TIL something about Female Genital Mutilation? WRONG. Today you learned something about male circumcision. Besides, most girls don't care that they had it done... (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
177 ups - 90 downs = 87 votes
363 comments submitted at 21:21:29 on Oct 29, 2013 by nonnyduck
I swear if you all don't quiet down then nobody will get mutilated genitals.
I will turn this station wagon right around drive away from this open field where I do illicit genital surgery. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?
Listen to your father, kids.
THAT'S IT! BACK TO WINNIPEG!
So if everyone is loud, everyone will get rewarded? Deal.
Wait... someone is taking the wrong lesson away from this...
Is it more or has the oppression oympics stepped up a notch recently?
Any time FGM is mentioned, someone will pipe in and say "OMG but circumcision is totally evil, too" then someone says "they're not comparable" and then it's competing not entirely valid studies.
MRA - The PETA of foreskin.
I've seen this argument many times even three years ago.
Yes, I am going for gold in Mental Gymnastics.
I think guys at r/mensrights found /r/tumblrinaction and have been trying to compete with the radfems on tumblr.
I'm an active female user of TIA. Every time I get downvoted in that sub, it's because I didn't follow the MRA line.
I worked as a family law paralegal in Nevada, where custody is awarded to the father in slightly over half the contested custody cases and basically everyone agrees the courts are gender neutral.
If I bring something about that up, more often than not, I'm downvoted. A couple months ago, there was a video posted in which a fat woman was clearly biased against the father. I agreed, but said she had some valid points (if you're concerned about your daughter's weight, don't buy her McDonald's) and that she had the child's best interest at heart and was trying, albeit in a confrontational manner, to teach the father what the court considered good parenting. I got way downvoted and informed that because she was fat, she couldn't know anything about nutrition or parenting.
I still love that subreddit 95% of the time.
Im surprised by your experience--I've done my fair share pointing out the small nuggets of validity in SJW posts, with little backlash.
Also, from what I've seen r/TIA seems pretty welcoming of MRA-themed tumblr posts--if only for variety's sake.
Reminds me when someone posted something with a rather famous misattributed quote to Catharine MacKinnon, and people were just accepting it as if it were real, when it was not.
As someone who used to frequent /r/TiA, the mensrights crowd found it a long time ago.
I used to browse that sub a little bit, but it got to the point where I realized that I was just sitting there seething at people who, while perhaps a little ridiculous, were pretty much doing no harm to anybody. Also because that sub sometimes attracts people who have issues with social justice in general, and not just with tumblr SJWs.
Same reason why I left those subs.
So terrible. The men's rights crowd is just inherently bad
It's so frustrating. As a male feminist, I could agree that there are many men's rights issues that are legitimate - take the overwhelming majority of women who get custody of children in a divorce. But then there are the /r/MensRights & /r/TheRedPill type folk who think that any attempt to promote equality of women is an attack on men.
X is diverse. Some of us are sensible, some of us aren't.
Where X = Christianity, feminism, /r/MensRights, and fans of Breaking Bad
>who think that any attempt to promote equality of women is an attack on men.
That is likely due to a disagreement on the appropriate measurement of equality.
For example if you promote equality of outcome, then you are inherently promoting inequality of treatment, which some will see as harmful.
While some promote equality of treatment, and others see unequal outcome as result, they find that harmful.
I rarely see anything on mensrights attacking equality between men and women, but rather mocking when women tip the scales in their favor and call it equality. This was the top submission there for a while yesterday, and while it pertains to an unimportant situation, it gets the point across. Equality means I get 1 vote and you get 1 vote, I pay 1 dollar and you pay 1 dollar, and if I am forced into selective service then so are you.
Wasn't that bakesale meant to highlight the gap in wages and spending capacity between men and women through their prices?
Also, what's up with MRAs constantly bringing up selective service? It's an impractical holdover from an older time that would have no real consequences. It's highly unlikely that we would have a conflict that would require the mandatory drafting of soldiers, and even if we did, the implementation of the draft would be effectively impossible in today's anti-war climate.
I think the consensus in the comments was that the bakesale had something to do with conservative groups parodying feminists. I'm not sure I agree, but thats what I recall from when I saw the post.
Anyway, most of the controversy that surrounds the pay gap issue is that it is often used in a misleading manner--it doesnt factor in things like career choice or hours worked, but is often used as proof of widespead sexism in the workplace.
The gap in wages is more complex than that though and is only really brought up by people that don't know more than "women earn less on average than men".
The reality is that it's a social difference, women don't choose to work in higher paying industries such as engineering, software development, etc.
When controlled for occupation and experience the gap is extremely small, not non existent of course, but small.
What we should really doing is trying to stop the gender categorisation of jobs. I honestly think this kind of thing starts waaay down when they're children, where train sets and Meccano are boy toys and dolls are girl toys.
Rare is it to see girls interested in actually making technology, of course many are interested in using it, but getting into the techie stuff is so heavily viewed as a boy thing, and this represents itself in job choice.
That's not to say that certain industries don't have large gaps too, and that there isn't a deficiency in the number of females capable of getting promoted to high executive business positions vs the number actually getting up there.
Right, so if the odds of the United States ever drafting anybody is so rare, then why doesn't everyone have to sign up? After all, if things are so desperate that the country starts up the draft, they will need every body they can get, men and women. Feminists are always talking about how women can be just as physically fit as men, and I honestly believe that, so why are they not required to sign up. Equal rights, equal responsibilities, that is what I believe.
