Because Sometimes More is More

 

Breastfeeding Is Now Required By Law In This Country

nerdymouse:

shukr-with-my-coffee:

I am livid!

I am an extended breastfeeding mama. My firstborn nursed for 3+ years, even as I was pregnant, and I am still currently nursing my 1 year old. It is a beautiful, stressful, amazing, and tiring experience; I do believe that whenever there is a choice between the breast and the bottle, that the breast is generally better for both mama and baby, but I am not ignorant to the fact that breastfeeding is a privileged choice and it is a very PERSONAL one that I myself have chosen to make, and that there are many circumstances in which breast is not the best for mother or child or both. 

As if new mothers do not have enough to worry about with a new baby, now she has to worry about being sued if her milk supply doesn’t come in or is insufficient. 

This is harm more women and babies that it will help.

What about domestic and sexual abuse victims? What about mothers with physical or mental illnesses to combat? Can you imagine the hell they would be dragged though if their husbands actually seek to sue and prosecute?

Keep laws away from women’s bodies!

What if she has HIV? What if the baby doesn’t WANT the milk? What if she works so much that she CAN’T breastfeed? I can imagine that breast feeding would be extremely uncomfortable after the infant’s teeth come in. 

intactbynature:

Foreskin is not a birth defect. Every mammal on Earth is born with a foreskin, females included (the clitoral hood). Your son’s genitals do not  require any surgical ‘correction’ or modification. He was born with the foreskin for a reason. To find out why that is, please visit
http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html

intactbynature:

Foreskin is not a birth defect. Every mammal on Earth is born with a foreskin, females included (the clitoral hood). Your son’s genitals do not  require any surgical ‘correction’ or modification. 

He was born with the foreskin for a reason. To find out why that is, please visit

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html

millennialsentinel:

legalizeforeskin:

millennialsentinel:

legalizeforeskin:

talking-fedora:

shaybaymarie:

This is what I wrote in my political science notebook. The fact that this is even a topic to talk about is disgusting. America disgusts me! The fact that there are laws against a woman’s body at all disgusts me. There’s NEVER been a law against a man’s body in America, EVER! Get it straight America. Get it fucking straight!!!!

Conscription. Circumcision.



Conscription doesn’t count because it was in tandem with a law saying women couldn’t fight at all (based on misogynistic ideas of their abilities)And circumcision is the LACK of a law mostly supported by religious leaders that are mostly men. We’re oppressing ourselves, so stop blaming women and help their cause and it’ll help you too.

Conscription counts because it literally is a law that controls the bodies of men in an extreme way, whether it’s “in tandem” with anything else or not. Let’s not shift goalposts please. My grandfather suffered a life-altering injury as a conscript which is a good example why conscription more than overshadows the issue of being excluded from a job that is actually extremely dangerous and requires a huge commitment. So even if we were to count women’s exclusion ffrom combat (which they are less well qualified for because of their lesser strength, especially historically) as a some sort of nullifier for conscription, we’d have to keep in mind that we’re talking about an absolute obligation vs. a narrow restriction.
As far as circumcision as a gross lack of legal protection, it is equally as damaging as a restrictive law. This is obvious since the US law prohibiting FGM could technically be counted as a “law governing women’s bodies”, yet nobody from the women’s rights or the human rights camps would ever attack it on that basis. And this lack of essential legal protection — the kind of protection that is afforded to women* on an absolute basis — is unopposed by large numbers of both men and women, just as abortion restrictions are supported by large numbers from both sexes. 
So no, we’re not blaming women for circumcision or conscription. The point is that men are legally discriminated on a similar scale as women. And I personally do support abortion rights very strongly, so I fail to see the reason for this complaint.

Because while highly valid a complaint against United States law both these examples are used as reasons to completely ignore, derail, or attack feminists when they were all institutionalized by men (in the latter case, religious men).

