Arguments to persuade feminists/women of the madness of circ - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 03:34 PM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Are you sure she said it's ONLY a men's issue? Or did she simply identify it as a men's issue (which it is, in additional to being a human rights issue)? Do you happen to know where she said it, so I can re-read it in context?

-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  
#62 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 03:41 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama
The feminists I know are not unreasonable women, but they also didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They are wary of being sucked into other people's (and, yes, especially men's) causes.

Here it is. No, the word "only" isn't actually there, but the implication of the word "only" is.


And I'm wondering about the word "especially." Perhaps she could explain why some feminists are ESPECIALLY wary of men's issues.

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#63 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 03:55 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)
And here is pugmadmama's first quote regarding MGM being considered by A LOT of feminists as being a "men's issue":

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."
I think this is what initially brought on the disbelief by many posters here that anyone could look at infant MALE circumcision as a "men's issue" (and please note that pugmadmama clearly stated that she did not agree with this line of thinking).

Cindy

Lindsey (96/02/26)
Jason (00/06/08)
laidbackmomto2 is offline  
#64 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 04:12 PM
 
hahamommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Exactly where I need to be
Posts: 1,151
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How about the possibility that MANY, MANY American men are angry and want to opress women because the #1 woman in their life (a.k.a. Mommy) did not protect them and their very first huge sensory experience was having their foreskin ripped from their body?? I'd be pretty pissed off if I were so unnecessarily injured immediately after birth (or at any time for that matter, but ESPECIALLY when I was so freshly vulnerable)... maybe not in the forefront of my mind, but in the recesses of my subconscious, it would be there, as I'm sure it is for unnumerable men.

~diana

A&A: I'm on a quest alright, right here in po-dunk souf'akota I want him perfect (not in the flawless sense, but in the soul-mate sense) & intact would be a serious bonus... I'd like to experience what I'm advocating

~diana google me: hahamommy. Unschooling Supermama to Hayden :Super Cool Girlfriend to Scotty . Former wife to Mitch & former mama to Hannahbear
hahamommy is offline  
#65 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 04:31 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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbf
I have a world-wide perspective. Things don't bother me less just because they happen on the other side of the ocean. FGM is common and accepted in other parts of the world, and not enough people are doing anything to stop it. There needs to be global outrage and international pressure. Even here, where it's illegal, it still happens sometimes.
I am well aware that FGM is still hapenning in other parts of the world. I am very very much anti-FGM also. Yes FGM does still happen here some but the ones who do it are doing something illegal and they will have to pay for it. The same is not true for MGM. I also believe it is easier to stop things in the country you reside in, not that that means one should stop trying to stop things that are wrong from happening in other countries as well. There needs to me global outrage about FGM and MGM!!



Quote:
Would you say the same thing about anti-MGM groups? That they should fight against FGM? Let's not have a double standard. It would be easier for an anti-MGM organization to simply oppose all genital mutilation, male and female, without spreading itself too thin (or having to alter its focus or its message), than it would be for a women's rights organization, which is trying to defend ALL areas of women's rights.
I ABSOLUTELY think anti-MGM groups should vocally fight against FGM!!! I don't have a double standard at all when it comes to genital mutilation.

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#66 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 04:40 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbf
...And there's a double standard. Other groups aren't criticized for not joining in the women's movement...
Exactly. Thank you so much for all your wise words in this thread!


Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
Here it is. No, the word "only" isn't actually there, but the implication of the word "only" is...
Since I didn't actually say only (although you accuse me of that in a different post which you have yet to edit), you've decided to read my mind. Why don't you stick to what I've actually said and I'll show you the same respect?


Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A
..And I'm wondering about the word "especially." Perhaps she could explain why some feminists are ESPECIALLY wary of men's issues.
Historically, what has been good for men has not always translated into also being good for women. Do a search to find out what is passing as "men's rights" these days and you'll see why feminists remain wary.

Before I came to Mothering.com, the "Intactivists" I'd "met" on the internet were very angry men (yes, they were all men) who gave feminists exactly one chance to sign onto their agenda before deciding that any feminist who wasn't with them was a b*tch or worse.

Interestingly, the way I became an intactivist was through meeting other feminist mothers.
pugmadmama is offline  
#67 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 04:40 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hahamommy
A&A: I'm on a quest alright, right here in po-dunk souf'akota I want him perfect (not in the flawless sense, but in the soul-mate sense) & intact would be a serious bonus... I'd like to experience what I'm advocating



LOL!!

And exactly when, in the conversation, does this come up? Do you put it in personal ads, or what? I'm actually curious how this works.