There'd be literally no point to revising the Selective Service Act to include women when it's useless. It'd be more effective to have it removed entirely- which both feminists and MRAs have been fighting for. Still hasn't happened yet, though, and since it's regarded as a minor inconvenience and formality, probably won't for a decent amount of time.
Also, you'll note that the drafting of women would've been a pretty big stretch for the US military, considering that only this year were women finally allowed to serve in combat roles.
My problem with reddit MRAs is that they are allergic to context. If this were already an equal society, making men pay more at a bake sale would be blatantly discriminatory. But this isn't an equal society and they're not punishing us for being men. They're trying to make a point about the wage gap between men and women. Our money is worth less in the bake sale just like their labor is worth less in the job market.
It's easy to get upset about men's rights issues and blame feminists if you push the last few hundred years and most of the gender problems in today's society out of your mind. However, context matters. Neither side needs to be adversarial, but when the men's rights movement acts adversarial, it naturally comes off as whinier and more ridiculous because men have it damn good in the real world when everything is added up.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but isn't your argument also ignoring context? For example, yes a study in 2010 for the US Congress economic committee did find that females wages, according to job median salary, did represent 81 percent of male median earnings. However this statistic is not definitive because to quote the study:
"Users should note that the comparisons of earnings in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that may be significant in explaining earnings differences."
ie: factors such as the fact that women tend to dominate fields with differing wages. Again to quote
"In 2010, women accounted for 52 percent of all persons employed in management, professional, and related occupations, somewhat more than their share of total employment (47 percent). The share of women in specific occupations within this broad category varied. For example, 13 percent of architects and engineers and 32 percent of physicians and surgeons were women, whereas 60 percent of accountants and auditors and 82 percent of elementary and middle school teachers were women.In 2010, women accounted for 52 percent of all persons employed in management, professional, and related occupations, somewhat more than their share of total employment (47 percent). The share of women in specific occupations within this broad category varied. For example, 13 percent of architects and engineers and 32 percent of physicians and surgeons were women, whereas 60 percent of accountants and auditors and 82 percent of elementary and middle school teachers were women.
or
"In 2010, 27 percent of employed women usually worked part time—fewer than 35 hours per week. In comparison, 13 percent of employed men usually worked part time."
Another interesting fact brought up by this study was that "The overall unemployment rate for women in 2010 was 8.6 percent, compared with 10.5 percent for men."
Now I am not saying that the concept of a gender wage gap is wrong. In fact A report for the congressional economic commitee estimated that if you accounted for the differences in occupation and other discrepencies the wage gap was in the range of 6%.
I am not going to say that is insignificant. What I am going to argue is that it is not as bad as widely argued. Also you can draw parallels to differences and discrimination among both genders. An example that comes to mind is the cost difference for various insurance policies for men compared to women.
>An example that comes to mind is the cost difference for various insurance policies for men compared to women.
You can't legally do that anymore.
> If this were already an equal society, making men pay more at a bake sale would be blatantly discriminatory. But this isn't an equal society and they're not punishing us for being men. They're trying to make a point about the wage gap between men and women. Our money is worth less in the bake sale just like their labor is worth less in the job market.
That kind of assumes that the pay gap is due to discrimination, though.
That goes beyond context into begging the question.
>it naturally comes off as whinier and more ridiculous because men have it damn good in the real world when everything is added up.
That absolutely depends on how you weigh the comparisons.
Which is worse, higher suicide rates or suicide attempts? Being raped or being murdered? And so on.
Should these things hold equal weight, or different weights? How you frame the comparisons absolutely matters in making such claims, and it's absolutely unfair to compare the top of the heap and seeing men and using that as representative of men and comparing it to an aggregation of women, just as it would be unfair look at just the bottom of the heap and seeing mostly men and using that as representative of men and comparing that to an aggregation of all women.
It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
It's not so much that. /r/MensRights just has the same issue as a number of other idealogical sub-reddits: The people who upvote content are not the same people who are discussing the content in the comments.
Pretty frequently, some poorly-written but uber-zealous graph/self-post is top post for the day, and the top comments on the post are critical of the post itself.
That said, the sub is a sucker for uber-zealous comments too. It seems to be a time-of-day thing. 1pm-5pm, placid discussion gets upvoted. 6pm-midnight, zealous profanity laced with righteous anger gets upvoted.
That's not really a good example, though. The bake sale is trying to highlight the pay gap by saying that 75 debts is the same value to a woman that a dollar is to a man.
Of course, there's the question of why the pay gap exists and whether or not it has anything to do with inequality at the same positions
I frequently tell people that women on average get paid a teensy bit (like two cents) more per hour for the same job, but women work fewer hours and in worse paying jobs.
The real thing women should be considering is the reasons behind this. Yes, some employers are sexist; however, it's mostly due to mothers taking time off to raise children and women being underrepresented in high paying jobs.
The real issues are why are women expected to sacrifice much more of their careers than men for raising children, and why aren't women in the high paying careers?
I unsubscribed from there recently. I realized it wasn't making me laugh anymore; it was only making me angry and uncomfortable.
Sometimes I lose my ability toucan. But it always comes back.
Yes, fight misandry with misogyny! That's extremely effective.
(Interestingly, Swype does not automatically have misandry in its dictionary..)
That's because misandry don't real, shitlord!
Isn't TiA run by MRAs?
Edit: I like how I'm getting downvoted asking a simple question.
It sometimes feels that way now. It used to be a lot funnier.
God knows it certainly feels like it these days. I remember the days when it was all about making fun of people who claimed to be dragons or fairy corgis or had really weird fetishes.
