Arguments to persuade feminists/women of the madness of circ - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 12:18 AM - Thread Starter
 
Quirky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 12,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have a couple of feminist friends who just don't seem to get it on circ. Now, it probably doesn't matter too much because one of them doesn't want children and the other one's dh is adamantly anti-circ (he's circed). But they're close friends, and great women, and it just bugs the crap out of me that two educated, professional women who have dedicated their careers to civil rights and women's health and rights, respectively, can be so clueless.

So I was thinking up some analogies and arguments to appeal to feminists/women (recognizing that not all feminists are women and vice versa), and just thought I'd share. (I don't believe in any of these arguments, but I do think they show logically how insane circumcision is and what a brutal violation of human rights it is). Not all of these are original (heck, all of them might be non-original but I haven't seen some of these laid out other places.)

If it's OK to circ a baby boy because he won't remember it, is it OK to drug a woman and rape her because she won't remember it? Isn't circ worse in that situation - assuming the woman isn't beaten during the rape and assuming her rapist uses a condom and lubricant, so there's no physical trauma, she hasn't been physically harmed whereas a baby boy has had part of his genitals sliced off without his consent.

If it's OK to circ a boy because hell, men aren't as sensitive as women and everyone knows that the clitoris has twice as many nerve endings as the penis, shouldn't the answer be to perform partial clitoridectomies on baby girls so that boys and girls have equal numbers of nerve endings?

If it's OK to circ a boy because he might get penile cancer, shouldn't we amputate the breasts of baby girls at birth, because girls are far more likey to contract and die of breast cancer than boys are to contract and die of penile cancer?

Since girls get far more UTIs than boys, shouldn't we genitally modify baby girls prophylactically at birth?

And I'm sure there are more...any comments. additional analogies, or thoughts (besides puking, I realize these arguments are repugnant - but so is circ!)

Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!

Quirky is offline  
#2 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 01:32 AM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hey... I think the penile cancer arguemnt is a little flawed. Although the breast thing makes a good point because breast cancer is so common... breasts are good for more than just bouncing... so from a lactivist standpoint that argument falls flat (oooh bad pun)

What is a much better and relevant argument is that women are more likely to get cancer of the labia than men are to get cancer of the penis... so would we cut off the labia off an infant girl to reduce the risk of that cancer? Then you would be comparing apples to apples.

Oh come on... do it with humor, next time you are late for a lunch, just use the old... "Sorry I couldn't get here sooner- I had to wash my extraneous genitals" excuse.

Love Sarah
Sarah is offline  
#3 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 01:53 AM
 
Aura_Kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Down by the River...
Posts: 7,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i actually read a study that said penile cancer rates are *higher* in circumcised men.

i'd simply ask if the woman wanted anybody to tell her what she could or couldn't do with her own body... ask her if she supports female circumcision... and then (assuming her answer is no!) compare that to routine male circumcision.

you might also mention that female circumcision is ILLEGAL whereas male circumcision is not. ( )
Aura_Kitten is offline  
#4 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 02:27 AM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by klothos
... ask her if she supports female circumcision... and then (assuming her answer is no!) compare that to routine male circumcision...
I wouldn't go that route. FMF can consist of removing the clitoris, the labia minora and the labia majora. It can happen to infants but it also often happens to girls much older (10-12 years old.) It often happens in completely unsanitary conditions and is not performed by medical personnel. And so on.

I know a lot of feminists who are pretty angry that American women spend so much time and energy fighting to save little boys foreskins when so many little girls are being so much more severly mutilated. They feel that FMF should be the focus, with male circumcision a "men's issue."

I would also stay away from the sexual assault anaology.

