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 5

post #81 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by laidbackmomto2
And MGM is a WOMEN's issue and FGM is a MEN's issue...And I totally agree.
FGM is an issue that it's appropriate for men to concern themselves with, and MGM is an issue that it's appropriate for women to concern themselves with. But MGM is not a matter of women's rights (unless you're talking about a mother's right to complete information about the procedure, or some of the other aspects that Frank mentioned), and FGM is not a matter of men's rights. You know, I think we really all agree, and we're getting all heated up about semantics. When we say it's a men's issue, first of all I think we've made it clear that we don't mean it's ONLY a men's issue, and second of all we're not saying that in order to dismiss the issue. We're just saying that men are victims of MGM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheacoby
You know it really doesn't matter what GROWN MEN have done or not done, when we are discussing infant MGM. BABIES AREN'T MEN, they are freaking babies. To talk about what men have done to women in a conversation like this makes me pissed as hell. I really hate to think that a GROWN WOMAN could look at a baby boy and see hate like this. And not care about his suffering. I guess to me at least a baby is not a man and cannot and should not be held responsible for what men have done. I find it completely irrelevant what wrongs men have done (and yes they have done plenty) when it comes to MGM.
You know, I really don't know what this post is responding to. No one is looking at baby boys and seeing hate. No one is saying they don't care about the suffering of baby boys. No one is saying baby boys should be held responsible for the actions of men. No one is saying that one's position on MGM should be influenced by the wrongs men have done. Where is all of this coming from? A lot of people seem to be imagining thoughts that they think are in our minds, and getting upset about them, even though nothing remotely resembling such thoughts is actually in our minds. Pugmadmama never said that MGM eradication would be bad for women, either, by the way. There is some very serious misinterpretation going on here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
Please go to the NOCIRC site or any other that is identified as anti-circ and see if you don't see information about female cutting as well.
I have been to an anti-circ site, I can't remember which one, and it certainly did mention FGM, but not to say that it should also be condemned. It was mentioned only as a basis of comparison for MGM, and it seemed to me that the subject was treated with a very heavy bias, as if they were trying to minimize what is done to girls in order to make what is done to boys sould like it is worse than what is done to girls. I was so upset by the way they handled the subject that I actually removed a link to their site from my web page. I even remember trying to find an alternate anti-circ site that I could link to that didn't minimize (maybe "belittle" would be a better word -- the tone was really offensive) FGM, and I couldn't find one.

Any way, I have not been saying that MGM organizations should be fighting FGM as well. I have actually been saying that it's fine for an organization to concentrate on MGM. And so it should also be fine for a women's rights organization to concentrate on women's rights, because they have reasons for not taking up the MGM cause that are just as valid as the reasons Frank gave for the MGM movement not taking up the FGM cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheacoby
I believe the reason why a lot of anti-circ sites focus on MGM has already been addressed and it has nothing to do with being anti-woman
Just as a women's/feminist's site that focuses more on FGM has nothing to do with being anti-man. Okay?

It shouldn't be a touchy point to acknowledge that this is about male rights (and also about human rights and children's rights, which has also been acknowledged). Yes, the victims are defenseless, innocent baby boys. The boys then grow into men, who are still MGM victims, so it's silly to try to say that it has nothing to do with men. Acknowledging this is not a way of dismissing it or minimizing it. But as far as what organizations should be expected to take up the cause, I would say that any human rights or children's rights or male rights organization should be expected to take up the cause, but just as I wouldn't expect any of those organizations to adopt the women's rights agenda, I would not expect a women's rights organization to adopt the MGM agenda. I don't understand why this is perceived as so unreasonable. You wouldn't expect, say, a Latinos' rights organization to fight for Arabs' rights, just because both groups are oppressed in similar ways. It doesn't mean the Latinos are opposed to Arabs' rights. It's nothing personal!

Yes, as human beings we should all oppose all genital mutilation. We all agree on that, okay?
post #82 of 111
Ok, let's get down to brass tacks.

I once followed a link to a men's rights site and from there followed several links to various feminist sites that were addressing the male circumcision issue. The general consensus of the sites was that men have no rights to their bodies, that the issue is much-ado-about-nothing or that is is a submersive issue to feminists issues, is a diversion, is an attack on feminism, that men are over sexed and deserve to have their genitals mutilated for the safety of women and on and on. It was highly disturbing to me and repulsive. It left a permanent bad taste in my mouth for feminists.

Never once, never, have I seen anything like that at an intactivist site and if I did, I would register righteous indignation with the site owner. From what I saw, not only were they not giving us just nodding approval, they were fighting our issue tooth and nail to try to get it put down. Apparently, the women who visited those sites did not register their disapproval of that message with the owners. If there had been an outcry against this inflamatory rhetoric, the offensive information would have been removed.