Now they delight in any little post that says something negative about gender. It's like r/tia has never heard about hyperbole or jesting.
I know that feel. I used to like it when they were making fun of Otherkin, PUAs and, other "Dark Enlightenment" blogs. Now it's just Anti-SJW shit.
TiA has been anti-SJW since day 1.
Because most tumblr SJW are nuts.
Not at all. TiA is actually a far more diverse subreddit than tumblr itself, with people of many genders and sexual orientations. The only opinion we share is that we don't agree with the people we link to.
Doesn't that conflict with the results of the poll?
I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking this, but what are the reasons that some people are so vehemently against circumcision? As someone who's circumcised and doesn't ever think about it, I'm kind of curious.
Infants cannot consent and some people believe it is wrong for a parent to have an unnecessary surgery done to them that does not benefit them in any way. In fact, it puts them at (low) risk. Around 100 infants die each year from botched circumcisions, and even more children are injured. So opponents just think there isn't a good enough reason to continue the practice.
infants can't consent to a lot of things - like the food they eat, the religion they're brought up in, the books their parents read to them at night, the values their parents see fit to instill, the vaccines their parents choose or don't choose...etc.
I don't really care about the circumcision debate, but if you start arguing about how infant's can consent it gets murky quickly. Like, is ear piercing of infant girls also mutilation?
We generally don't let parents make permanent physical modifications without a medical reason. Tattoos, scarification rituals, etc are not allowed, even if there is a cultural reason for it. Male circumcision is the only exception we make. Everything else is not allowed, even though a lot of things are less permanent or invasive. Hell, tattoos can be removed - but we sent parents to prison for that.
You have to admit there is some inconsistency there.
Wow, I just realized I feel more strongly about infant ear piercing than I do about circumcision. I might need to examine some things...
The issue does seem to be a lack of consistency on the matter though.
Chosing food and clothing and what not are decisions that have to be made by a parent. There is no impetus about whether or not to cut genitals. Ear peircing is the closest analogy but even it is easily reversed while circumcision is a significant and traumatic physical alteration. So it's a double standard that most people think piercing childrens' ears is disgusting but not circumcision.
Where I come from, piercing a little girl's ears is pretty dang normal and I don't think anyone would suggest it's "disgusting"
>Chosing food and clothing and what not are decisions that have to be made by a parent. There is no impetus about whether or not to cut genitals.
there isn't much impetus for religion either, but parents choose it and it has lasting effects...
Well the feeling about piercings clearly varies from place to place. But still if a parent because convinced that it was wrong to have pierced the ears of their child, they can rest assured that reversal is just a matter of waiting for a few weeks.
I agree on religion, I'm a pretty anti-religious person and I think putting children into parents' religion is not different from just indoctrination and is wrong.
I'm not anti-religious, but i'm not religious either - I was using religion as an example because its something that has a lot of impact (as does not giving a child a religion), but not something that most people would say the parents don't have the right to choose for their child.
I guess it comes down to where do you draw the line?
I would draw the line where parent's aren't allowed to indoctrinate children. But that would be unrealistic. I'm not here to hedge my bets though; "where do you draw the line?" is another discussion. Even not knowing the answer, I can say circumcision is not the line - parents' rights do not include encroaching on a child's physical autonomy. A boy has a right to an intact penis.
what does physical autonomy really mean, though - sure a foreskin is an easy thing to notice because it is large, outside the body, and easily seen by all. what about the child's right to physical autonomy in regard to vaccines? Vaccines alter the child's body, just not in a way that is noticeable from the outside. Diet also alters a child's body. What sort of shoes the child wears alters the child's gait.
What I'm trying to say here, is that the notion of physical autonomy is rather murky - it would difficult to come up with a legal definition that did not look silly in some ways.
It's unnecessary surgery to permanently remove a body part that's potentially dangerous with no real medical benefit. (Studies showing a slight medical benefit are questionable due to a large number of studies that show that cleaning it properly has the same effect.) Vaccinations prevent horrible disease. Ear piercing isn't permanently cutting off a body part.
There's also the fact that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of a man's body, and theoretically there's a lot of pleasure lost due to it.
Basically, watch the video. It looks like they're torturing the baby.
I don't think the forskin is more sensitive than the glans...source: i have a foreskin, and it isn't more fun to touch than the head of my dick.
The key issue though is that the foreskin protects the glans, thus making them more sensitive. When you don't have it, your dick goes through a lot more wear and tear, reducing it's sensitivity. It's kind of the way they work together.
Why can't people use your argument instead of losing their marbles when it comes to circumcision? I'm a lot more inclined to support you/not believe you are insane with how well you worded that argument.
I am circumsized and many of my friends are as well. I have never heard someone get upset about it til I was on Reddit. Really seems like a silly thing to get upset over.
The practice of female genital mutilation is completely accepted in parts of Africa. It is a rite of passage and a sign of womanhood.
Also, San Francisco almost put a ban on non-medical circumcisions up to vote last year, and it's a pretty hot topic among a lot of people. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't make it a non-issue.
As to your first point, he never mentioned FGM.
Simply mentioning it to relate how they're both normalized traditions in the cultures they occur in. He's saying "well no one I know cares if people have their children circumcised'' and I'm pointing out that the women in Africa could probably say the exact same thing about their practices.