Circumcision, in it’s current status, is institutionalized by both men and women, which is something that’s abundantly clear when you look at the actors involved at every level, from parents, to obstetricians and family care doctors — many of who are women, to the public at large.
Conscription might be more complicated, since it’s more prevalent historically, so I’m hard pressed to discuss it in depth. However, the selective service system, which is essentially a latent conscription system, is kept in place by the government, which supported (more or less) by regular like you and me, women and men.

So when a discussion about women’s bodies gets turned into a discussion about men’s bodies (excluding discussions of trans* men and women) you’re using a legitimate complaint in a derailing manner. 

The discussion of men’s bodies was directly opened at the outset when someone wrote, “There’s NEVER been a law against a man’s body in America, EVER!” That’s the moment it became a discussion of both men’s and women’s bodies. 
And that’s what happens when somebody makes such direct and sweeping comparison about the sexes/genders — it becomes a discussion of both. And when that person makes a completely untrue and unfair statement that completely ignores and erases vital issues like circumcision, people should comment against it.

And the popular support for circumcision also including women doesn’t matter so much. Because the majority of the propaganda that no amount of attempting to educate the masses has seemed to have a real impact on has been supported by, distributed by, and paid for by religious institutions (largely run by men) and individuals (also largely men).

Circumcision in the United States is mainly medical. In the religious context, at least in Judaism, it is pursued and enforced by parents. I have some familiarity with Jewish people, and it definitely seems like something that almost all Jewish adults see as a vital prescription.
From my point of view, circumcision is a practice and set of attitudes that get passed down to and from generations, and everyone bears as much responsibility in it as anyone else, along with a certain amount of innocence — since they were indoctrinated into it by earlier generation. Specifically, circumcision happens, in part, because it happened within the previous generations of the parents’ families, because neither of the parents have ever seen a non-circumcised penis, and feel anxious about the possibility of their child having one. Another significant factor as to why parents choose circumcision is the expectation that future female partners will be unhappy with an intact penis.
So I think your view is too conspiratorial, and I think the responsibility lies with general public and not with some type of all-male oligarchy. Even if you do believe that circumcision was *invented* by ancient men or originally promoted by Victorian-era male doctors, I find the implication that this lessens the injustice against male children, and ultimately adult males, to be a form of collective victim blaming.

SO while you’re not explicitly blaming women for these things, by derailing a conversation in this way you’re giving accidental support to people like the super shitty MRAs that do constantly blame women.

Honestly, I feel like you’re the one who’s derailing a legitimate conversation. I don’t think that anything that was said in response to that original post was unfair or unwarranted. 

millennialsentinel:

legalizeforeskin:

millennialsentinel:

legalizeforeskin:

talking-fedora:

shaybaymarie:

This is what I wrote in my political science notebook. The fact that this is even a topic to talk about is disgusting. America disgusts me! The fact that there are laws against a woman’s body at all disgusts me. There’s NEVER been a law against a man’s body in America, EVER! Get it straight America. Get it fucking straight!!!!

Conscription. Circumcision.

Conscription doesn’t count because it was in tandem with a law saying women couldn’t fight at all (based on misogynistic ideas of their abilities)
And circumcision is the LACK of a law mostly supported by religious leaders that are mostly men.
We’re oppressing ourselves, so stop blaming women and help their cause and it’ll help you too.

Conscription counts because it literally is a law that controls the bodies of men in an extreme way, whether it’s “in tandem” with anything else or not. Let’s not shift goalposts please. My grandfather suffered a life-altering injury as a conscript which is a good example why conscription more than overshadows the issue of being excluded from a job that is actually extremely dangerous and requires a huge commitment. So even if we were to count women’s exclusion ffrom combat (which they are less well qualified for because of their lesser strength, especially historically) as a some sort of nullifier for conscription, we’d have to keep in mind that we’re talking about an absolute obligation vs. a narrow restriction.

