Washington Post: Rallying in the Name of the Unkindest Cut? (PICS!!)

[robertandenith]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ss_print/style

WOW!

Leading the pack are two 21-year-olds, Jason Siegel and Zachary Levi Balakoff, who are on Day 3 of a hunger strike. They say they won't eat until genital mutilation is exposed. Go ahead, ask them why. They'll tell you, for many minutes, about the "entire realms of exquisite feeling" they are missing by not having foreskins and the corresponding nerves. The "giant monstrosity" of circumcision envelops" their entire lives.

"If we have to die, then that's what's necessary," Balakoff says. They say they'll sit in front of the Capitol until they starve.

[KMomto2xy]

Wow that article seemed pretty intent on portraying anti-RIC people as fringe nutjobs.

[perspective]

How much of the medical community defines circumcision: a simple, nearly painless operation that removes an obsolete part of the body that can increase a man's susceptibility to infections and sexually transmitted diseases (circumcision reduces the risk of getting HIV by 60 percent, studies show).

How religion defines circumcision: as a covenant with God, as conveyed to Abraham.

It's a lopsided fight, but each side has doctors and lawyers. Each side has data. Each accuses the other of denial. One side is labeled as a bunch of baby-cutting sex criminals. The other is labeled as sex-obsessed, fanatical loonies who are duping the public.

You can see how biased the author is by reading this part. He says both sides have doctors and lawyers, with crazy intents, yet only with intactivists does he also say "are duping the public." To many of the "facts" in this are just based on his personal bias.

[momof3soon]

Originally Posted by KMomto2xy

Wow that article seemed pretty intent on portraying anti-RIC people as fringe nutjobs.

yup

[PuppyFluffer]

A Washington Post reporter was at the Capitol on Sunday interviewing many. He spent over three hours there I would say. I overheard a lot of the dialog. I would have a hard time thinking this was the end result of the interviews. What a lousy article!

I was unable to attend the actual march on Monday that this article focuses on. I can only hope that the reporter that was present on Sunday at the demonstration on the Capitol lawn does a real informative indepth piece in the near future.

I truly hope this is the creation of someone other than the Sunday guy.......

[LavenderMae]

That article just pissed me off, so very pro-circ biased.

[Jeff B]

Overall I thought the article was great. Our message came through even though it was not as strong as we would have liked it to be.

Having an article about circumcision and intactivism on the first page of the Style section in a major US newspaper helps to raise awareness of the issue.

[Papai]

I'm not surprised that the intactivists were made to sound like psychos while the pro-circ group was made out to be reasonable and rational.

The hunger striking duo is odd though....

[carriebft]

I liked this part, too bad it was tucked away right at the end:

The other marchers just want people to keep the clamps and knives away from infants. They just want society to respect the bodies of everyone, with no disrespect to any religion. They just want men to know what they're missing, so maybe they won't choose to do the same to their sons. They say their message is reaching a wider audience. Circumcision rates are way down from their peak of 85 percent in 1965. The foundation Intact America started six months ago to direct the message to the mainstream. The goal is a male genital mutilation bill.

[lotusdebi]

Originally Posted by Jeff B

Having an article about circumcision and intactivism on the first page of the Style section in a major US newspaper helps to raise awareness of the issue.

I think this is an important point. The Washington Post has a very large audience. I've been reading the WP pretty much my whole life. The fact that such a small protest (in a place that hosts protests on a constant basis) got any sort of mention in the WP is pretty amazing.

[robertandenith]

Originally Posted by lotusdebi

I think this is an important point. The Washington Post has a very large audience. I've been reading the WP pretty much my whole life. The fact that such a small protest (in a place that hosts protests on a constant basis) got any sort of mention in the WP is pretty amazing.

I agree to that...

I am sure it left many readers thinking no matter how bad or good the piece is..

[PuppyFluffer]

Originally Posted by Jeff B

Overall I thought the article was great. Our message came through even though it was not as strong as we would have liked it to be.

Having an article about circumcision and intactivism on the first page of the Style section in a major US newspaper helps to raise awareness of the issue.

Jeff, I have to agree, the coverage is really great. I just wish it had more facts and was less flippant.

[Pumpkinheadmommy]

I thought it was a good article overall too. I got the sense while reading it that the author's opinion was evolving. Like at first he wanted to dismiss it, but then decided it was worth taking a second look. First, it starts out with this:

Their mounted photos of pink squealing babies make the event look, at first glance, like an anti-abortion rally.

But look closer at the squealing baby photos and see why they're squealing.

On second thought, don't. Just read the big black sign with bold white letters:

WHOSE PENIS?

WHOSE BODY?

WHOSE RIGHTS?

Sure, he mentions "a bit of craziness" but I don't feel he made the entire movement look crazy at all. He related Genital Integrity Awareness Week to National Child Abuse Prevention Month. He pointed out that FGM was banned 12 years ago and now it's time for equal rights for boys. He has a parenthetical that says the AAP says the benefits are not sufficient to recommend the procedure. Sure, maybe he notes that our critics say we're "duping" the public, but look how the other side got labeled! And most importantly, look how it ended:

"You know what? This is America," the guide says, and it's hard to tell if she means it as a celebration or an excuse.

It gives the reader something to think about.

[Jeff B]

Originally Posted by PuppyFluffer

Jeff, I have to agree, the coverage is really great. I just wish it had more facts and was less flippant.

I also wish the article had more facts and was less flippant, but it was in the Style section, not the news section.

[carriebft]

Jeff-- how are those two young men hunger striking doing? Are they still there with you? So they seem ok?

[PuppyFluffer]

Originally Posted by Jeff B

I also wish the article had more facts and was less flippant, but it was in the Style section, not the news section.

I think finding it in the "Style" section is a bit off too. Like cut or uncut, it's just a "style".....No, I don't think so! URGH. We have a long way to go. I guess I need to celebrate the small steps more but I'm having trouble with this one.

[Jeff B]

Originally Posted by carriebft

Jeff-- how are those two young men hunger striking doing? Are they still there with you? So they seem ok?

On March 31st we demonstrated in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building. The two young men on the hunger strike were there all day. They were doing well considering they had not eaten for several days. Most of the day, they stood with their signs and told everyone who passed by, "Male genital mutilation must end". When they got tired they took a break and lay down in a grassy area to rest.

We all felt that the article in the Washington Post had exposed male genital mutilation, which was their goal. I think they planned to eat again that night and return home. They said they are going to demonstrate in front of hospitals when they get home.

Tuesday was the last day of the demonstration. We all needed to return home.

Thank you to everyone who participated this year and to everyone who sent words of encouragement and support. I thought we were very successful this year in communicating our message.

[carriebft]

I agree about the article...if you search google news you will see that lots of people are commenting on that article, even Rush Limbaugh (although it was all a joke to him). But there are many blogs on it and also spin off articles.

I think that demonstrates the high rate of exposure!