Simplest rewponse to that is just suggesting you watch Penn and Teller Bullshit on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY5g4fFhxWA
For some historical context, did you know the practise was introduced to Christian America by John Harvey Kellogg - the cornflakes guy - a medical quack, expressly for the purpose of discouraging masturbation in boys (he believed among other things it caused blindness and madness). He also advocated the use of acid on girls for similar reasons. It's not a done thing in the UK, Aus, NZ, etc., where genital cutting on infants of any sex is unthinkable and barbaric, and isn't even always tolerated in religious communities.
Generally the objections among american anti-circing people comes down to the fact that it is a cosmetic surgery done without consent.
[deleted]
Do you mean they equate it to FGM? Because that is hyperbole, but calling it mutilation isn't because that's the definition of mutilation. I think people tend to be against it because they don't believe it's right to remove part of someone's body before they are old enough to consent.
[deleted]
>Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femalegenitalmutilation
Now exchange the word "female" for "male" in the definition.
>all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external male genitalia or other injury to the male genital organs for non-medical reasons
Tell me how that's not a perfectly valid description of the overwhelming majority of circumcisions.
That's fine you don't care about it, but writing off people who compare the two as spouting "hyperbole" is pretty stupid.
Semantics.
FGM usually consists of type IB, which is the complete removal of the clitoris. This is what most people talking about FGM are referring to, and it's easy to miss the distinction between the technical definition and what it's commonly known as.
Nevertheless, we ban all types of FGM - and for good reasons.
>FGM usually consists of type IB, which is the complete removal of the clitoris. This is what most people talking about FGM are referring to
Really? So the person who responded to me (who's currently at +4) that compared it to cutting off the entire dick and balls is part of the minority?
Am I wrong that by replacing "female" with "male" in the definition of FGM turns it into a valid description of circumcision?
Yes, you are wrong. How does "total removal of male external genitalia" describe male circumcision? Are men's entire penises removed in circumcision? That's something new I learned.
[deleted]
...read the link. It talks all about what FGM is and FGM is not just "the total removal of the external genitalia."
Actually, scratch that, you don't have to click the link. I quoted it right there in my post.
>"all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."[2]
Can you not read?
>Are you fucking stupid. "Total removal of the external male genitalia." That would be chopping your dick and balls off. That is not what circumcision is.
ALSO, no, the testicles are where the sex cells are produced so cutting off the dick and balls would be like tearing out a woman's uterus and Fallopian tubes.
EDIT Yeah, thought so /user/opakanopa
Because it's an irreversible procedure done for absolutely zero benefit to people who aren't even capable of choosing for themselves.
You wouldn't get full-body tatoos on your newborn baby (I presume)... so why circumcise them? If they want it done they can get it later in life when they are capable of making their own decision.
I'm also circumcised and don't really think about it either, but apparently it does remove a large portion of the nerve endings... so who knows how everything is really supposed to feel? I mean, you could cut off a babies pinky finger as well and I'm positive they will grow up and they'll never really think about it because that's the way it's always been... but that's not really an argument for cutting their pinkies off.
> removed for absolutely zero benefit
Absolutley zero? Because even when the detractors say that you just have to keep it clean, they admit that its a least a bit more hygenic. Also, it keeps risk of certain infection down. That's not debated, what is if its worth it.
> apparently it does remove a lot of nerve endings
This is a bunch of hyperbole, its no more than on most areas of skin. There is not much if any evidence that it leads to decreased feeling either
Certain infection?
Male yeast infections. I have a relative that had to be circumsized as a teen because he kept getting them
Just teach your kids to wash their junk. Neither of my kids has ever had a yeast infection (they're 21 and 24, uncircumcised).
Some body chemistries are more prone to them than others, just like female ones. But yeah hygiene goes a long way
Eh, I won't argue. I'm not rabid on this topic, but when given the choice to have it done or not, there was just no reason to do it. No complaints from the kids so far!
HIV, herpes, papillomavirus (as well as penile cancer associated with papillomavirus), urinary tract infection, and even cervical cancer for women who are sexual partners..
This is why I had the dentist pull out all my teeth, because now I don't have to waste time brushing them.
>Absolutley zero? Because even when the detractors say that you just have to keep it clean, they admit that its a least a bit more hygenic. Also, it keeps risk of certain infection down. That's not debated, what is if its worth it.
Fair enough. But in the end, you're still performing a permanent surgery to fix a "problem" that is solved by an extra 2 seconds every time someone takes a shower.
>This is a bunch of hyperbole, its no more than on most areas of skin. There is not much if any evidence that it leads to decreased feeling either
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann/
Those seconds add up man. Few showers later you'll been talking minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutes
It's entirely possible this was disproven - I am no sexual scientist - but I remember reading a study which concluded that circumcision lessened the likelihood of contracting HIV from an infected partner.
Assuming that's true, so does the condom he still has to wear. The condom does a better job too.
The benefits of circumcision in protecting against disease are primarily in an unsanitary environment alongside poor hygiene.
Which is still greater than 0 benefit.
Mmmm, well there's a suggested benefit to women as well but that's equally dubious. It's like saying having no appendix prevents appendicitis so nobody should have an appendix.
edit: Here's the only non-paywalled way I know of to see the findings of a study done in Tanzania on women with various types of FGM. It's a terribly-formatted conference powerpoint but has relevant statistical data and seems to suggest that FGM correlates with lower risk of HIV despite socioeconomic class and region. I can't vouch for the study itself (and I think it's a practice worth ending regardless) but it's equal but opposite to studies suggesting MGM has a benefit in the third world.
http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf
There's a non-zero benefit to removing almost anything.
Damn right, remove your head, no more taxes!
I don't have an infection.
The vehement opinion on circumcision is a reddit teenage angst thing.