As far as circumcision as a gross lack of legal protection, it is equally as damaging as a restrictive law. This is obvious since the US law prohibiting FGM could technically be counted as a “law governing women’s bodies”, yet nobody from the women’s rights or the human rights camps would ever attack it on that basis. And this lack of essential legal protection — the kind of protection that is afforded to women* on an absolute basis — is unopposed by large numbers of both men and women, just as abortion restrictions are supported by large numbers from both sexes

So no, we’re not blaming women for circumcision or conscription. The point is that men are legally discriminated on a similar scale as women. And I personally do support abortion rights very strongly, so I fail to see the reason for this complaint.

Because while highly valid a complaint against United States law both these examples are used as reasons to completely ignore, derail, or attack feminists when they were all institutionalized by men (in the latter case, religious men).

Circumcision, in it’s current status, is institutionalized by both men and women, which is something that’s abundantly clear when you look at the actors involved at every level, from parents, to obstetricians and family care doctors — many of who are women, to the public at large.

Conscription might be more complicated, since it’s more prevalent historically, so I’m hard pressed to discuss it in depth. However, the selective service system, which is essentially a latent conscription system, is kept in place by the government, which supported (more or less) by regular like you and me, women and men.

So when a discussion about women’s bodies gets turned into a discussion about men’s bodies (excluding discussions of trans* men and women) you’re using a legitimate complaint in a derailing manner. 

The discussion of men’s bodies was directly opened at the outset when someone wrote, “There’s NEVER been a law against a man’s body in America, EVER!” That’s the moment it became a discussion of both men’s and women’s bodies. 

And that’s what happens when somebody makes such direct and sweeping comparison about the sexes/genders — it becomes a discussion of both. And when that person makes a completely untrue and unfair statement that completely ignores and erases vital issues like circumcision, people should comment against it.

And the popular support for circumcision also including women doesn’t matter so much. Because the majority of the propaganda that no amount of attempting to educate the masses has seemed to have a real impact on has been supported by, distributed by, and paid for by religious institutions (largely run by men) and individuals (also largely men).

Circumcision in the United States is mainly medical. In the religious context, at least in Judaism, it is pursued and enforced by parents. I have some familiarity with Jewish people, and it definitely seems like something that almost all Jewish adults see as a vital prescription.

From my point of view, circumcision is a practice and set of attitudes that get passed down to and from generations, and everyone bears as much responsibility in it as anyone else, along with a certain amount of innocence — since they were indoctrinated into it by earlier generation. Specifically, circumcision happens, in part, because it happened within the previous generations of the parents’ families, because neither of the parents have ever seen a non-circumcised penis, and feel anxious about the possibility of their child having one. Another significant factor as to why parents choose circumcision is the expectation that future female partners will be unhappy with an intact penis.

So I think your view is too conspiratorial, and I think the responsibility lies with general public and not with some type of all-male oligarchy. Even if you do believe that circumcision was *invented* by ancient men or originally promoted by Victorian-era male doctors, I find the implication that this lessens the injustice against male children, and ultimately adult males, to be a form of collective victim blaming.

SO while you’re not explicitly blaming women for these things, by derailing a conversation in this way you’re giving accidental support to people like the super shitty MRAs that do constantly blame women.

Honestly, I feel like you’re the one who’s derailing a legitimate conversation. I don’t think that anything that was said in response to that original post was unfair or unwarranted. 

millennialsentinel:

legalizeforeskin:

talking-fedora:

shaybaymarie:

This is what I wrote in my political science notebook. The fact that this is even a topic to talk about is disgusting. America disgusts me! The fact that there are laws against a woman’s body at all disgusts me. There’s NEVER been a law against a man’s body in America, EVER! Get it straight America. Get it fucking straight!!!!

Conscription. Circumcision.



Conscription doesn’t count because it was in tandem with a law saying women couldn’t fight at all (based on misogynistic ideas of their abilities)And circumcision is the LACK of a law mostly supported by religious leaders that are mostly men. We’re oppressing ourselves, so stop blaming women and help their cause and it’ll help you too.