As a feminist, I have found the best way to approach other feminists is with the basic facts. For example, I share that circumcision is not medically nessicary, that even the American Pediatrics Association no longer recommends routine circumcision. I share that circumcision (outside of religious ritual), is just another part of the patriarchal, medical model that does not respect our bodies inherent wisdom and purpose. Things like that. I stick to our common language and try to stay away from examples or arugements that are most likely going to lead to defensiveness.
pugmadmama is offline  
#5 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 03:03 AM
 
LavenderMae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I write my own posts!
Posts: 13,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Look a little deepr into male circumcision rituals around the world and I believe you'll see MGM is very similiar to FGM. Most MGM is also done on older boys, go look at some pics of a 6 year old, or 12 yr.old boy being circed and tell me it isn't in the same catagory as FMG!
It is done to turn a small boy into man. Make him never be a boy again, really read into it is a sick as why they do FGM. Of course the boys will be leaders after and the girls will not but these are children plain and simple there role in their societies shouldn't make one form of mutilation more accepted in our eyes. FGM is horrid, disgusting and sad but so is MGM.

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#6 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 03:10 AM
 
LavenderMae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I write my own posts!
Posts: 13,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You can start here:
http://www.noharmm.org/CAcycle.htm

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#7 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 03:26 AM
 
LavenderMae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I write my own posts!
Posts: 13,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry, I got off topic there.
I guess I think as women/mothers/sisters/friends we are obligated to stand up for those who can not stand up for themselves.
Have they ever read about infant circ or watched one? As feminist don't they want others to be raising healthy males, who are intact sexually?
Can they not see circ is sexually violent, or does it not matter because those baby boys will grow to be men?

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#8 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 03:27 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama
I wouldn't go that route. FMF can consist of removing the clitoris, the labia minora and the labia majora. It can happen to infants but it also often happens to girls much older (10-12 years old.) It often happens in completely unsanitary conditions and is not performed by medical personnel. And so on.
What you have described is the exact same functional equivalent of male circumcision. The only way female circumcision gets worse is with infibulation. Also, in Africa, male circumcision is done at about 12 years old and is done in such unsanitary conditions that as many as 20% of the boys die from their wounds.


Quote:
I know a lot of feminists who are pretty angry that American women spend so much time and energy fighting to save little boys foreskins when so many little girls are being so much more severly mutilated. They feel that FMF should be the focus, with male circumcision a "men's issue."
Ah, yes, "To hell with the men! They're the ones causing us all of our problems! They get what they deserve." mentality

Quote:
I would also stay away from the sexual assault anaology.
Right! It's assault on a woman but the men should just be tough and bear it. They're over sexed any way.

Quote:
As a feminist, I have found the best way to approach other feminists is with the basic facts. For example, I share that circumcision is not medically nessicary, that even the American Pediatrics Association no longer recommends routine circumcision. I share that circumcision (outside of religious ritual), is just another part of the patriarchal, medical model that does not respect our bodies inherent wisdom and purpose. Things like that. I stick to our common language and try to stay away from examples or arugements that are most likely going to lead to defensiveness.
How can they expect men to support them in their movement when they get defensive about our issues? It's a two way street.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#9 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 03:30 AM
 
LavenderMae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I write my own posts!
Posts: 13,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not to mention these aren't F'ing grown men they are babies and young boys.

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#10 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 05:27 AM
 
Aura_Kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Down by the River...
Posts: 7,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Right! It's assault on a woman but the men should just be tough and bear it. They're over sexed any way.
of course! that's why circumcision became routine in the first place ~ it started becoming more widespread during the victorian era, to cut down on masturbation.

Frank and Sheacoby ~ ITA
Aura_Kitten is offline  
#11 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 05:47 AM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
...How can they expect men to support them in their movement when they get defensive about our issues? It's a two way street...
Are you serious? Historically and to the present day, women have had it far worse than men, generally speaking. Feminism did not rise out nothing. Do you expect people of color to support the white-power movement? I certainly do not.

