Reply to: Should mens' genitals be sliced up?

[d000hg]

Compared to what a baby boy goes through a week before the traditional Jewish circumcision age, we should be saying natural child-birth is the most severe form of infant abuse

[meridian]

Circumcision isn't like poking a child's eye out though. Done as a baby it's pretty insignificant, and importantly doesn't screw the person up for life.

Apart from the dozen cases of herpes and two deaths

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/op...alth.html?_r=0

And how do you know that it doesn't screw a person up? Are there studies on the psychological effects of circumcision? Given the millions of men that have had this procedure done on them, even if less than 1% find some level of trauma in later life then that's still tens of thousands of men.

[d000hg]

Although being far more common so as to make FGM statistically insignificant - and yet this mutilation is not even questioned in the mainstream. It's male privilege don't you know.

I think the point being made which is valid in my opinion is that

if you consider circumcision to be like someone poking a child's eye out and FGM to be like someone poking both eyes out & chopping their legs off they both obviously constitute assault & ABH. Why is circumcision not treated as assault?

Circumcision isn't like poking a child's eye out though. Done as a baby it's pretty insignificant, and importantly doesn't screw the person up for life.

[Halo Jones]

Lawyer who shamed barrister over 'sexist' LinkedIn email believes men make workplaces a 'repugnant world' - Telegraph “When women enter the male realm whether law, politics, or a construction site, they find themselves in a repugnant world in which their only means of survival is by undergoing a fundamental transformation leaving them with little opportunity to make any change.”

Actually having experience in this matter I can honestly say that construction has been the least sexist industry I have worked in.

Charlotte Proudman has shown that she's probably not really a very good lawyer, not because she responded in robust terms to Alexander Carter Silk, but because she resorted to the Twitterati. That, in my view, was unprofessional and childish.

+1

[SpontaneousOrder]

Nope.

If you tell people to stop cutting skin of their boys willies you will be called antisemitic and be given a lesson on the Holocaust if they are feeling kind or ripped to shreds otherwise.

Yeah, they;re precisely the savages i'm talking about. Stop pandering to superstitious abusers and the rest of the world won't see a contradiction when their morality is criticised.

Really... if pictures of the repercussions (and it's a big mistake to think that circumcision has none just because they are invisible - but that's besides the point) is really whats needed to convince people to stop abusing their kids, then the world is too ****ed to be rescued.

Luckily it's not what's needed.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Also, this entire discussion is in connection to what the lady in the OP said.

Precisely. She said that if men & women were equal men would have their genitals chopped up.

The reality is that hardly any women suffer it, relatively speaking, because it's almost universally accepted as barbaric.

Meanwhile boys suffer genital mutilation (the degree is really besides the point - it's significant enough and damaging enough to be worthy of 'mutilation') and this is almost universally accepted as being ok.

We all know without a doubt that a similar procedure done to little girls would not be tolerated.

So that is the relevant point.


That aside, I'm less bothered about which demographic gets it worse under what circumstances. All I care about is that people get it into their head that the concept of physical abuse applies to children as much as it does adults. Without that first principle the whole rest of the discussion about FGM or anything similar is absurdly lacking in credence.

Someone earlier said that talking about circumcision in the same context as FGM is bad because it dilutes the significance of FGM, etc. That's a very childish understanding of the situation. They're the same thing as robbing a house is the same as robbing a bank. That kind of relativism is precisely what nourishes the barbarism we see around the world today.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Men who are circumcised still have a fully functioning penis,

depends on what you mean by fully functioning.

[Zero Liability]

There is a difference which you refuse to recognise because you are acting like everything is black and white.

I'm not "acting" like anything is black and white, in fact I have acknowledged multiple times that they are different in degree of harm caused.

Circumcision can lead to loss of sensitivity in the penis, reducing capacity for sexual enjoyment, not to mention that it can cause psychological scarring in some instances. Also, this entire discussion is in connection to what the lady in the OP said.

[SueEllen]

I'm failing to see where there is a difference, except in degree.

There is a difference which you refuse to recognise because you are acting like everything is black and white.

I threw in stuff about getting my ears pierced for the first time to make the point that parents "abuse" their children by degrees.