Conscription counts because it literally is a law that controls the bodies of men in an extreme way, whether it’s “in tandem” with anything else or not. Let’s not shift goalposts please. My grandfather suffered a life-altering injury as a conscript which is a good example why conscription more than overshadows the issue of being excluded from a job that is actually extremely dangerous and requires a huge commitment. So even if we were to count women’s exclusion ffrom combat (which they are less well qualified for because of their lesser strength, especially historically) as a some sort of nullifier for conscription, we’d have to keep in mind that we’re talking about an absolute obligation vs. a narrow restriction.
As far as circumcision as a gross lack of legal protection, it is equally as damaging as a restrictive law. This is obvious since the US law prohibiting FGM could technically be counted as a “law governing women’s bodies”, yet nobody from the women’s rights or the human rights camps would ever attack it on that basis. And this lack of essential legal protection — the kind of protection that is afforded to women* on an absolute basis — is unopposed by large numbers of both men and women, just as abortion restrictions are supported by large numbers from both sexes. 
So no, we’re not blaming women for circumcision or conscription. The point is that men are legally discriminated on a similar scale as women. And I personally do support abortion rights very strongly, so I fail to see the reason for this complaint.

millennialsentinel:

legalizeforeskin:

talking-fedora:

shaybaymarie:

This is what I wrote in my political science notebook. The fact that this is even a topic to talk about is disgusting. America disgusts me! The fact that there are laws against a woman’s body at all disgusts me. There’s NEVER been a law against a man’s body in America, EVER! Get it straight America. Get it fucking straight!!!!

Conscription. Circumcision.

Conscription doesn’t count because it was in tandem with a law saying women couldn’t fight at all (based on misogynistic ideas of their abilities)
And circumcision is the LACK of a law mostly supported by religious leaders that are mostly men.
We’re oppressing ourselves, so stop blaming women and help their cause and it’ll help you too.

Conscription counts because it literally is a law that controls the bodies of men in an extreme way, whether it’s “in tandem” with anything else or not. Let’s not shift goalposts please. My grandfather suffered a life-altering injury as a conscript which is a good example why conscription more than overshadows the issue of being excluded from a job that is actually extremely dangerous and requires a huge commitment. So even if we were to count women’s exclusion ffrom combat (which they are less well qualified for because of their lesser strength, especially historically) as a some sort of nullifier for conscription, we’d have to keep in mind that we’re talking about an absolute obligation vs. a narrow restriction.

As far as circumcision as a gross lack of legal protection, it is equally as damaging as a restrictive law. This is obvious since the US law prohibiting FGM could technically be counted as a “law governing women’s bodies”, yet nobody from the women’s rights or the human rights camps would ever attack it on that basis. And this lack of essential legal protection — the kind of protection that is afforded to women* on an absolute basis — is unopposed by large numbers of both men and women, just as abortion restrictions are supported by large numbers from both sexes

So no, we’re not blaming women for circumcision or conscription. The point is that men are legally discriminated on a similar scale as women. And I personally do support abortion rights very strongly, so I fail to see the reason for this complaint.

talking-fedora:

shaybaymarie:

This is what I wrote in my political science notebook. The fact that this is even a topic to talk about is disgusting. America disgusts me! The fact that there are laws against a woman’s body at all disgusts me. There’s NEVER been a law against a man’s body in America, EVER! Get it straight America. Get it fucking straight!!!!

Conscription. Circumcision.

talking-fedora:

shaybaymarie:

This is what I wrote in my political science notebook. The fact that this is even a topic to talk about is disgusting. America disgusts me! The fact that there are laws against a woman’s body at all disgusts me. There’s NEVER been a law against a man’s body in America, EVER! Get it straight America. Get it fucking straight!!!!

Conscription. Circumcision.

Anonymous asked
cont. but by simply being a minor you pass some of your rights onto your parents/guardians until you come of age to make reasonable responsible decisions for yourself.

hellnoradfems:

fuckingradfems:

Part three of three.

Ok, I’m just going to rip this apart step by step. First and foremost, I. Am. Not. A. Man. I am not a penis owner. For fuck’s sake anon, I say this all the fucking time, and I have a goddamn YouTube channel where I’m clearly speaking and clearly not a man. Fucking christ almighty.

