or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Arguments to persuade feminists/women of the madness of circ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arguments to persuade feminists/women of the madness of circ - Page 6

post #101 of 111
Come to think of it I don't know any circ'd boys right now whose father wasn't 100% insistant that they be circ'd. The only 2 circ'd boys I know had mothers who very much didn't want it done and gave in to their DH's wishes. What "group" of people are you around that feels this way?
post #102 of 111
Anyway, when I say it's not a women's issue I don't mean it has nothing to do with women or that women shouldn't concern themselves with it or oppose it or anything like that. All I mean is that it's not part of the women's liberation movement -- it's not a violation of women's rights. It's a violation of babies' rights, human rights, males' rights, etc, but women are not the victims.
post #103 of 111
I agree women aren't directly victimized by RIC. I do think women being sold on mutialting their babies is a violation of women. Also I think that since most women (who are heterosexual) of a certain age (in the US) are most likely having intercourse with circed men we are sexually affected by MGM. I think as a culture of people women and men we are all affected by MGM.
I guess I do think women who have been lied to and convinced to harm their children have been the victim of RIC. I have read so many heartbreaking stories by women who have allowed this to happen to their babies and all the grief it has caused them. Women have been lied to and has caused a great deal of women to harm their own babies. I guess again it is just a difference of perspective.
I don't think women's groups should take up MGM as a major issue but I do think they should just acknowledge our own little dirty mutilation habit when they discuss FGM.
post #104 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbf
Anyway, when I say it's not a women's issue I don't mean it has nothing to do with women or that women shouldn't concern themselves with it or oppose it or anything like that. All I mean is that it's not part of the women's liberation movement -- it's not a violation of women's rights. It's a violation of babies' rights, human rights, males' rights, etc, but women are not the victims.
I hear you and understand what you are saying.

As an aside, I want you to know that, although I think there has been a bit of miscommunication going on, I'm really enjoying this thread. I think it has given all of us reason to stop and think about where we are all coming from, with respect to RIC.

When I said earlier that "women give birth", it was a statement of fact. I understand that not ALL women give birth during their lifetime, nor do ALL women want to give birth. The fact does remain that ONLY women CAN give birth; thus (to me) anything and everything surrounding birth, newborns and the care of children should be inherently a "women's issue". Women looking out for women, whether they give birth or not. Does that make sense?

I guess I've always believed that "Feminism" is not just about women's rights, or women as victims, but also a kinder, more respectful way of life for everyone. If that can be obtained (with respect to genital integrity) by simply (and logically) expanding the view against FGM to include a view against MGM, why not?

Cindy

Lindsey (96/02/26)
Jason (00/06/08)
post #105 of 111
We as a society will not gain anything if we make things man against woman. That thinking is how we got were we are now. Thinking of ourselves and our specially groups, to h*ll with anything else. How are we truly liberated if others are not? Were slave owners librated while having slaves, they had their rights to h*ll with the rest? I have all my body parts and rights, to h*ll with the rest. How does that attitude make me more librated? How does that benifit the future generation I gave birth too.


http://www.noharmm.org/feminist.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/mediafem.htm

The last “feminist” I discussed this issue with was surprised and what Gloria Steinem said. This is a person they respected. http://www.noharmm.org/FGCsay.htm
Gloria Steinem (Introductory remarks to panel discussion of FGM, part of the "About Women" series held by the 92nd Street Young Women & Men’s Hebrew Association, New York City, 6 October 1997)
"I would like to remind us that we all share patriarchy, which is the pillar of almost every current political system, capitalist or socialist. And it has a rock bottom requirement, the control of women’s bodies as the most basic means of production, the means of reproduction. This control is used to determine how many workers a family, group or nation has and who owns children… These patriarchal controls limit men’s sexuality too, but to a much, much lesser degree. That’s why men are asked symbolically to submit the sexual part of themselves and their sons to patriarchal authority, which seems to be the origin of male circumcision, a practice that, even as advocates admit, is medically unnecessary 90% of the time. Speaking for myself, I stand with many brothers in eliminating that practice too."
post #106 of 111
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheacoby
I agree women aren't directly victimized by RIC. I do think women being sold on mutialting their babies is a violation of women. Also I think that since most women (who are heterosexual) of a certain age (in the US) are most likely having intercourse with circed men we are sexually affected by MGM. I think as a culture of people women and men we are all affected by MGM.
I guess I do think women who have been lied to and convinced to harm their children have been the victim of RIC. I have read so many heartbreaking stories by women who have allowed this to happen to their babies and all the grief it has caused them. Women have been lied to and has caused a great deal of women to harm their own babies. I guess again it is just a difference of perspective.
I don't think women's groups should take up MGM as a major issue but I do think they should just acknowledge our own little dirty mutilation habit when they discuss FGM.
ITA with this. Again, ya gotta read Ron Goldman's book Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. It makes so much sense that the trauma of circumcision leads to all sorts of antisocial behaviors that directly affect women.

Women are affected sexually by circ (and I should know) - friction, vaginal dryness, etc. Not to mention erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, all sorts of other sexual problems that are linked to circ - it affects me when my partner has a sexual problem.

Women are affected by violence, sexual abuse, and antisocial behaviors perpetrated by men whose first experience out of the womb was the sexual assault and violence of circumcision (what is done to children, they will do to society).

