Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[King DZA]

This thread is filled with some pretty long arguments that, in all honestly, I'm probably not going to completely read through. Ergo, I'm just going to sum up my opinion on the matters that seem to popping up on these forums every now and then, so that I can quote it whenever I come across another such thread, and then be on my way:

Fuck misandry. Fuck misogyny. Fuck racism. Fuck discrimination. Fuck social stereotypes. Fuck oppression. Fuck needles segregation and irrational generalizations. Fuck useless, impeding inequality as a whole, and fuck those who try to justify it. When I encounter it, I as an individual will do all in my power to stop it, no matter where I am or who it's against. Because the way I see it, it's all the just the same type of bullshit, regardless of who's responsible for shoveling it in.

[Leafsnail]

I think there are also more women who work in the lower paid public services that are set to be cut/payfrozen.  The current governments policies are definitely not helping.  But hey, their retirement age just went up 8 years so that increases their total earning potential!

EDIT: I meant the removal of the foreskin in babies.  If it's considered an issue which requires consent, then it's going to cause a major religious problem in the US (as opposed to FGM, which is only a non-problem religiously/culturally because the practicing cultures are seen as "far away" from ours and unimportant minorities *eyeroll*).  As far as the rest of it goes, I have a really hard time seeing it as analogous to the removal of the clitoris largely due to which structures coincide with which embryologically speaking, but can certainly agree that it's basically the same thing as cutting off the clitoral hood, which... eh.  I have no problem calling it "male genital mutilation" so long as we're not pretending it's an exact analogue to the same thing that's happening to women.  Removing sources of sexual pleasure, yes; probably not a good idea, also yes; same degree, absolutely not.

There are procedures referred to as FGM that involve removing the clitoral hood which is pretty much exactly equivalent to male circumcision (and which are still banned).  Calling circumcision "genital mutilation" wouldn't be expanding the definition at all.

Hopefully we can fix the health problems which are supposed to arise from circumcision by teaching better hygenic practices to young men, and then there will be no cogent argument whatsoever for continuation of the practice.  The more I look at it, the more it seems kind of ridiculous to do something like that en masse.  Thanks for the food for thought!

Considering that there are plenty of countries that do fine without it that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

[scriver]

I've missed your argumenting so much, Vector. Please stay here and play with us forever and ever and ever.

[ChairmanPoo]

I've missed your argumenting so much, Vector. Please stay here and play with us forever and ever and ever.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Loud Whispers]

I've missed your argumenting so much, Vector. Please stay here and play with us forever and ever and ever.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Thanks for the nightmare fuel

[Vector]

@Leafsnail:

Thanks for that information.  I think I need to read more sources before I'll have solidified my understanding on the matter.  For example, what I've read implies that clitoral hood removal is pretty much always accompanied by removal of the entire clitoris, whereas removal of the foreskin is pretty much never associated with the removal of the glans; similarly, the motivations are at least ostensibly very different (health vs. making it impossible for women to feel sexual pleasure).

Basically, I feel like calling them "male and female circumcision" or "male and female genital mutilation" invokes a false equality (not to mention that "circumcision" is a loaded term vis-a-vis culture and religious practice, while "mutilation" is also loaded), but calling the two practices "circumcision and female genital mutilation" somehow makes them seem too distant from each other.  Maybe "male and female genital cutting" is the best thing... it's a descriptor, it's fairly neutral, it doesn't have really loaded terminology in either direction, it simultaneously unifies the two subjects by what they have in common.

I've missed your argumenting so much, Vector. Please stay here and play with us forever and ever and ever.

Haha, not forever.  I am enjoying myself for now, though =)


EDIT: I can see that I have a new hairstyle to load up for the photo share!

[cameron]

The point isn't that it is a logical business plan, or even a conscious decision to pay women less but that it is a result of traditional gender roles and pay structures which have persisted

And my point is that this isn't the blame of males. Sexism =/= against all.

This is I think the biggest problem, most feminist/gender-equalitive arguments tend to be felt as blaming males which really isn't helped by the name "feminism".