Normal people are like you, and don't give a shit one way or the other.
This is the one and only issue that MRAs have made me think more about & actually form an opinion. And I think their stance has merit. Enough that I tried to talk my sister out of getting her son cut (it didn't work, unfortunately, but I was there when she changed that first diaper at home and I think she regretted her decision). She brought up the typical points of "he'll look different in the locker room!" which is easily rebutted by studies of circumcision rates (they're falling), which just left her with "I don't like how they look" ... pretty flimsy. At any rate I don't think it's bad to spread information about how common it is becoming to skip it.
Obviously though there's a time and place for that conversation and it ain't "every thread about FGM ever". That's just going to hurt your cause.
I've never heard of the MRA, but the medical community is more or less split on the matter. There are slight benefits, and slight downsides, and nobody has a good reason to feel particularly strongly on the matter one way or the other. It's universally left as "parent's choice".
Teenagers on Reddit do not know more than a consortium of pediatricians, despite what they may think, which is why their Reddit rage is ridiculous and pointless.
American pediatricians may be split on the matter but Australian, Kiwi, Canadian, and Briitish pediatricians really are not. Hell, Germany tried to make it illegal.
In medicine If the benefits are not clear and significantly outweigh the risks, surgery is not performed. That's part of the Hippocratic oath.
> a good reason to feel particularly strongly on the matter one way or the other.
It's taking a scalpel to a baby's penis. That's a great reason to feel strongly one way.
Check out the downvotes, there are a bunch of people here who feel very strongly in favor of taking a scalpel to an infant's genitals. Weird.
Normal Americans maybe.
I can tell you, for New Zealanders of all ages, circumcision is unthinkable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_zkKciuIpA
Please watch this if you want to be informed. I reject MGM for the same reason people reject FGM.
I'm against it, although not exactly vehemently, mostly because it's pretty much pointless.
SnapShot
(Mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
Score of 38. 175 comments. It must be circumcision thread time again!
I am full of regret.
Comments doubled in 2 hours. Wow lol.
This fruit is hanging so low that with enough nurture and love it will some day grow into a beautiful drama tree.
I thought of a better one: this fruit is hanging almost as low as my glorious circumcised penis.
Considering the comments I think its a potato it's so low.
I'm pretty sure that FGM threads all go like this. Because equating the extremely painful near or complete nullification of external genitalia for religious reasons in unhygienic conditions to the removal of foreskin in modern hospital is a politically-correct metaphor.
You do realise that, unless you're wanting a double standard, that's an argument for modernising the clinical setting and practice of FGM, not an argument against FGM, right?
Which is exactly what the first step towards ending FGM should be. Or I should say, unfortunately, realistically could be. It is near-impossible to outright end such deeply ingrained cultural practices, especially when 98% of the population has undergone them.
Maybe you missed the part where I said something about removing all female external genitalia versus removing only the male foreskin. That's okay, it's only been said the past eighty or so times this topic has come up. Honest mistake.
>Maybe you missed the part where I said something about removing all female external genitalia versus removing only the male foreskin.
There are different types of FGM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femalegenitalmutilation#Classification
I think the best way to explain the anger is to point out that one of those types is analogous to routine male circumcision, and that it's a-okay for it to happen to boys.
True, but you'll note that although Type Ia, the removal of the clitoral hood, is analogous to the removal of the male foreskin and is the least invasive, it's also one of the rarest types of FGM performed alone. The vast majority of FGM and the base definition consists of Type Ib, which is the complete removal of the clitoris and prepuce, which is analogous with the removal of the head of the penis.
IMHO nobody should be getting their genitals modified in any way, but you can't really compare the outrage over the removal of foreskin to the backlash against FGM, which usually regards type Ib.
I think the main point is not that MGM=FGM, but that they are both sufficiently bad to say we shouldn't be doing either.
Me saying assault is bad doesn't mean I'm equating it to murder.
> IMHO nobody should be getting their genitals modified in any way, but you can't really compare the outrage over the removal of foreskin to the backlash against FGM, which usually regards type Ib.
The point is not to create an outrage - it's to force a hypocritical position and try to make people come to the same conclusion you have. We do ban all types of FGM. And it's a good thing.
>True, but you'll note that although Type Ia, the removal of the clitoral hood, is analogous to the removal of the male foreskin and is the least invasive, it's also one of the rarest types of FGM performed alone.
The point is that type 1a, even though incredibly rare and the least invasive, is still banned. Routine male circumcision, (which is still often encouraged, and the analogous procedure), is not. That's what people are mad about. It doesn't matter how rare it is, it's that one is illegal, and the other isn't. All this despite the similarities between the two.
Did you read the page you just linked? Removal of solely the clitoral foreskin is rarely, if ever, done.
Did you read the rest of this comment thread? I clarified that almost an hour ago.
No, I didn't. I can only see some of the comments on mobile.
The practice you are speaking of is not nearly as common as less harmful (still harmful) practices.
That's just untrue. In Somalia, the country in question, 79% of women have Type III FGM, the complete removal of external genitalia. See, this is what I don't get. Genital mutilation for either gender is obviously bad. Why do you feel the need to falsely diminish the severity and prevalence of FGM to support your agenda?
So would you theoretically be okay with female babies getting their external labia removed in a sterile, modern facility?
It would be cleaner, right? I mean, they could just wash their labia, but why not just have them cut off while they're too young to remember? And since HIV thrives in warm, moist crevices, it would almost certainly reduce the odds of contracting it. Also, when they're older some men might not like how their labia look if they hang out and stuff. Better to have that nice, clean look.