On the other hand, every intactivist I have ever met also advocated against FGM. It is clear to me that this is a one way street. If feminists really want us to take up their issue and give it respect, they have to at least not fight us about our issue.





Frank
post #83 of 111
It was not my intention to start a war of the websites. I merely shared my own experience, since you brought it up. My experience has been the opposite of yours. I have never read a feminist website (and I've read a lot) that said the kinds of things you're reporting about MGM. I can't tell you how many thousands of feminists I have talked to in my life, and they all believe in EQUAL rights --- none of them ever said anything remotely like what you're describing.

Please do not judge feminists by those websites. That is NOT what feminism is about.

I have never met an anti-FGM person who was dismissive or negative about the anti-MGM movement.
post #84 of 111
The discussion has moved on in the meantime, but I wanted to clarify this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by sbf
And yet we're making headway with MGM. We can make headway with FGM, too. If we try.
Of course we are and of course we can! All I was trying to say is that we won't make headway with (uh, against ) FGM by making those people's lives worse than they already are.

Stardust
post #85 of 111
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
post #86 of 111
SBF-

You know what is odd about you talking about websites "minimising" FGM? It's that I think they are representing it truthfully... without the over the top propaganda designed to turn miswestern housewifes into angry fist shaking (at africa) activists. If you showed your favorite FGM website to a group of women on the street in Cairo... they would probably mock your insinuation that they had been harmed... just as if you showed thesexuallymutilatedchild website to a bunch of men in Milwaukee... most likely they would defend their circumcisions and tell you that the claims of damage that website is presenting are a real stretch and don't represent the average man's experience with his circumcision.

The fact is... minimizing the damage is not meant to JUSTIFY it.... it's meant to allow people to identify with the way that cultures can easily embrace or justify a brutal behavior toward their own children. Because we are in just such a culture.

It would be absolutly wrong for me to imply that mothers who circumcise their sons HATE their sons. I KNOW that is a lie. I KNOW that they do it because in their hearts they think that is what is best for them. Even if that BEST means to them, a little bit of acceptable harm... somehow in their mind, a little bit of sexual organ loss is balanced by the social gain....

That's the SAME as in Africa.

African father's don't HATE their daughters.

They don't want them to have pain for the rest of their life.

They want them to get married and not be prostitutes!! They want that social gain for a tiny bit of flesh price. Regardless if it's type I or IV- the social gain outbalances the flesh price.

That's the SAME. It's not minimizing the harm... it's showing a parallel... a parallel which some FGM websites do not want to draw because they feel that their argument against FGM is weakened if men are ever portrayed as loving or caring people. Because their own anti-man agenda which exixts outside the FGM activism... it bleeds over. They do not want the news to get out that African Fathers love their baby girls just like American fathers do. Or that African men can fall in love and marry the girl of his dreams... just like American men can. That an african man's dream of a happy marriage may not be to have his wife doubled over in pain ever time she menstruates.

They are not subjugating them by cutting... they are elevating them by cutting... remember TexasSuz... medical AND SOCIAL benefits? They are (in their mind) trying to do someting GOOD for that child... not HURT THEM.

I looked an American woman in the eye while she grinned at me and proclaimed:

"I have circumcised over 5000 baby boys and the ONLY ones which I feel bad about are the JEWS, because I am taking the MONEY away from the MOHEL."

This woman was a member of ACOG. She could be ANY of our doctors... and you would never know it... but when I put her on the spot- her delight in mutilating men for profit literally made her GLOW. I'd bet you anything that she is against FGM.

Love Sarah
post #87 of 111
Sarah:

I am almost positive the website you describe is one of the ones I saw and there were 3 or 4 more with much the same language and message. It was so disturbing that I didn't mark it. I just wanted to escape.




Frank
post #88 of 111
Do male extremists represent what men think of the womens movement? of women? Do female extremists represent what feminists feel about mens issues? men?

I think if you polled the board you'd find a great deal of us feminists who are very strongly anti-circ.

There might be feminists who don't care. There are also women who despise feminism who don't care. I'd venture a guess that if you did a survey of feminists and those who dislike feminists about their own children you'd find proportionately more feminists leave their sons intact than the anti-feminist crowds. I could be wrong but that is my assumption based on my experience.

