You don't consider female circumcision abuse? I do, he supports that.
Are You a Misogynist?
- Thread starter bybee
- Start date
- Status
You don't consider female circumcision abuse? I do, he supports that.
breast reduction is much more radical and it's common in the us :idunno:
Uh huh ...
I bet you like the idea of being the leader of three men, all with weaknesses except yourself
I like the ruby red slippers and the cute little flying monkey that's in my avatar.
What one? Using a fictional character for my avatar? I know. It's a first. No one else has ever done it. The feminists put me up to it.
:rotfl:
Dorothy was a fictional character.
I bet you like the idea of being the leader of three men, all with weaknesses except yourself
Keep talking, bro. You're a living, breathing monument to male insecurity.
Oh yeah. You got her real good. Real. Good.
Uh-huh.
:dead:
PureX
Well-known member
It's good to be able to see these things for what they are. Every solution starts with recognizing the problem.
How often is it done without the consent of the individual involved?
beats me?
how often is female circumcision done as a culturally accepted artifact in which the participants are willing or too young to object meaningfully?
(by that last bit, I was thinking of my sons' infant circumcision)
I'd wager you couldn't find a single case of it.
Too often, as in, it still happens.
Your son had a female circumcision?
:idunno:
I don't support infant circumcision of any kind, but the female variety is a lot worse.
GFR7
New member
I just feel I'm going in circles with these arguments. My points are dismissed out of hand.
i believe there are health benefits from male circumcision
i don't have any experience with female circumcision, but what i've read online about it being a cultural thing among africans and muslims
meh :idunno:
if you're stuck in one of those culturals, sucks to be you, i guess
GFR7
New member
I do consider it abuse, if the patient is not able to consent or does not consent. Mutilating little girls is not acceptable, imo.
I am against male circumcision on newborn infants here in the US, too. When our son was born, we didn't allow it (despite talk of health benefits). I hope we weren't wrong.....
ETA: Here is what someone on a forum has said:
The people that circumcise girls claim the exact benefits as the people that circumcise boys - more hygienic, healthier, prettier etc. Try debating with them. Female circumcision is certainly linked to lower rates of HIV. Most of the western world condemns female circumcision though, despite promoting male circumcision in Africa. <br />
<br />
Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision though. Sometime there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 52 boys have died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa so far this year.<br />
<br />
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977. <br />
<br />
One victim wrote a book about it:<br />
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."<br />
<br />
Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western ob<x>jections as something more than cultural imperialism.
http://www.experienceproject.com/qu...e-Any-Benefits-To-The-Circumsised-Woman/31018
there's not much point in discussing things with purex :idunno:
That appears to be true. Although, these are very small risks in either case. If a man or a boy feels the need to realize those benefits, let them make that decision for themselves.
There are different types, but some involve the complete removal of the clitoris.
So...you can't be bothered?
no
i don't consider it any more significant than the branding black fraternities used to subject their pledges to :idunno:
i don't consider it any more significant than the branding black fraternities used to subject their pledges to :idunno:
PureX
Well-known member
You're not explaining them: why you hold them, why you believe them. We're here to converse with YOU, not read linked websites written by people we don't know and can't debate about phenomena we are not experiencing as part of our reality.
GFR7
New member
I know, but the articles I post are saying what I believe, but with more authority and more concise language. Look how Tracer Bullet will come back with a bunch of quotes and statistics and links. I try to say why I believe as I do, but you and Tracer simply will not even concede my perspective at a single point. It is like a Vegan and a Beef Rancher arguing. :think:
No one is denying you have an opinion ...
Indeed ... it's still stinging.
PureX
Well-known member
Regarding marriage:
You're a conservative. You are instinctually driven toward preserving the status quo as you perceive it, because you instinctually perceive it as being the best, most righteous, and divinely authorized way we humans should behave. Would I be correct in assuming this?
And because this is part of your nature, you perceive the changes happening around you as a problem; a threat. And you are warning us about this threat because you believe it is a threat. Am I still correct?
But I am not a conservative, so I am not inclined to protect the status quo as being the best, most righteous, or divinely authorized way of doing things. I'm a liberal, which means I encourage adaptation to new ways of thinking and doing things. For me, life is change, and change is an inevitable part of 'God's plan'. As we change, we grow and mature, and hopefully, improve as human beings. And that's what I'm seeing happening with marriage equality, and women's rights.
In this instance, I think the conditions and ethics favor adaptability, not rigidity. And I believe the results will bear that out.
So what did I get wrong?
- Status