I am feminist. I am against circumcision of men and women. However, I can understand why some feminists, women who have been gravely harmed by the patriarchy we live in, opt out of what they see as a "men's issue". And, no, it's not the same as when men decline to support women's issues.
pugmadmama is offline  
#12 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 07:34 AM
 
The Lost Ramone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama
Are you serious? Historically and to the present day, women have had it far worse than men, generally speaking. Feminism did not rise out nothing. Do you expect people of color to support the white-power movement? I certainly do not.

I am feminist. I am against circumcision of men and women. However, I can understand why some feminists, women who have been gravely harmed by the patriarchy we live in, opt out of what they see as a "men's issue". And, no, it's not the same as when men decline to support women's issues.

Your analogy is flawed. You can't expect any group to support a group that hates them. But men don't exist as a group to hate women.

How are women harmed by "the patriarchy we live in?" This is a broad statement with generalized insulting overtones to all men. I don't think it is accurate. I also don't think women have had it far worse than men historically. It has been men who have marched off to war to die, rather they believed in the cause or was forced to go by their country.

Men deserve the right to make the decision about their own body.
The Lost Ramone is offline  
#13 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 10:40 AM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"I know a lot of feminists who are pretty angry that American women spend so much time and energy fighting to save little boys foreskins when so many little girls are being so much more severly mutilated. They feel that FMF should be the focus, with male circumcision a "men's issue."

Well... the difference is not the volume of sexual tissue removed... the difference is that we are talking about something "we do" as opposed to something "they do" something many feminists (and not feminists) actually THEMSELVES do to other human beings.

Where making a change with FGM involves doing some sort of global political or cultural action... making a change for another human being right here right now... all they have to do is not mutilate him, and understand that mutilating the genitals of their child would be a BAD thing to do to him. But by your interpretation... they would rather mutilate their son while politically defending African girls because an American man (likeley also a victim of a medicalized culture circumcision) failed to protect that (male opressor!!) child from her. "That's all THEIR FAULT!"

Is that how it works?

I guess this explains why in the book "Our Bodies Ourselves" the only mention of MGM is to tell women giving their children up for adoption... before they hand over the baby they are allowed the option to mutilate his genitals...

It reads as a literal INVITATION TO MUTILATE MALES... here is your last chance... mulitate him now while you still have the POWER!
Sarah is offline  
#14 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 01:42 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It all makes the feminists sound very self centered and uncaring. I think I just stopped supporting feminist issues. After all, all they have to do is say stop the mutilation of all peoples genitals, not just girls.

However, I am very aware that most seriously involved in the FGM movement advocate genital integrity for all, not just girls.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#15 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 03:26 PM
 
laidbackmomto2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How can the mutilation of INFANTS genitals NOT be a FEMINIST issue? :

Cindy

Lindsey (96/02/26)
Jason (00/06/08)
laidbackmomto2 is offline  
#16 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 03:59 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by laidbackmomto2
How can the mutilation of INFANTS genitals NOT be a FEMINIST issue?...
It is! Female Genital Mutilation is already a huge feminist issue. As for why male infant circumcision isn't...

Maybe because Feminist organizations and feminist indivdually are already stretched too thin? Because the goal of women achieving social, political and spiritual equality is enough in and of itself? Liberal feminists are trying to change the system from within. Radical Feminists are trying to dismantle the system. Eco-Feminists are working to change the way we all view natural resources and consumption. And so on.

I hang out at a few feminst boards. Every few months someone stops by to tell us what else we should be doing as feminists. Everything from collectively adopting Veganism to embracing the anti-choice agenda. Funny thing is, I don't see these same groups putting into feminism what they expect out of it. Why? Because we are all trained to believe that women are supposed to stop what they are doing and start doing whatever work is requested of them.

Male circumcision is slowly becoming a feminist issue. Although, I must say, in NO THANKS to the vast majority of the male circumcision activists, who react so poorly when they find out that women who have dedicated their lives to protesting, marching and working in the feminist movement aren't also ready to adopt their agenda on a moment's notice (reread this thread to get an idea of what I'm talking about.)