Some have no serious side effects but others have long term mental and serious physical consequences.

Men who are circumcised still have a fully functioning penis, girls and women who under go FGM can have complications in every part of her reproductive life even before she has even become pregnant.

(Oh my ears are fine but they did cause my mother a lot of problems as I could only wear gold earrings. )

[NotAllThere]

The difference between FGM and circumcision is that FGM is about controlling women by curtailing their ability to experience sexual pleasure, and reinforcing the view that women exist solely for the sexual satisfaction of men and for producing babies. Millions of men have been circumcised, very few indeed have had any adverse reaction to it. The situation for women who've undergone FGM is rather different.

I'm not saying that circumcision is right, but rather it is a separate debate. The bringing together of FGM and circumcision, in my view, dilutes campaigns against FGM, and is a (fairly irrelevant) distraction.

Charlotte Proudman has shown that she's probably not really a very good lawyer, not because she responded in robust terms to Alexander Carter Silk, but because she resorted to the Twitterati. That, in my view, was unprofessional and childish.

[Zero Liability]

ferrchristsakes - are you still comparing the two as if they are the same thing?

I'm failing to see where there is a difference, except in degree.

No it isn't.

Male circumcision can be done for medical reasons, FGM never is.

So what? The fact that it can, theoretically, in some cases serve that purpose does not mean in the majority of cases that it is even required to serve that end. So in terms of the damage inflicted, that is a perfectly valid analogy. In fact, it's also often done for cultural reasons.

FGM is even more dangerous regardless of who does it. It's done for cultural reasons and not related to religion. Also calling cultures backwards to excuse it doesn't help e.g. Egypt and Malaysia aren't exactly full of backwards people.

I'm not interested in excusing it.

I don't like the idea of male circumcision other than for medical reasons. If there was a move to ban it, it would have my support.

But I think it is a separate issue to FGM, and the argument against FGM is far too strong and urgent to be sidetracked.

To me, this is as if you were arguing against male circumcision, and someone comes along and says - but what about all the parents who mutilate their daughters by piercing their ears?

Different issues, and not fair to undermine one with another. Fight each on its own merits.

Well re-read the OP, that's what started this whole discussion. She isn't arguing FGM is wrong, she is making an incoherent statement regarding how males are treated vs females, and as I have pointed out in this thread it is just myopic. To be fair, it's probably just a case of attention-seeking.

I agree. One is a seemingly outdated and in most cases unnecessary practice but typically without any long terms ramifications for the recipient and the other is far more damaging and seemingly born from a need to control a girls sexuality and psyche.

It does have long term ramifications for the recipient. The difference is in degree of damage caused.

[oracleslave]

I don't like the idea of male circumcision other than for medical reasons.

Me either but as far as I know the WHO recommends it in areas of high HIV

I
But I think it is a separate issue to FGM, and the argument against FGM is far too strong and urgent to be sidetracked.

I agree. One is a seemingly outdated and in most cases unnecessary practice but typically without any long terms ramifications for the recipient and the other is far more damaging and seemingly born from a need to control a girls sexuality and psyche.

[SueEllen]

FGM *is* more damaging - albeit far less widespread - so wouldn't it be easier to convince foreigners to stop mutilating their daughters if we aren't at the same time mutilating out sons?

Nope.

If you tell people to stop cutting skin of their boys willies you will be called antisemitic and be given a lesson on the Holocaust if they are feeling kind or ripped to shreds otherwise.

If you explain to people and show graphic images of FGM plus the complications it causes you will find many fathers will forbid their wives from taking their daughters to have it done.

[mudskipper]

I don't like the idea of male circumcision other than for medical reasons. If there was a move to ban it, it would have my support.

But I think it is a separate issue to FGM, and the argument against FGM is far too strong and urgent to be sidetracked.

To me, this is as if you were arguing against male circumcision, and someone comes along and says - but what about all the parents who mutilate their daughters by piercing their ears?

Different issues, and not fair to undermine one with another. Fight each on its own merits.

[SueEllen]

The point is that I'm accusing you of supporting child abuse.

I got my ears pierced when I was a baby.

That's clearly damaging child abuse as well and so damaging...