Next. You’re essentially telling me that because you live in a humid state and apparently just sweat all the time, cutting off a perfectly natural part of an infant’s body is ok. Let me repeat; BECAUSE ANON SWEATS A LOT, CIRCUMCISION IS OK GUISE! Are you fucking smoking crack?

Next. You say you can’t imagine all your sweat and still having a foreskin. I don’t know if you have ever seen an uncut dick, but it is literally just an extra fold of skin. It’s not like foreskin is a whole second dick, for christ’s sake. Pull that shit back and wash it. Bam, 30 seconds of extra washing. But either you’re lazy or stupid, because it seriously is not that big of a deal.

Next. You say most people wouldn’t choose to be circumcised after 18 because they’ve “learned to deal with the issues that come along with being uncut”…what issues? Increased sexual response and feeling? I never thought that was an issue, but whatever. 

Next. You see no reason why anyone would have an issue with their parents for making the decision to have them circumcised. Welp, along with what I mentioned above, about intact men retaining all the nerve endings they were born with, which makes sex more pleasurable, (You feel a fraction of what you should be able to during sex, just FYI), there are also men who have scarring on their penis, there are men who are incapable of achieving orgasm at all, and there is what…I want to say like 700 babies a year who die from complications arising from circumcision (ANTI CIRC PEOPLE! FIND ME THE REAL NUMBER PLEASE I’M ON MY PHONE RIGHT NOW). Do a google search for “foreskin restoration” and see how many millions of men would rather have their foreskin intact. Look outside your limited worldview and fucking use your brain for half a fucking second and realize that HACKING APART A BABY’S GENITALIA IS FUCKING WRONG. YES IT HAPPENED TO YOU. BUT YES, IT WAS FUCKING WRONG.

Next. The only argument you’ve seen is that it doesn’t come with the child’s consent. Well, here’s a few more. Again, with the decreased sexual response. Also, it’s an old religious ritual, so unless you’re Jewish, I almost kind of feel like the SJWs should jump on this one for cultural appropriation (I jest, I do, but jesus, how fast would this shit become illegal if the feminazis and SJWs got their grubby little hands on it? The mind simply boggles). It has no proven health benefits, and the risks of complications far outweigh any sort of negligible “benefits”. Circumcision is completely legal, and men will even fight in favor of it, but female circ is illegal and considered immoral. Why do you think that is?

But really, lastly, and most importantly, my issue with circumcision is not about consent. My issue is that this is an unnecessary surgery that is fucking up how your penis functions. The foreskin is a little penis glove that keeps your dick from chafing, or rubbing when you don’t want it rubbed, and protects it from temperature fluctuations outside. It is a natural part of your body, and it is so so very important. And none of that is about consent (although I wholeheartedly believe in everyone’s right to bodily autonomy, no matter how old they are.

So, in conclusion, you’re kind of an idiot and I feel bad for you.

It’s around 100/year in the US alone, so 700 worldwide would seem a bit low. I don’t have a source readily available, but it’s probably not a difficult thing to find.

I don’t think anybody has a good idea of how many babies die from circumcision. There was a statistical meta-analysis that came up with something like 300, but I don’t know how reliable it is.

aboutsocialjustice:

insideofthisworld:

Tanya Gold articulates well the existence of contemporary antisemitism (A ban on male circumcision would be antisemitic. How could it not be?, 12 October). But I think she’s wrong in describing the Council of Europe as antisemitic for including ritual male circumcision in its examples of violations of children's rights.
I write as a male Jew circumcised at birth in 1958 as part of ritual. I would rather not have been. Yes, male circumcision isn’t as extreme a practice as female genital mutilation. However, I know from personal experience that it results in such problems as desensitised sexual feeling, frequent soreness and occasional bleeding. I believe that this irreversible action is at heart an assault on a child, incapable of giving meaningful consent. I attach no blame to my parents’ generation, who would have made the decision in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and who would have experienced a society more overtly hostile to them. But I find it depressing that contemporary Jews wish to continue the practice.
And she is quite wrong to say all Jews agree on circumcision.
 (via Letters: Circumcision and human rights | Society | The Guardian)
The existence of antisemitism, racism or irrational fear of Jews and Muslims is not a valid argument in favor of circumcision. Hatred of Jews and Muslims is real, but that hatred does not justify neither male nor female genital mutilation. Is it tradition? Not all traditions are harmless. Slavery was a tradition. Denying women’s rights was a tradition. Is it a mandated by religion? Religions are known to mandate or condone heinous practices. In the 21st Century, religion should not be a valid excuse for barbaric practices; especially when those practices affect subjects incapable of giving informed consent.

Fuck, if anything just give Jews an exception to the law. They’ve done so with animal sacrifices and such.~Jester

I used to think that way, but the problem with this is that there plenty of Jewish men that are advocating against circumcision, and this exemption would be a slap in the face. More importantly, it would actually discriminate against Jewish children, by excluding them from this legal protection.
I do see this issue as a huge practical obstacle however, so I’m not 100% against some kind of compromise. I just don’t know what that would be.

aboutsocialjustice:

insideofthisworld:

Tanya Gold articulates well the existence of contemporary antisemitism (A ban on male circumcision would be antisemitic. How could it not be?, 12 October). But I think she’s wrong in describing the Council of Europe as antisemitic for including ritual male circumcision in its examples of violations of children's rights.

I write as a male Jew circumcised at birth in 1958 as part of ritual. I would rather not have been. Yes, male circumcision isn’t as extreme a practice as female genital mutilation. However, I know from personal experience that it results in such problems as desensitised sexual feeling, frequent soreness and occasional bleeding. I believe that this irreversible action is at heart an assault on a child, incapable of giving meaningful consent. I attach no blame to my parents’ generation, who would have made the decision in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and who would have experienced a society more overtly hostile to them. But I find it depressing that contemporary Jews wish to continue the practice.

And she is quite wrong to say all Jews agree on circumcision.

 (via Letters: Circumcision and human rights | Society | The Guardian)

The existence of antisemitism, racism or irrational fear of Jews and Muslims is not a valid argument in favor of circumcision. Hatred of Jews and Muslims is real, but that hatred does not justify neither male nor female genital mutilation. Is it tradition? Not all traditions are harmless. Slavery was a tradition. Denying women’s rights was a tradition. Is it a mandated by religion? Religions are known to mandate or condone heinous practices. In the 21st Century, religion should not be a valid excuse for barbaric practices; especially when those practices affect subjects incapable of giving informed consent.

Fuck, if anything just give Jews an exception to the law. They’ve done so with animal sacrifices and such.

~Jester

I used to think that way, but the problem with this is that there plenty of Jewish men that are advocating against circumcision, and this exemption would be a slap in the face. More importantly, it would actually discriminate against Jewish children, by excluding them from this legal protection.

I do see this issue as a huge practical obstacle however, so I’m not 100% against some kind of compromise. I just don’t know what that would be.

insideofthisworld:

Tanya Gold articulates well the existence of contemporary antisemitism (A ban on male circumcision would be antisemitic. How could it not be?, 12 October). But I think she’s wrong in describing the Council of Europe as antisemitic for including ritual male circumcision in its examples of violations of children's rights.
I write as a male Jew circumcised at birth in 1958 as part of ritual. I would rather not have been. Yes, male circumcision isn’t as extreme a practice as female genital mutilation. However, I know from personal experience that it results in such problems as desensitised sexual feeling, frequent soreness and occasional bleeding. I believe that this irreversible action is at heart an assault on a child, incapable of giving meaningful consent. I attach no blame to my parents’ generation, who would have made the decision in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and who would have experienced a society more overtly hostile to them. But I find it depressing that contemporary Jews wish to continue the practice.
And she is quite wrong to say all Jews agree on circumcision.
 (via Letters: Circumcision and human rights | Society | The Guardian)
The existence of antisemitism, racism or irrational fear of Jews and Muslims is not a valid argument in favor of circumcision. Hatred of Jews and Muslims is real, but that hatred does not justify neither male nor female genital mutilation. Is it tradition? Not all traditions are harmless. Slavery was a tradition. Denying women’s rights was a tradition. Is it a mandated by religion? Religions are known to mandate or condone heinous practices. In the 21st Century, religion should not be a valid excuse for barbaric practices; especially when those practices affect subjects incapable of giving informed consent.