The OP said she wants to change her friends minds. She didn't say she wanted to feel superior to them or sit around her applauding how wrong they are with everyone else who already agrees with her. I share what other feminists have shared with me and I get slammed. If I didn't care so damn much about reaching out to the OPs two friends, I would be seriously regretting posting in this thread at all.
pugmadmama is offline  
#17 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 04:20 PM
 
Sarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What part of protecting male genital integrity is in conflict with the current "feminist agenda" as it stands? When someone asks a feminist to embrace this philosophy... what EXACTLY are we asking them to "give up"

What part of Feminism does mutilating males help?

Is this really an either/or type of issue?

Does anyone think that MGM makes the world a better place for women or men or children?

It seems to me that perhaps some feminists have a whole lot invested in the idea that ONLY women can be victimised... and anything that might threaten their status as the best and only victims makes them balk... that's why some women get so bent out of shape at the idea of a 7 lb 2 day old being sexually mutilated being actually a human rights violation... it does not fit in with their idea of HIM as a wife beating higher payscale intolerant pro-life zealot opressor pornographer warmongering rapist. If his human rights can ALSO be violated- well then HE is a threat to their victimhood. That's why they can, with a straight face and clear conscience- point in another direction (Africa) when asked simple questions about the here and now. because in their here and now- gender inequality is a private one way street.
Sarah is offline  
#18 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 04:34 PM
 
TigerTail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: I'm finally here!
Posts: 9,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ot- pugmad, if you don't want to be referred to as 'pro-abortion', please don't refer to me (and other pro-life, anti-abortion, whichever- feminists- see my sig) as 'anti-choice'. at least not here on a board where we are not supposed to blatantly disrespect other posters. (call me a rabid fundie in private all you like, i'd have a good laugh at that.)

suse

back on topic: if for no other than selfish reasons, feminists need to support the end of mgm to lessen the amount of victimized pissed-off men growing up. you *want* guys to associate mama not protecting their genitals & getting them cut up as their first sexual experience? gee, that won't lead to trouble
TigerTail is offline  
#19 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 04:36 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lost Ramone
...But men don't exist as a group to hate women.

How are women harmed by "the patriarchy we live in?" This is a broad statement with generalized insulting overtones to all men. I don't think it is accurate. I also don't think women have had it far worse than men historically...
Men, as a group, have harmed women. Just as surely as white people, as a group, have harmed people of color.

If you're serious about educating yourself, any of the books below are a good start. Request them at your library or, if you have trouble finding them, I'll lend you my own copy.

The Second Sex by Simone De Beauvior

Feminism if for EVERYBODY by bell hooks

The Creation of Patriachy by Gerda Lerner

To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the Face of Feminism by Rebecca Walker (books of essays by various Third Wave Feminists)
pugmadmama is offline  
#20 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 04:40 PM
 
laidbackmomto2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama
It is! Female Genital Mutilation is already a huge feminist issue. As for why male infant circumcision isn't...

Maybe because Feminist organizations and feminist indivdually are already stretched too thin? Because the goal of women achieving social, political and spiritual equality is enough in and of itself? Liberal feminists are trying to change the system from within. Radical Feminists are trying to dismantle the system. Eco-Feminists are working to change the way we all view natural resources and consumption. And so on.
I think you missed my point...

WOMEN give birth to CHILDREN...not just GIRL babies. The mutilation of CHILDREN's genitals (BOTH boys and girls) is INHERENTLY a "Feminist" issue. Actually, it really isn't a "Feminist" issue or a "Men's" issue at all. Genital mutilation is a "Humanist" issue...all of humanity should be equally appalled with the entire concept...no?