I thought the original poster was just asking what specific arguments woudl appeal to a feminist. I can understand different arguments appealing to different people- however the idea that feminists dont' care is insulting.
post #89 of 111
Frank, this topic has interested me for a while now. In fact, I know someone who has an entire thesis on this very subject! Personally, I don't understand this feminazi approach. Why would you want your man to have LESS? The more the better I say- more for me to nuance him with! (Oh yeah- I forgot... most women are only interested in themselves.... )
post #90 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan1097
...feminazi ...(Oh yeah- I forgot... most women are only interested in themselves.... )
I'm outta here. I will never understand how people can feel good about associating the Nazi's with a group of women who are fighting for women's equality. Or how they can feel good about miniminizing Nazism itself by using the term in such a flip way.

I can find this kind of woman-hating anywhere in society, I don't need to be confronted with it here at Mothering.
post #91 of 111
And circ isn't a women's issue? I don't buy it that is "all cuz the fathers want it". Yeah... sure! It isn't about women's equality. If it WERE, ANY genital cutting of females wouldn't be ILLEGAL! How how is that "equal"? And btw, I don't hate women- I AM one! I just don't like to see women using feminism as a way to have power over men- no matter if they SAY "its to make us equal". What more power could we HAVE? Who is it vehemently debating the pro side of circ on boards? Women! Why?!?! And don't think I don't know... I used to be just someone like that! Its a deep-seated NEED to have it done. Go look at some debate boards for a while and see what kind of mental gymnastics go on re: why a woman would be so pro-circ. "I like the look"; "I like the feel"; "I don't want him to 'get there' that fast; he'll last longer", etc. etc.! SICK!
post #92 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan1097
Frank, this topic has interested me for a while now. In fact, I know someone who has an entire thesis on this very subject! Personally, I don't understand this feminazi approach. Why would you want your man to have LESS? The more the better I say- more for me to nuance him with! (Oh yeah- I forgot... most women are only interested in themselves.... )
Well, for one not all women WANT men.

Women seeking equality should not be compared to a group of violent men who held the power and were murdering a minority group.

And since when are most women only interested in themselves? Speak for yourself please.
post #93 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan1097
Who is it vehemently debating the pro side of circ on boards? Women! Why?!?!
Reverse the question- who is most commonly debating AGAINST circ? As far as I know Frank is the only active male here on this forum. how many women do we see saying "how do I convince DH?" There are women on both side of the fence. From your most conservative to your most liberal feminist.
post #94 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow
Well, for one not all women WANT men.

Women seeking equality should not be compared to a group of violent men who held the power and were murdering a minority group.
And how is a woman taking her son in to be circ'd not her holding power over a male "minority"?

Quote:
And since when are most women only interested in themselves? Speak for yourself please.
Since I gather you don't "date" men, I won't get into this. But suffice it to say, the mindset of women toward men is VERY selfish, on the whole. (Especially when it comes to circ'ing their boys because they "like the look" or "it looks exciting to me" or whatever....)
post #95 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow
Reverse the question- who is most commonly debating AGAINST circ? As far as I know Frank is the only active male here on this forum. how many women do we see saying "how do I convince DH?" There are women on both side of the fence. From your most conservative to your most liberal feminist.
And how many women TAKE THE KID IN THEMSELVES ANYWAY?! Blaming the father is a scapegoat!
post #96 of 111
Sarah and Frank, I have also been to a similiar site (maybe the same one) and someone on this forum linked me to it a year or so ago. It was disgusting and I hate that shit passes for feminist.
Maybe I have read more into some of the post on this thread (I however don't think so) but my feel for what some are saying is infact that MGM isn't something feminist should be concerned with and I think plenty of examples have be used of what men have done to woman to justify that. If you don't want people to make such a connection then maybe we should leave out all the wrong grown men have done when we are discussing genital mutilation of baby boys.
Pugmama, did say that plenty of men's rights have not been good for women, now in a discussion about infant circ how are we supposed to take that?
post #97 of 111
Sarah, the antiMGM site I was talking about was not talking about the social parallels between MGM and FGM. It was talking about the physical procedure of FGM and trying to minimize it to make it sound like MGM is more severe a procedure.
post #98 of 111
Jennie- your posts would hold more weight if I didn't know a million dad's who physically and personally took their children in themselves. BOTH genders are doing this horrible thing to baby boys. BOTH. You can not blame women for this.
post #99 of 111
well, you can- I just won't buy it
post #100 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan1097
And how is a woman taking her son in to be circ'd not her holding power over a male "minority"?



Since I gather you don't "date" men, I won't get into this. But suffice it to say, the mindset of women toward men is VERY selfish, on the whole. (Especially when it comes to circ'ing their boys because they "like the look" or "it looks exciting to me" or whatever....)
ROFL- actually I'm married to a man. I've never once heard any woman claim it was because they preferred it circ'd. Different circles we run in I guess. I run in feminist circles to, so that is confusing.
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