insideofthisworld:

Tanya Gold articulates well the existence of contemporary antisemitism (A ban on male circumcision would be antisemitic. How could it not be?, 12 October). But I think she’s wrong in describing the Council of Europe as antisemitic for including ritual male circumcision in its examples of violations of children's rights.

I write as a male Jew circumcised at birth in 1958 as part of ritual. I would rather not have been. Yes, male circumcision isn’t as extreme a practice as female genital mutilation. However, I know from personal experience that it results in such problems as desensitised sexual feeling, frequent soreness and occasional bleeding. I believe that this irreversible action is at heart an assault on a child, incapable of giving meaningful consent. I attach no blame to my parents’ generation, who would have made the decision in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and who would have experienced a society more overtly hostile to them. But I find it depressing that contemporary Jews wish to continue the practice.

And she is quite wrong to say all Jews agree on circumcision.

 (via Letters: Circumcision and human rights | Society | The Guardian)

The existence of antisemitism, racism or irrational fear of Jews and Muslims is not a valid argument in favor of circumcision. Hatred of Jews and Muslims is real, but that hatred does not justify neither male nor female genital mutilation. Is it tradition? Not all traditions are harmless. Slavery was a tradition. Denying women’s rights was a tradition. Is it a mandated by religion? Religions are known to mandate or condone heinous practices. In the 21st Century, religion should not be a valid excuse for barbaric practices; especially when those practices affect subjects incapable of giving informed consent.

I’m ranting and I’m not sorry.

jungs-endless-shadow:

onemv:

touchyourblood:

Okay seriously if your argument on why “Men’s Rights” are important involves circumcision you really need to just sit down and shut up.

First off this is something feminists are most typically against because it violates bodily autonomy. Okay do you get it yet? Most of us are against it in infants and say a man should be able to decide that for himself. So quit acting like we don’t care about it.

Second and this is important, the instant you even try to compare it to female genital mutilation you prove that you have no right to ever speak about issues ever again, you literally know nothing. You are so completely removed from reality I can’t even describe it.

This is not complicated, really, it’s not.

Male circumcision =/= female genital mutilation.

Read More

The only people I see comparing the two are feminists.  It’s like the moment people took a stance against Male Genital Mutilation, and it is mutilation to removed perfectly healthy tissue from a patient when there is no reason to, feminists decided they needed to shut up because women in the third world have it worse.

You need to think of the issue separately from FGM, not alongside it.  Because it has no bearing on MGM except in the context that ALL Infant Genital Mutilation is wrong.

I suggest you take a better look at MGM before being so dismissive of the concerns raised by others.  It’s barbarically painful to the point people studying it decided to STOP because it was unethical to continue because it was causing seizures, and choking.  More resources.

The reason FGM gets bought up for comparison is because usually the speakers are American or western, and the treatment of the two subjects could not be more drastically different within those countries, with FGM completely outlawed and MGM legal and widespread. I might note that the only reason why MGM is so rarely fatal is because we happen to live in a country with a modern medical system. If FGM was legal in America or Europe, I have no doubt that it could be widely performed with far fewer casualties and much less trauma than it is in countries without the privilege of well-trained and well-equipped healthcare. I also find it hilarious that you’re saying that female anatomy gets so little focus in school when plenty of circumcised boys won’t even be aware they lost something for the entirety of high school because most diagrams of human anatomy they see will assume that all penises are cut and won’t show the foreskin. At least that’s how it was for me growing up, don’t know if that’s changed. 