Any-who I was not trying to blame the males but the societal structures in place which enforce the inequality, trying to decide what group of people is to blame for those structures is missing the point entirely

Also about the genital mutilation, I don't think creating a false equivalency should be an issue as trying to compare whither or not a practice is more or less traumatizing or dangerous is again missing the point which should be a protection against the unwilling modification of a person's body. You could then afterwards order various practices in severity so as to figure out which to try and deal with first and you would end up with mostly FGM but in of itself that shouldn't preclude circumcision from being classed as mutilation.


"male and female genital cutting" implies cutting, what if they do somthing else :O

[Vector]

Ah, so the reason why I don't want to create a false equivalency is because I don't want people to think "male genital mutilation, that's referring to similar things as the already-known female genital mutilation, right?  That doesn't refer to the circumcision practiced in this country!  There's nothing wrong with what we do, right?"

And similarly, I don't want people to think "Oh, female circumcision, that's just that thing we already do but on women!  What are they complaining about?"

It's not about severity so much as what people think is already okay or not okay; it's about a manipulation of the semantic space in hopes of associating two negative practices but without polluting them with our cultural centering of various ideas.  "Cutting" is not cultural, it doesn't have a lot of associations, and you can't debate the semantics.  Both practices constitute the cutting of genitals, period... we get the necessary distance, but the same visceral squick calling both things "mutilation" invokes.

I... I hope that's clearer?  I'm sorry if it's at all confusing.  My head's a bit fuzzed up right now.

[penguinofhonor]

The point isn't that it is a logical business plan, or even a conscious decision to pay women less but that it is a result of traditional gender roles and pay structures which have persisted

And my point is that this isn't the blame of males. Sexism =/= against all.

Maybe not this specific instance, but men take advantage of sexism all the time. See: men who want to abolish affirmative action.

Men who take advantage of their privilege are using the system to get an unfair advantage for themselves at the harm of others. Women, largely, can't do the same thing. For instance (and this comparison isn't probably ideal but I'm drawing a blank right now) if society says white people get the front of the bus while black people get the back, the white people who use this are actively getting an advantage at someone else's expense. You can't say that everyone in the system is at fault here, because the black people aren't doing anything here. You can't expect every black person to refuse to be part of the system and refuse to move.

There are procedures referred to as FGM that involve removing the clitoral hood which is pretty much exactly equivalent to male circumcision (and which are still banned).  Calling circumcision "genital mutilation" wouldn't be expanding the definition at all.

Anatomy-wise, they're similar. As to the effects, they're still leagues apart. This results in the desensitization of the clitoris (as male circumcision results in some desensitization of the head of the penis) but for many women, this results in far more difficulty orgasming than it does with men. I believe most women orgasm primarily through clitoral stimulation.

[Leafsnail]

Thanks for that information.  I think I need to read more sources before I'll have solidified my understanding on the matter.  For example, what I've read implies that clitoral hood removal is pretty much always accompanied by removal of the entire clitoris, whereas removal of the foreskin is pretty much never associated with the removal of the glans; similarly, the motivations are at least ostensibly very different (health vs. making it impossible for women to feel sexual pleasure).

It's true that most cases of FGM are far more extreme than male circumcision.  The motivation... well, you get women swearing blind that their horrible procedure has health benefits/ social benefits which is why they'll inflict the same thing on their daughters (as well as circumcision touted as an anti-masturbation thing).  I don't think motivation should come into it in any case since good intentions don't change the outcome for the child.

Basically, I feel like calling them "male and female circumcision" or "male and female genital mutilation" invokes a false equality (not to mention that "circumcision" is a loaded term vis-a-vis culture and religious practice, while "mutilation" is also loaded), but calling the two practices "circumcision and female genital mutilation" somehow makes them seem too distant from each other.  Maybe "male and female genital cutting" is the best thing... it's a descriptor, it's fairly neutral, it doesn't have really loaded terminology in either direction, it simultaneously unifies the two subjects by what they have in common.