This sarcasm has been brought to you by the exact same logic applied to male circumcision.
SnapShots: 1, 2, 3, ^Readability
All hail the mighty snapshot bots.
Isn't the clitoral hood totally analogous to the penis foreskin?
The removal of the clitoral hood is classified as Type I and is rarely done alone. Wiki page
Other interesting highlights: FGM is generally performed without anaesthesia with non-sterile cutting devices used (including fingernails).
To be fair circumcision isn't often done with anasthesia either, but the rest of your points stand.
That just literally made me dry heave. Finger-fucking-nails?! Oh god.
1) Yes, but analogous doesn't mean the same. I'm not really sure how much keratinization affects the clitoris following FGM, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was different from male circumcision.
2) The hood isn't always the only thing that gets removed; it varies a lot, from removal of the exterior portion of the clitoris to removal of the clot and labia minora and infibulation, in which the vulva is basically sewn shut with only a tiny hole for urination/menstruation. This hole is then opened for the sake of intercourse and childbirth. You can probably see why this is physically dangerous and eliminates almost all sexual pleasure for the woman, as well as why it's not even comparable to male circumcision.
In addition to the points the others have made about the prevalence of more invasive FGM types, it is also important to note that girls who undergo even the least invasive types of FGM are generally a lot older than the male babies who experience MGM in the US.
Yes, but FGM encompasses a lot of practices which range in severity from removing just the clitoral hood to completely removing the clitoris, labia, and closing off the vagina. People usually aren't referring to the mildest form when they talk about FGM, and I think any reasonable person can agree that the more severe forms of FGM are way worse than male circumcision.
So you're comparing one single form of MGM, to the entire spectrum of FGM? And that's logical how?
Just go the fuck away already.
QQ
I have no clue how these things always devolve into the fucking oppression olympics. Both, at least in my perspective, are wrong, but the damage that can be done by FGM is worse than the damage done by male circumcision. Does that previous statement make circumcision any less bad? No, it fucking doesnt. Theses things dont have to be a damn zero sum game
>You aren't making an argument, you are creating a diversion, like a child.
Hahahaha brilliant
He totally got em.
More people that don't know there are multiple types of FGM.
Damn, IdleGod has a lot of time on his hands. I suppose it comes from being so idle. 64 children and counting. At least he's personally responding to almost everyone.
The thread transforms from your normal butter into random insults around here:
> Honestly, most girls who had it done don't care either.
I particularly liked:
> IdleGod: Yea, can't even form a coherent argument without being a hypocrite. Good job. I expected nothing less from you.
> annicakes: I'm truly sorry I did not exceed your expectations. I don't know how I will ever live with myself.
Bonus: I'm going to be mad at you for saying something? Oh, you didn't say it? Well, somebody did. So I guess that proves my point.
Of course he is a complete idiot and that statement certainly adds nothing to the discussion, but it would be valuable to actually read/discuss a bit more about the way FGM is experienced by women and girls in the African countries where this is a common cultural phenomenon, and not through a Western lens but from the perspective of those women who are actually living fully immersed in those cultural environments.
We studied some of this in my anthropology class a few years back, and it turns out that just charging in there as a Western NGO and demanding the activity ends by claiming to protect the poor innocent girls can do more harm than good. This happened, IIRC, in one of the countries where the practice is less universal and a less invasive form of FGM was the norm, and there was a backlash from the women too, who saw the procedure as empowering and a way to express their femininity.
A better thing to do would be to initially set up health clinics and work with the tribal/cultural leaders to perform the FGM in a safe environment while focusing on (women's) education in general, and hoping that some domestic women's activists eventually emerge and demand change from within. Complete cultural relativism can be damaging and end up supporting horrible patriarchical/oppressive systems, but you have to accept that you can't force cultural practices to end by decree, especially as an outsider.
Instead, reddit either shouts: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE AMERICAN PENIS?! or AFRICANS ARE SAVAGE APES LOL KILL THEM ALL.
If you ever read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, she talks a bit about her perspective as a circumcised woman from Somalia being exposed to uncircumcised Dutch women. To her, they were unclean, much like how we think of women who don't shave their legs or armpits, and she couldn't imagine living like that. You and I may look at FGM and say it's horrible and needs to stop immediately, but obviously to them, this isn't the case. It's an interesting clash of values, and one that isn't easy to solve by any means. It's also hailed as one of the key examples of why western European feminism should not be seen as speaking for all women, as it's commonly assumed to do.
I am actually from NL and I did read her autobiography. I don't agree with a lot of her politics, but I really admire her. Interestingly, she of course radically changed course after a while and takes one of the strongest possible positions against FGM:
>When in Dutch parliament she proposed obligatory annual medical checks for all uncircumcised girls originating from a country where female mutilation is practiced. If a girl turned out to have been circumcised, the physician would report this to the police, with protection of the child prevailing over privacy
which makes the debate even more interesting. I mean, she was 'sown shut' to ensure her virginity, and it took a radical change of her circumstances, full immersion into a liberal Western society and a lot of education to really make her realize how terrible that was, but in the end she did see that it is terrible. So Euro feminism might not speak for all women, yet, but we should all do our best to make sure that eventually it does. Getting to that point requires gradual change and true understanding of cultural differences.
OT: I really wish she would return to the Netherlands. One of the few harsh critics of Islam who can argue from the perspective of personal experience and with intelligence and empathy. With debates on Islam, integration and immigration represented on one side by just a bunch of xenophobic populists, there is never going to be any positive change. Even if I think she often goes too far, at least I could debate her and she might even change my mind on some issues.