Women are affected by circumcision when their bond (and their breastfeeding) of their baby boys is negatively affected - even more so when they are not given informed consent about what circumcision really is, then have to live with the trauma and guilt.

I don't think it detracts from the goals or the energy of the feminist movement (to the extent there is such a unified force in the US today) one bit to acknowledge the harm RIC does to women, children, and our entire society.

Hmm, I wonder if focusing on the sexual impacts of circumcision as felt by women would be a persuasive argument....haven't tried that one. Problem is, then you get all anecdotal - "Well, my circed dh and I have a great sex life so that can't be true."
post #107 of 111
I certainly would never say that MGM doesn't affect women.

This isn't about men vs. women. Feminists aren't saying "to hell with everyone else."

Organizations can be more effective if they concentrate on one particular area.

As an individual person, I can choose to support both a women's rights organization and an anti-MGM organization.

No one would say that the NAACP is saying "to hell with everyone else" just because they're focused on their own agenda.
post #108 of 111

URL for archived page mentioned earlier --

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah
I tried to go back yesterday and find this one essay which was horribly sexisist and cruel to demonstrate the mindset that has been spoken of. I checked all my FGM bookmarks and there were a few which no longer worked. I'm guessing that it was one of them- and if so, I hope that the horrible essay is gone for good and not just relocated to a new url.

The website which was hosting it was an organization, it was not a private individual's website, the head of the organization had posted a letter/essay to any person who might DARE draw a parallel between FGM and MGM... she then explained basicly, that FGM is bad because the horrible opressor- men- do it to women to subjugate them, and MGM can't be comparable because men have never been subjugated and if it was bad, they(men) would have all the power they need to stop it. She then finished the essay with a cruel rebuff to anyone who might have the audacity to ask her to include MGM under the umbrella of child genital integrity which she was ALLEGEDLY working for... she told men to quit their whining because their mommies are busy with a real problem. (to that effect)

Her opinions were shockingly undeveloped from a social standpoint...

I can tell you that the website had black backgrounds and white letters... but beyond that- I forget specifics. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

Love Sarah


I got your back, hon:

http://web.archive.org/web/200302071...evFemCirc.html

The essential error of this woman's analysis, intellectually speaking, lies in how it is completely crippled by its reliance upon the fallacious ultra-reductionist conceptualization that power relations between human beings are exclusively limited to gender relations.

As I hope we all know, this is hardly the case -- the inarguable existence of such other power relations as those existing between States and Citizens, or Adults and Children, and of their significance in and impacts upon people lives, categorically disproves it.

In point of fact, the essence -- not the sole aspect, but the fundamental one -- of routine and ritual child genital amputation is not the establishment of control over one gender by the other, or even over children by adults, but rather the establishment of control over individuals by the community.

Driving parents to become complicit in the harm and abuse of their own children, through varying means, is essentially a process of behavioral modification engaged in by a community in general, with the essential goal of instilling within individuals -- the parents, and depending upon their customary age, their children as well -- a habit of conformity and obedience to the direction and control of the community.

And the behavioral modification involved where children past the age of reason are concerned, should be, of course, immediately evident to all.

<yawn> Argh. I have a lot more to say about this and other matters raised in this thread, including a much more direct answer to the original question, but it's one in the morning out here in granolaland and I still need to go do the Goat and a few other household chores as well tonight, and I'm fading fast, so. . .that will have to come later.

Okay, it was one in the morning, before my ISP locked up on me and I had to redo all this from memory after everything else that needed doing <sigh>.

Going to bed now, finally.

Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
post #109 of 111
"In point of fact, the essence -- not the sole aspect, but the fundamental one -- of routine and ritual child genital amputation is not the establishment of control over one gender by the other, or even over children by adults, but rather the establishment of control over individuals by the community."

Ack- are you saying that you threaded together this beautiful paragraph with a locked up ISP at one AM? My goodness, this is the best I have read in a long long time. I was going to start a thread soon on "the social benefits of circumcision" to take this beyond the lockerroom and get to the really nitty gritty of what is driving people. I hope that you will contribute more because I could really use your help in structuring the never-spoken into words this clear!

Love Sarah
post #110 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirky
Hmm, I wonder if focusing on the sexual impacts of circumcision as felt by women would be a persuasive argument....haven't tried that one. Problem is, then you get all anecdotal - "Well, my circed dh and I have a great sex life so that can't be true."
It isn't all or nothing- really great or really horrible. Obviously you can have great sex with someone who is circ'd. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been BETTER, but that's a moot point.

What I'm saying is not does having a circ'd partner change the experience for ME, but rather that it changes it for HIM- which in TURN changes it for ME! Make sense? Again- more for me to "work with" = better for me since its better for him! (I know... its a very altruistic viewpoint, but nevertheless... lol)
post #111 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan1097
What I'm saying is not does having a circ'd partner change the experience for ME, but rather that it changes it for HIM- which in TURN changes it for ME!
Exactly! My ex GF said sex got better after I restored. Part of it was the lessened friction but another and significant part was that my greater excitement during the act sexually excited her and gave her a better sexual experience.



Frank
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Arguments to persuade feminists/women of the madness of circ