Quote:
Male circumcision is slowly becoming a feminist issue. Although, I must say, in NO THANKS to the vast majority of the male circumcision activists, who react so poorly when they find out that women who have dedicated their lives to protesting, marching and working in the feminist movement aren't also ready to adopt their agenda on a moment's notice (reread this thread to get an idea of what I'm talking about.)
How a "Feminist" can embrace the effort to end FMG (because it is performed on girls) and not also embrace the effort to end MGM (claiming that it's a "men's issue"), completely boggles my mind. Notice I say "embrace"...not necessarily dedicating their entire waking moments to the cause.

And as far as support on other feminist issues from intactivists goes, I'd like to say "to each their own", but I know that could be used against my own arguement above. I just don't see how embracing the idea of ending MGM, AS WELL AS embracing the idea of ending FGM is skin off anyone's back here.

Quote:
The OP said she wants to change her friends minds. She didn't say she wanted to feel superior to them or sit around her applauding how wrong they are with everyone else who already agrees with her. I share what other feminists have shared with me and I get slammed. If I didn't care so damn much about reaching out to the OPs two friends, I would be seriously regretting posting in this thread at all.
I didn't feel I was slamming you. I am just shocked that someone could be so bent on "Feminist" ideas, that the genital mutilation of INFANT boys is seen as somehow "less" then FGM...is seen as solely a "Men's issue".

I think you've read too much into the posts in this thread. I don't feel they are directed at YOU, but at some of the concepts that you have presented on behalf of the Feminist movement...whether they be your own or others.



Cindy

Lindsey (96/02/26)
Jason (00/06/08)

Edited for (hoepfully) clarification
laidbackmomto2 is offline  
#21 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 04:46 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama
I know a lot of feminists who are pretty angry that American women spend so much time and energy fighting to save little boys foreskins when so many little girls are being so much more severly mutilated. They feel that FMF should be the focus, with male circumcision a "men's issue."

What you've said here makes no sense to me. Please don't lump all of us feminists together as thinking that circ should be a "man's issue." (Any more than FGM is just a woman's issue.)


I'm a feminist, also a humanist. I taught World Civ. and taught about FGM. I made the INHERENT connection between FGM and MGM, and consequently left my son intact. No one had to make the connection for me, although my doula helped solidify my position.

Y'all keep talking about "feminists" as if they are the "other," as if they don't read (and participate!) in this board! Here I am!

And I'm here DAILY! You couldn't get rid of me if you wanted to! I should make a T-shirt slogan: Intactivist Feminists Unite!!


BTW, I've been meaning to ask this question:

What is the male equivalent of the word "misogyny"?

I want to say that FGM is misogyny and MGM is ............ (the equivalent), but I can't think of the word.

Misandry?

Misoandry?

Something else?

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#22 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 04:50 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by laidbackmomto2
...WOMEN give birth to CHILDREN...not just GIRL babies. The mutilation of CHILDREN's genitals (BOTH boys and girls) is INHERENTLY a "Feminist" issue. Actually, it really isn't a "Feminist" issue or a "Men's" issue at all. Genital mutilation is a "Humanist" issue...all of humanity should be equally appalled with the entire concept...no?...
Not all women give birth. Not all women who give birth are mothers. Again, approaching this with feminists from the standpoint that "women give birth" might very well offend.

The feminist movement has been around for hundreds of years now. To suddenly declare that your issue is "inherently" a feminist issue is a tricky proposition. For example, there are people who feel that prostitution is an "inherently" feminist issue, only some of them are saying feminists should be working towards banning it and others are saying feminists should be working on making it legal.

I agree with you that it is more acurately described as a humanist issue. Of course, "humanist" is also a term many women of color have adopted to describe their "feminism" because they feel feminism has become "too white."

Do you see how confusing this gets? And I don't mean that in a "throw up your hands, get pissed off and walk away" way, I mean it in a "when you're not familiar with a movement and its history, perhaps it's best to approach it gently and from a place of respect for what it has done/is doing instead of launching into a scathing criticism of what it isn't doing."