I believed you have been duped. Ayan Hirsi is very much a liar, I have never been circumcised, plenty of somali women have never gone through circumcision and I am not an outcast in my community.
I feel like I have to comment because of the sheer amount of misinformation being thrown around about somali people in general ( our population is a little over 10 million). I was born in Somalia and my parents lived in the capital city during the 70s and 80s. During this time there were several Somali woman's groups (they are viewable on YouTube but not in English) spreading awareness about circumcision of girls from a public health perspective. The rate of fgm dropped dramatically, however, sadly there has been constant instability in the country so it's very unlikely that the rate has decreased over the past 20 years. I have seen and heard many people making assumptions as to why this is performed based on their own prejudices and The one thing I would like to mention though is the reason is that fgm did decrease is because it's not a vital part of the culture and it held no purpose in the somali culture. It's a relic from ancient Egypt and that's why it is called 'the pharaonic circumcision'. People don't do it to keep their daughters pure or as a religous rite. They do it because it's always been done. I honestly believe that the statistic are very off, to put it in perspective I don't know a single girl that has gone through fgm my age, and I've never heard of a single person who has died from fgm or has had any severe consequences from it. I do wish that people would stop speaking of barbaric practices because then it becomes a very political issue, as it then becomes a political issue rather than a health issue as it was in The 70s. Somalia has very good reason not to trust foreign help and with people calling as barbarians then I feel the practise will never stop.
Foreskin warriors
Cobras mourning their lost hoods
Rage on reddit. Rage!
[deleted]
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/12/121380/2068299-1260071732862.png
Didn't we ban your alt months ago for being a novelty account?
It's pretty disrespectful to say that caring about social justice is just some "novelty"
>lol i trool u
>Really, how can you be this out of touch, yet attempt to espouse an opinion?
Wow.
> I'm not here to educate you. You need to educate yourself.
Aaaand there we have it. Full on stupid.
Can't we just agree that we shouldn't cut things like that off of any of our children? No? Well okay, I guess I'll just go sit back down then.
I find it strange that some people who were circumcised as children and are happy with it see that as a good reason to do it to their children. Your children aren't you, so you being happy with it doesn't guarantee your children will be too.
Also, does anyone else find the argument "it's okay because they won't remember it anyways" really fucking weird? I mean, if someone is raped while in a coma, does the fact that they don't know it happened make it okay?
>it's okay because they won't remember it anyways
Yeah, that argument is quite disturbing. My guess is that they're rationalizing the guilt away. I wish these people would apply this logic when deciding on infant circumcision.
Circumcision seems to be the only thing where saying "he's a baby, he won't remember the pain" won't get you labeled as an inhuman monster. That and vaccinations, but those actually serve a real medical purpose.
You know, they used to do open heart surgery on babies without anesthetic until psychologists stepped in and said "hey maybe babies can feel pain too." It's pretty ridiculous what people do without thought sometimes.
Source?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20928962
This study was done in the 1980s to see if anesthesia would help infants undergoing surgery because they weren't routinely given any.
Horrific. Glad we've made progress with anesthesia techniques to make them safer for babies.
Oh definitely. They were certainly safe enough then, and now that it's more common I'm sure the dosages have been standardized much more.
Thanks. Thanks for bringing the drama in here. Good job.
So this is supposed to be a circlejerk that's pro-circumcision? I'm sorry, but it's impossible to say one opinion on something and not get the opposing view when it's a topic like circumcision.
Well, there are four scenarios: 1) Circumcised and liking it, 2) Circumcised and not liking it, 3) Uncircumcised and liking it, 4) Uncircumcised and not liking it.
The problem is that for those in group 4, they would much rather have been circumcised as infants and will likely forego the operation altogether as adults. You completely remove this option if you ban infant male circumcision. But if you allow infant male circumcision, you also create the possibility of those in group 2.
So there's a trade-off.
But for me, what it comes down to is this: who is in the best position to determine what the infant will want as an adult? The parents or the state?
If you would have preferred to be circumcised as an infant, you still have a choice to get the operation as an adult. If you forego it, you're making that choice.
You can rectify the situation of not getting circumcised when you're a child easier than you can rectify the situation of getting a circumcision when you're a child. Basically, it's easier to do a circumcision on an adult than to undo one.
Why can't we just all agree, as a species, to stop cutting up the genitalia of our young? Is that so much to ask?
Seriously, who was the first sick fuck to think, "Huh, I think we should lop off and mutilate the genitals of newborns."? And who was the next sick fuck who heard that and went "Well, that's a great idea!"?
I have absolutely no problem with the so called hijacking of threads. Posting off-topic in a sub is one thing, but it takes at least two to debate, so why the fuck not?
I consider the first post to be relevant actually, I don't see why it's so downvoted, or why people react so immaturely to it. IdleGod pointed out that genital mutilation doesn't just happen "far away", it happens in the USA as well, where they actually can do something about it. It's a valid and relevant observation. He says it better later on though.
Some sources for his more outrageous claims would be nice though, now they just sound stupid.
Adding to nonnyduck's comment:
Unfortunately, reddit is not capable of judging comments on their own in the midst of drama. So all the more ridiculous things he says later end up reflected in that first comment's score.
It always suprises me that so few can read all of his comments and understand that he's just bad a communicating his views, instead assuming he's downplaying the severity of getting your vagina sewn shut. He seems to have quite a level-headed view of genital mutilation, but he's not backing up his more "out there" claims with any kind of evidence, and noone asks for sources (which also suprises me). Instead they just downvote and insults him. I don't get it.