And actually, you’ll find that a lot of those anatomical functions of the various parts of the female anatomy ARE disputed. By people who advocate female genital mutilation. Sort of like how the sensitivity and function of the foreskin is conveniently disputed by people who practice male genital mutilation. It’s sort of like even smart people will try to rationalize mutilation if it’s a part of their culture and beliefs. You’ll find that these people also often advocate dubious medical benefits for female genital mutilation, sort of like, wow, male genital mutilation. 

As for controlling sexuality, did you know circumcision became widespread in America thanks to a man who advocated for it as a way to stop boys from masturbating?

And here’s where I stop being polite. Because no, fuck you, you’re full of shit: I’m calling you out, feminists do NOT oppose male circumcision. Oh, maybe you do, in theory. But I never see you denouncing it as mutilation. Rather, the only time I see feminists talking about male genital mutilation is when they insist it can’t be compared to female genital mutilation in any way shape or form so we should all shut up about it! And, like you did here, they usually toss in some bullshit (straight from the mouths of its supporters) about it’s supposed “health benefits”. So let’s get this straight, feminists oppose male genital mutilation, but they only ever talk about it to:

1. Tell people who advocate against it to shut up

2. Spout pro-mutilation propaganda as reasons why it’s “Not as bad as female genital mutilation”

So how about you fuck right off? I’d much rather feminists just be OPENLY pro-mutilation than this half-assed, mealy-mouthed bullshit of “Oh, we oppose male genital mutilation, but we’ll gladly spread pro-mutilation propaganda and only ever talk about it to stop the issue from being discussed.” You are an ideological ally against genital mutilation in the same way a termite is “someone working on the house.” You are worse, worse, than someone who is openly pro-mutilation because you’re pretending to help. You’re fucked up, and no one is going to take criticism from you about the subject as anything but a joke. Fuck outta here. 

Whether or not feminists tend to oppose MGM or not, this has no bearing on whether or not it’s a men’s rights issue — which it is.

siryouarebeingmocked:

aboatmaleprivilege:

siryouarebeingmocked:

valeriekeefe:

happyautomaton:

Hey look it’s the flip side of how stereotypes are perpetuated in video games but for men.

This still falls under feminism imo and NOT MRA, MRAs perpetuate said gender stereotypes.

That would be because you’re a Goldsteining jackass who hasn’t read any Farrell.

-A feminist

>has been told several times that MRAs oppose male gender stereotypes and he is wrong about them

>completely ignores this to keep claiming MRAs perpetuate said gender roles

[raging intensifies]

If you don’t me asking, where does that [x intensifies] even come from?

Specifically the banana. 

You know that picture of a banana that says, ‘potassium intensifies’? Maybe not. Anyway, I have no idea where that banana comes from.

A tree, I would assume.

[heyoo intensifies]

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/intensifies

siryouarebeingmocked:

cynically—colorblind:

dickardcain:

alterstorm:

cynically—colorblind:

sirsugrr:

princessfuckingprivilege:

oppressorcrunch:

cynically—colorblind:

Maybe if you weren’t so fucking obsessed with your penises, people wouldn’t cut them.

are you serious though

image

is eliot even capable of logical thoughts jesus christ.

What isn’t logical about this, you massive faggot?

well maybe there’s the fact that most circumcisions are done on infants

and im pretty sure infants dont have the fucking brain capacity to be obsessed with their penis yet

i dunno, just a hunch

"…You massive faggot"

Oh, we have a winner here folks.

Stay classy shit-stain.

Yeah, I said it. Both gay and straight men can go die please :>

Infobox: Anti-MRA, anti-porn, anti-sex ed, sex negative, genophobic, somewhat misandrist, androgyne, exists entirely off sugar, blah blah blah.

Guys, be careful! You don’t want to cut yourself on all those edges!

… Not that being “obsessed” with one’s genitals justifies someone else cutting them.