minds) I still think it's not a big deal. "Significantly" here is the key word. Still reduces the pleasure. So, it's okay to literally reduce the pleasure of sex for one gender, but not the other, in your eyes? So barbaric. Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 09:16 Swede wrote:On February 10 2013 09:15 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On February 10 2013 09:09 Myles wrote:
Wow, even as someone who agrees that feminists go a bit overboard sometimes, the reasoning by the OP makes me sad.
Yes, there are double standards when it comes to male/female molestation and circumcision, but you're not the first person to bring this up and that they exist is not some black mark on feminism in general. My reasoning is that if "feminists" are really for "equality" then why make a word that implies femininity be considered for "equality", yet doesn't imply anything about masculinity? Why not just say, "I'm a humanist" or "I'm an equalist" or something. But hey, if me being for equality makes you a sad panda, then I don't know... What a stupid argument. The reason the word is 'feminism' is because the movement started at a time when women were considered to have vastly less rights and opportunities, thus it made sense to approach gender equality starting with women's issues (being perceived as greater in magnitude and number). Regardless, the goal of the movement (at least by definition) is still only equality for women... Which, if you're not an idiot, is quite obviously the same as equality for men, at least regarding issues which involve both sexes. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the feminist movement either, but that argument is terrible. If the movement is only for the equality of women, where the fuck is equality for men? Honestly, is that what you think? Do you not know that in France, if a mother wants to say that someone is her child's father, getting a paternity test isn't exactly legal? And that fatherhood is defined socially, not biologically, which it is for mothers? Shit like that is not making sure men are protected in the process, it completely leaves them out of the equation, or puts them on the other side of the positive aspects for the movement. http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-franceIn India, I believe, there's a recent law passed stating that a women can divorce her husband within 24 hours and take 50% of his property. The husband, however, is fucked, because he can't do the same. I guess they should be trolled and mocked and trivialized when they stand up for themselves, which is funny, because that's what women usually look for in a man. I'll see if I can find the video coverage, but it was in a different language, so I can't remember the title.
You didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote. Equality for women IS equality for men. Spend 10 seconds thinking about that sentence. If women have equal rights in the workplace what do men have...? Equal rights. It's implicit in the original statement.
I'm not debating that feminism has taken a lot of things too far. I'm just debating your specific argument regarding the word 'feminism'. If you want to talk to people read what they say and respond to what they say. Don't just barrage people with facts and stats which are irrelevant (to the specific point). That's exactly what crazy feminists do (or just crazy people in general).
|
The saddest thing about this thread is that the ridiculous "I'm a man and I'm okay with the status quo, and I don't understand why some people aren't" flag-waving is detracting from an issue that is actually worth discussing, which is - what rights should parents have over their children's bodies?
Obviously, there's medical proxy, and male circumcision is still categorised as a medical procedure. Whether it should be a medical procedure or not is certainly debatable - the most prevalent for the latter would probably be that given contemporary first world health standards, the number of incidents of disease and infection that surgical circumcision was historically designed to prevent is almost negligible. On the other hand, plastic surgery is an accepted type of medical procedure which, in a lot of cases, has nothing to do with the "health" of the individual. It's also worth noting that there are many cases of children born in with minor physical abnormalities where the parents have made the executive decision to have them surgically corrected long before the child has any cognition of it - is that an acceptable practice? Why? Why not?
|
To fight for women's rights is not fighting for men's rights. It's funny, men's is spelled wrong, while women's right wrong. Lol.
They are not ensuring protection for men, in case there is legislation against men. Which, in parts of the world, THERE IS.
To fight for equality is to fight for equality, not women's or men's right, just rights for fucking everyone.
But hey, trivialize people who fight for men's rights around the world some more, just like the feminists did with the hashtag. Make it a joke when men stand up for themselves. That's feminism, that's how the media and the nation has perceived the hijacking, just some big joke.
Yet, if people were to do the same to the other hashtag, they'd be insta-banned and shit would go down.
|
|
|
On February 12 2013 09:45 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
To fight for women's rights is not fighting for men's rights. It's funny, men's is spelled wrong, while women's right wrong. Lol.
They are not ensuring protection for men, in case there is legislation against men. Which, in parts of the world, THERE IS.
To fight for equality is to fight for equality, not women's or men's right, just rights for fucking everyone.
But hey, trivialize people who fight for men's rights around the world some more, just like the feminists did with the hashtag. Make it a joke when men stand up for themselves. That's feminism, that's how the media and the nation has perceived the hijacking, just some big joke.
Yet, if people were to do the same to the other hashtag, they'd be insta-banned and shit would go down.
Sigh. It's not a difficult concept but you're still not getting it. Fighting for equality for one sex on issues where both men and women are involved IS fighting for equality for both sexes. Do you know what equality means? If one sex is equal then both are. It's not fucking hard.
Your original argument was to do with the root of the word. I am showing you why that argument sucks balls. It has nothing to do with what's happening today. It's simple semantics. Get some arguing skills. You're as bad if not worse than any feminist I've debated with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