That has more to do with what nonnyduck said. Talking about MGM in a thread about FGM has been poisoned by people derailing every thread with the same drama for a long time. Its unfortunate for people who walk into it without knowing the history (I agree that at least the first comment can be read as perfectly reasonable), but as long as people feel the need to bring it up every time you'll get the hostility. I do think downvoting is defensible here (but not the piling on with insults). People don't want MGM brought up in FGM threads, and downvotes are how they register that preference (though -50 might be a bit much).
Hmm, that makes the situation more understandable for me. I've never been in a discussion about FGM on reddit before. I can see that it's irritating if it always happen.
Circumcision derailment happening on all FGM threads was an established thing when I first went on the internet (at least in circles where FGM came up). Not that I'm that old, but I'd say the history is very important in this case.
I think he got downvoted because whenever there's something about FGM, there's always somebody there being the downer at the FGM party, all talking about male circumcision.
The drama comes in later in the thread. I mean, there are ways to make your point. I'm not personally a supporter of circumcision. But to say that FGM doesn't affect the women who had it done... it just went down a blind nasty rabbit hole from there.
Well, they are related and one of them is still being done in their country. Dismissing those who bring it up tactfully is just childish.
I think the drama starts quite early when they all attack him well before he says something that's stupid without backing it up with sources. And he doesn't say that FGM doesn't affect the women who had it done, he said it doesn't affect most women, meaning (as he explains later) that the most usual method is much "nicer" than sewing up the vagina. He should have sourced that though.
He actually says "most girls who had it done don't care." That's a quote, man.
And? Wonder how many times he's heard "most guys who had it done don't care." Rather, how many times anyone who's been on reddit has either seen it or said it themselves.
He was probably trying to make a point.
Well, to a lot of people the USA is farther away than Northern or East Africa, and since that is the topic of the TIL, why try to make it all about MGM in America? It also implies that the two are equally severe, which is obviously not the case.
Probably because a lot of people here are from the USA, and it was a point of "countries we think of as civilized still have lots of genital mutilation going on", which he continued by pointing out that a variant of it happens in the USA as well.
I keep seeing people saying it implies they're equally severe, but I can't see it in his post at all. I see him saying "you do know we're not squeaky clean on the genital mutilation front, right?", nothing else. You can draw parallels between situations without saying they're equal in every way.
Hm. You know, reading it within the context of the comment that he replied to about the 91% FGM rate in Egypt and its supposed status as more civilized, this is somewhat of a fair point.
But he does seem to equate it or almost equate it in his other comments. And in general, the immediate Americocentric response to any issue that's even remotely related to an American issue is kind of annoying to me.
I'm not an American and MGM nor FGM take place in my country, so if I had to chose between campaigning for an end to FGM in Africa or MGM in America, the former seems way more urgently in need of reform given that the consequences are several orders of magnitude more terrible and part of a generally alarming lack of women's rights, education and lack of access to health care. All issues which to me seem far more relevant and related to FGM in Somalia than MGM in the US.
I'd say that he's just bad at communicating. I think he's trying to say that the most common (according to him at least) FGM is comparable to MGM. Without backing it up of course, and said far to late for people to listen.
The Americocentric view is annoying, I agree, it was probably how he thought though.
Yeah, FGM in Somalia is a much larger and horrible issue than MGM in the USA. Still, focusing on the one he can affect doesn't mean it has to turn into a pissing contest.
Fair enough, I think people just pile on because this happens all the time FGM is brought up so he is immediately seen as another MRA who considers them to be equivalent and feels the need to inject his campaign into any remotely related topic
>the most common (according to him at least) FGM is comparable to MGM.
which is still wrong and seems to confirm the above
Probably. I really know nothing about FGM and would have liked to have his source on his weirder claims. They would have helped his arguments, if they exists.
Sadly, this is how that argument would probably go.
> It also implies that the two are equally severe, which is obviously not the case.
Implying that there is only one type of FGM, or that there is one type of MGM.
There is one type of MGM in America, the one that almost everyone is shouting about there, which is overwhelmingly more common. As for FGM, as I said in a post there (before I came here) there are 2 types of FGM which are the most common:
Type 1: Excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris.
Type 2: Excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora
both are objectively more severe, since even the least severe version of type I (which is also the most uncommon of any of the types) is often done at an age when this leaves more psychological scars than the baby MGM in the US.
I love it when strangers on the internet tell me how horribly destroyed and hideous my penis is. I thought it worked just fine but I guess my girlfriend and I were mistaken.
Yeah. Think about how those poor African women must feel seeing all these Americans tell them their tradition is a horrific mutilation of their genitals.
Average Joe: "Well, you know I'm okay with being circumcised."
Circumcision Crusaders: "No you're not."
... well alrighty then. Debate won, I guess.
That seems like an oversimplification. There are women who have been circumcised who are 'okay' with it, and who actively participate/encourage circumcision of the next generation of women. That doesn't mean that we can't condemn FGM.
cultural relativism.
what one see's as barbaric, others see as the norm. same can be said with mgm in the united states.
I think a better argument would be
Average Joe: "Well, you know I'm okay with being circumcised."
Circumcision Crusaders: "That's fine, but it doesn't matter when discussing whether you should circumcise your child. You are not your child, so you don't know if they'll be okay with it. Why bother risking it?"
Many deaf people are ok with being deaf. That doesn't mean we should let them destroy their babies' eardrums.