Cindy, I thank you for reaching out to me with kindness and for being open. That's how real change happens.
pugmadmama is offline  
#23 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 04:55 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
What you've said here makes no sense to me. Please don't lump all of us feminists together as thinking that circ should be a "man's issue." (Any more than FGM is just a woman's issue.)...
I didn't say "all of us feminists", I said a lot. Because I've read a lot of feminist history and spoken with so many feminist (both in person and on the internet), I feel qualified to pass on what I've read and heard.

It might not make sense to you (it doesn't really to me either), but I'm not going to declare these women as wrong. I'm just not. Because that leads to hostility, name-calling and defensiveness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
...What is the male equivalent of the word "misogyny"?

I want to say that FGM is misogyny and MGM is ............ (the equivalent), but I can't think of the word. ...
The word misandry means hatred of men. But I don't think it's the "equivalent" of misogyny. Women, as a group, have never had the power men had. Misogyny doesn't get it's power from individual men, it gets it's power from the patriachial power structure.

I think FMF and MGM are both by-products of a misogyny. It wasn't women doctors who brought male circumcision out of the context of religious ritual and popularized it. The global, patriachial society sees infants as part of their mothers and therefore has no problem exploiting them and their bodies. Once those infant boys leave their mothers (literally and figuratively, nothing worse than a "mama's boy", right?), then they are seen as a part of the patriachy and worthy of protected status.
pugmadmama is offline  
#24 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 04:58 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
What is the male equivalent of the word "misogyny"?

I want to say that FGM is misogyny and MGM is ............ (the equivalent), but I can't think of the word.

Misandry?

Misoandry?

Something else?


Misandry = An intense dislike of and disrespect of males. (not specific males but all males)

However, FGM is not misogyny. Most FGM is perpetrated on the child by her mother with full approval and cooperation of the mother. It is the sexual reversal of what we see in circumcised men insisting that their sons also be circumcised. The mother does not hate her daughter or other women so, it does not qualify as misogyny.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#25 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 05:04 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama


The word misandry means hatred of men. But I don't think it's the "equivalent" of misogyny.
To me, it is the equivalent. Thank you for clarifying what the word is.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#26 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 05:08 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
...However, FGM is not misogyny. Most FGM is perpetrated on the child by her mother with full approval and cooperation of the mother. It is the sexual reversal of what we see in circumcised men insisting that their sons also be circumcised. The mother does not hate her daughter or other women so, it does not qualify as misogyny...
I completely disagree. Internalized misogyny can be just as powerful as misogyny coming from an outside force. Those women are taught to hate their bodies and all women's bodies. They were not born with that belief, it was taught to them by the misogynist culture they live in (that we all live in ), that gave rise to FGM.
pugmadmama is offline  
#27 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 05:32 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not feeling well, so I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread.

,
pugmadmama
pugmadmama is offline  
#28 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 07:13 PM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm going to ignore all the feminist-bashing on this thread and simply answer the OP.

Tell your friends that feminism is about CHOICE and EQUAL RIGHTS. People have the right to choose what happens with their own bodies. No one has rights to anyone else's body. If females have a right to genital integrity then so do males. Condemning FGM but failing to condemn MGM isn't being a feminist, it's being a hypocrite.

I can't imagine a feminist failing to condemn FGM even if it didn't involve removing all external genitalia, and was done only to infants in a sanitary environment by doctors.

Yes, women are greatly harmed by the patriarchy we live in, in so many ways that it needs its own thread, but not in the circ forum. And yes, women have historically had it much worse than men. However, these facts are completely irrelevent to the question of whether infants' genitals should be protected (ALL infants' genitals).

Please don't refuse to support women's rights just because some people don't make anti-circ part of their agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama
I hang out at a few feminst boards. Every few months someone stops by to tell us what else we should be doing as feminists. Everything from collectively adopting Veganism to embracing the anti-choice agenda. Funny thing is, I don't see these same groups putting into feminism what they expect out of it. Why? Because we are all trained to believe that women are supposed to stop what they are doing and start doing whatever work is requested of them.