Yeah, I can see the problem with MGM as a phrase (apart from anything else "mutilation" is a subjective term that arguably doesn't apply in the case of circumcision).  FGM in spite of being loaded sounds about right, considering I don't think anyone wants to make it sound less harmful (and it's pretty much impossible to argue it's inaccurate for the most common forms).  "Male genital cutting" could work though since "circumcision" does feel kindof... sanitized as a word to me.

Anatomy-wise, they're similar. As to the effects, they're still leagues apart. This results in the desensitization of the clitoris (as male circumcision results in some desensitization of the head of the penis) but for many women, this results in far more difficulty orgasming than it does with men. I believe most women orgasm primarily through clitoral stimulation.

I... don't know about that.  I thought the issue was more that procedures on females tend to go a lot further.

[Virex]

This is I think the biggest problem, most feminist/gender-equalitive arguments tend to be felt as blaming males which really isn't helped by the name "feminism".

And why would that be wrong? Men invented sexism, they perpetuate it and they're the only ones benefiting from it. This applies not just to male chauvinist pigs, politicians and rednecks, but to all men. No man is gender neutral and as long as we refuse to hold ourselves accountable for the world's problems, feminist are going to have to take care of that. Not by making blanket statements about the system, but my holding men personally responsible for the state of the world and all crimes committed by their kin.

[cameron]

In terms of avoiding connotations I would say that most cultural connotations would arise from its association with more extreme actions, and that that association on principle is something that I think has value in keeping

I would say that one of the greatest most integral issues behind any sort of discrimination is the holding of a whole group of people responsible for the crimes or peculiarities of some fraction of that group, and that that sort of train of thought is entirely the basis for the accusations of misandry towards various feminist movements as well as for the creation of modern gender roles in the first place
Also

my holding men personally responsible for the state of the world and all crimes committed by their kin.

if you are to include men's kin in this I am not sure entirely how you have managed to leave out women

Something that does have to be made clear though, is that even if I would not blame all men for the inequalities of the world I would hold them as well as women responsible for their righting.

also almost forgot, complacency in discrimination would qualify in my mind as responsibility for it and in that sense large fractions of men as well as women would be part of its perpetuation if that is what you meant

[kaijyuu]

This is I think the biggest problem, most feminist/gender-equalitive arguments tend to be felt as blaming males which really isn't helped by the name "feminism".

And why would that be wrong? Men invented sexism, they perpetuate it and they're the only ones benefiting from it. This applies not just to male chauvinist pigs, politicians and rednecks, but to all men. No man is gender neutral and as long as we refuse to hold ourselves accountable for the world's problems, feminist are going to have to take care of that. Not by making blanket statements about the system, but my holding men personally responsible for the state of the world and all crimes committed by their kin.

Oh hello again, Virex.

I'd post something satirical about guilt by association or collective guilt, but it'd pretty much be your post repeated. I might also have posted something about those who fight monsters, but I've already pointed that out to you in the past. Along with of course, the irony of using the same methods of of hate and discrimination as those you purport to fight against.


Instead I'll just address everyone else, and have them see an honest to goodness misandrist who is an embarrassment to anyone he claims to support. He supports the methods and philosophies of those who undermine the feminist movement. His attitude helps in removing legitimacy from feminism by giving misogynists a valid target that they can unfairly extrapolate over everyone else.


If you think you're helping by posting such shit, please, for the love of whatever, shut the fuck up. Thank you.

[Willfor]

And why would that be wrong? Men invented sexism, they perpetuate it and they're the only ones benefiting from it. This applies not just to male chauvinist pigs, politicians and rednecks, but to all men. No man is gender neutral and as long as we refuse to hold ourselves accountable for the world's problems, feminist are going to have to take care of that. Not by making blanket statements about the system, but my holding men personally responsible for the state of the world and all crimes committed by their kin.

Virex, it's probably in everyone's best interests that you sit this one out. Please, please, please sit this one out. You know what happens, you know that even women don't agree with your extreme position on this issue, please, sit this one out.

[Gunner-Chan]

I wasn't even gonna post in this topic for reasons. But yeah this Ill comment on.

Virex no. Let the adults talk.