Maybe they just want to avoid us.
Circumcision of boys or girls is genital mutilation.
And it really needs to hold weight with the law and the courts as a sex crime.
No offense….but really?!?! Come on people…you need to stop making a big fucking deal out of every little thing. I’ll admit I’ve never heard of female circumcision, but I don’t see the problem with circumcising boys. Not even the fact that it’s an age old tradition for most religions (not that I really care) but also it’s just more sanitary for a boy to be circumcised. I can only imagine what a hassle it would be to clean an uncut penis, not to mention as a gay man, I don’t find an uncut dick particularly appealing visually. So no, it is not genital mutilation, it is not a sex crime, it is just something that some people do and others don’t. JFC!
Okay, let me just preface this with “nothing personal” because this is a debate you just need to hear. It’s one thing to argue for circumcision just because it is a tradition, but take other regions: in Europe, only 10% of babies are circumcised. Studies actually found that it is more pleasurable and more comfortable for the man to have foreskin because it adds lubrication and protection. But you are right that it is easier to keep clean. I think although it is a cosmetic surgery, circumcision of males should be the choice of the parent who has a penis.
Female mutilation is a whole additional problem and is a lot more of a cultural problem. Female circumcision removes the clit and therefore the one organ that functions to give her sexual pleasure. This is completely immoral, as it is done to “purify” women for ethnic/religious reasons. Obviously never by her choice. There are a lot of risks, especially since it is usually done in the girl’s preteen years. There is no question that this is a validation of human rights. It’s horrifying.
Male circumcision is debatable, I suppose. Since most things humans do these days are far from “natural” anyway. But traditions need to be evaluated. Are they really justifiable? What are the roots of such acts? Religion? Oh.
Ok, I will admit I had not heard much about the female mutilation debate, I’ve been a bit out of political/human rights news as of late. But thank you for filling me in, I appreciate it. You know me Zoe, I am never one to argue on the side of religion, I’m almost always arguing against it, and I agree that what people do in the name of religion is deplorable, I just won’t go so far as to say male circumcision is deplorable as well
Surveys have shown that the main reason people choose to circumcise in America is because the father had it done to him, and he wants the son to be like him. That’s vanity. The vast majority of medical organizations in the world with a policy on circumcision are outright against it. Including:
Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)
Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a “strong policy of deterrence.” this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:
The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,
The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,
The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,
The Netherlands Urology Association, and
The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association.
This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure…. Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks.…. Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |
The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP’s claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are “questionable,” and that “Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia.” (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)
The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting “Irreversible mutilating surgery.”
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.
The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).
The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.”
“The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age.”…”The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure.” |
it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. …. very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. …. parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. …. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |
Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says “The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.”
“The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law …..Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce.”|
Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.|
ON that note, 74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons I like this one especially. It’s a detailed evaluation of the arguments in favor of circumcision, They note that during one of the recent trials in Africa, the researchers claimed there was no loss of sexual satisfaction, when in fact there was. But the RACS called them out:
“Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant,Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.” In general, they discuss how there’s no evidence to support it.
The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.
The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well.
And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.
Swedish Association for Sexuality Education published this guide that talks about circumcision, in a pretty negative way. not an official advocacy policy but it makes it fairly clear. it also mentions the frenulum is sexually sensitive, and helps prevent infection by blocking fluid from the urethra; the frenulum is often removed in an infant circumcision, yet easier to leave intact if an adult is circumcised.
this study shows significant harms to men’s sexual ability and satisfaction after circumcision.
And here’s a list of medical literature proving the dangers.
Anyone who supports this rather despicable practice is directly and justifying the mutilation of infant boys (which kills roughly 117 every year). And they have the gall to say that we are contrived in our outrage, because it can’t possibly be as bad for men as it is for women.
Literally modern feminism.
Written by me. Illustrated by David Barrentine.
Wow. Literal male tears. But I guess it’s only fitting that the MRA message is delivered via infants, seeing as it is an ultimately childish and altogether foolish ideology.
And making the straw feminist a whiny baby girl makes sense with all the false equivalency they got going on. A+ for making your movement look as accurate as possible.
You’re a dumbass that you can’t see that this comic is making fun of both sides, but showing how manipulative feminists are. I’m not an MRA but I don’t dislike the MRM even half as much as I dislike feminism. At least they’re not as blatantly manipulative and dishonest.
And strawman? This is shit can be witnessed on a daily basis in the feminist movement. ”Wahhh I’m scared to walk down the street! I’m obviously oppressed for being a female!”
From the Violent Victimization Committed By Strangers, 1993 - 2010 report [PDF]
The rate of violence against males by strangers was 9.5 victimizations per 1,000 males in 2010 compared to 4.7 victimizations per 1,000 females.
Crimes of Violence, rate per 1000 persons aged 12 or higherRelativesWell-knownCasual acquaintancesStrangerMale1.03.73.29.5Female3.05.92.14.6
Wahhh, all domestic violence is big mean brutes of men beating on sweetly innocent and delicate flowers of women! Let’s create the Duluth model and arrest the man every time, even when he’s the one who called the cops on his wife!
As of 2006, the Duluth Model is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States. It is based in feminist theory positing that “domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners”.
Even though studies, such as Steinmatz, Susan Steinmatz’ Battered women: A psychosociological study of domestic violence, have shown that domestic violence is largely reciprocal, and statistically, wives are more likely to initiate physical conflict. And in the UK, men make up 40% of domestic violence victims.
But no, feminists don’t whine and make a big deal about bullshit, that’s just a strawman, right? I’m sure you’ll show me how that’s a strawman and all my evidence is wrong by linking me to a long winded feminist article about how The Patriarchy did it.