Male circumcision is slowly becoming a feminist issue. Although, I must say, in NO THANKS to the vast majority of the male circumcision activists, who react so poorly when they find out that women who have dedicated their lives to protesting, marching and working in the feminist movement aren't also ready to adopt their agenda on a moment's notice (reread this thread to get an idea of what I'm talking about.)
Good points! I don't expect Women's Rights organizations to put MGM front and center of their agenda any more than I would expect a Men's Rights organization to put FGM front and center of their agenda.

We individual humans, though, should all support HUMAN rights. No one should be refusing to support any one else's rights. If we don't all support everyone's rights, then no one's rights will be protected. "No one is free when others are oppressed."

We're all in this together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah
What part of Feminism does mutilating males help?
Who claimed that mutilating males helps feminism???

Let's not adopt a "whoever's not with us is against us" attitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suseyblue
ot- pugmad, if you don't want to be referred to as 'pro-abortion', please don't refer to me (and other pro-life, anti-abortion, whichever- feminists- see my sig) as 'anti-choice'. at least not here on a board where we are not supposed to blatantly disrespect other posters.
If you simply wouldn't have an abortion yourself, then you are anti-abortion. If, however, you think it is your place to make that decision for ALL OTHER WOMEN, then you are anti-choice. If you think I should be denied MY right to choose for MY body, then "anti-choice" is an accurate label. Pro-choice people do not promote abortion, we simply defend a woman's right to choose, so it would be inaccurate to describe us as "pro-abortion."

Quote:
Originally Posted by laidbackmomto2
How a "Feminist" can embrace the effort to end FMG (because it is performed on girls) and not also embrace the effort to end MGM (claiming that it's a "men's issue"), completely boggles my mind. Notice I say "embrace"...not necessarily dedicating their entire waking moments to the cause.
Thank you for making that distinction. Anti-MGMers should "embrace" anti-FGM (and I'm sure most of them do), just as anti-FGMers should "embrace" anti-MGM (and, again, I'm sure most of them do).

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama
Those women are taught to hate their bodies and all women's bodies. They were not born with that belief, it was taught to them by the misogynist culture they live in (that we all live in ), that gave rise to FGM.
I agree with this, also.

Okay, so I lied. I didn't confine myself to the OP.

-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#29 of 111 Old 06-02-2004, 07:29 PM
 
LavenderMae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I write my own posts!
Posts: 13,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think what men have or have not done to women is not the point when we are talking about MGM. These are babies NOT men. They have no idea of the politics of which they are born. That helpless baby doesn't know that his gender has/does cause pain and suffering of women. When he is strapped down and brutally , sexually violated he doesn't know that some men have done the same to women. He has no concept that he is male. I think to say MGM is just a "male" issue is wrong it is about harming babies and children. Gender shouldn't matter , MGM and FGM are the same human rights issue. I honestly don't see how people can seperate them in their minds. Cutting genitals is cutting genitals , no? I guess what I'm trying to say is in the moment of the act of circing a boy , the history of men/women doesn't matter all that matters is that baby being violated. Because women are opressed and also circed doesn't make the act of circing that helpless baby boy any less awful. I don't think I'm explaining this well. The baby boy HAS NO POWER it doesn't matter at all that he will have power when he is man. I think dismissing the horror of MGM on the premise that men are opressors/in power is absurd and illogical.

Quote:
Tell your friends that feminism is about CHOICE and EQUAL RIGHTS. People have the right to choose what happens with their own bodies. No one has rights to anyone else's body. If females have a right to genital integrity then so do males. Condemning FGM but failing to condemn MGM isn't being a feminist, it's being a hypocrite.
WELL SAID!

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#30 of 111 Old 06-03-2004, 08:14 AM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off