I know what you mean like, "hey cool, look what I found," but beyond that, I can't imagine myself actively looking for this in a mate. (My dh has already said that I would have scared him off if I had been an intactivist prior to meeting him.)

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#68 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 04:42 PM
A&A
 
A&A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
[QUOTE=pugmadmama



Historically, what has been good for men has not always translated into also being good for women. [/QUOTE]




What part of MGM eradication would be bad for women???

"Our task is not to see the future, but to enable it."
A&A is offline  
#69 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 04:48 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama:Historically, what has been good for men has not always translated into also being good for women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A & A : This is where your true colors come out. IMHO, you can't be a solid intactivist and still feel this way.
Men having the vote but not women. Men being able to own property but not women. The fact that we've had 40+ white, men as President of the United States but no women and no people of color . Those things are all equally good for men, women and/or people of color?

In order to be a "solid" intactivist, I have to purge my mind of historical facts and present day reality? Really?
pugmadmama is offline  
#70 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 05:08 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)
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.

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#71 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 05:16 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbf
Can you appreciate the difference between denying rights for others and not making rights for others part of your group's agenda? Both women's rights groups and anti-MGM groups do the latter, but neither of them does the former.
Please do me a favor. 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. We "anti-circers" are against all forms of genital cutting of minors. All races, all cultures, all religions and both sexes. I know that the emphasis seems to be on males and it is. That's because we have our own problem right here within our borders and we are able to attack that problem with our family members, frends and acquaintances. We have a reachable audience and we are reaching out to them. Native women in Africa are not reachable for us. We do what we can and when we have cleaned our own house, we'll spread the word as far and wide as we can. Once we have the universal cooperation of individuals, families, politicians and the medical profession here, we'll have a much stronger voice and position. At this point, our soap box is very wobbly and we live in a glass house.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#72 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 05:21 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)
Well said, Frank! I have not yet been to an anti-circ site that doesn't address FGM as well as MGM.

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#73 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 05:22 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheacoby
..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. ...
But it's not babies who are approaching feminists and telling them that they better get onboard with this issue. It's grown men. Some of whom are angry and who don't hesistate to use fairly ugly language when women aren't willing to immediatly sign onto their agenda. So, it comes across as a "men's issue" to some women. And I don't think those women are crazy or wrong, it's how the issue has been presented to them.

From this thread,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
The reason MGM is such an issue is because it is here and now. It touches every family in America either directly or indirectly. It is an issue that we can all have a part in ending and we can see the results in the work we do.

FGM is a different story. It is practiced half way around the world by people we can not reach. All of the avenues we have to fight it will never reach those who support and do it...
When a some women who have dedicated a good part of their activist life to ending FGM hear things like this, it sounds like they are being dismissed. Like what is she doing wasting her time worrying about girls half a world away when boys are suffering right here at home.

And Frankly Speaking expressed himself calmly, without name calling and anger. Not all intactivsts approach the issue so calmly (again, read over this thread to see the hostility expressed towards some feminists)
pugmadmama is offline  
#74 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 05:34 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
...I know that the emphasis seems to be on males and it is. That's because we have our own problem right here within our borders and we are able to attack that problem with our family members, frends and acquaintances. We have a reachable audience and we are reaching out to them...Once we have the universal cooperation of individuals, families, politicians and the medical profession here, we'll have a much stronger voice and position...
"I know that the emphasis seems to be on males and it is."

Do you see how this can come across as "We need to worry about MGM first, then we'll get to FGM."? In otherwords, men and their concerns first, women and their concerns second. I understand what you are saying about who you can reach and so on. But many (most?) feminists are very global in their thinking. And many feminists, myself included this time, are very wary when encouraged by primarily male-led activists groups to put their efforts into the male issue first, then trust that the female issue will recieve as much attention and effort in the future.
pugmadmama is offline  
#75 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 06:47 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)
You know I only know a couple of male intactivist (and both are on-line). I mostly know mamas who stuck up for their infant sons rights and refused to circ them. As far as I see a whole lotta women are on the forefront of intactivism. I'm sure there are men's groups who are also on the forefront of stopping RIC but I know more women than men wanting to stop it. Of course my knowledge isn't the end all by any means.
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 or focusing on women last. I am still confused on why some are still calling MGM a "men's " issue. If RIC was done to men I'd agree but it isn't. Can't we all agree that this is not being done to MEN but defenseless babies. Those baby boys have no idea they are male and what that means in this world.
Look I'm a woman and I would be very proud ,supportive and thrilled if feminist groups would acknowledge MGM, I am not a men's group wanting to push a mans agenda on you. I am a mother in the US who believes genital mutilation is wrong and I live in a country who has access to endless amounts of knowledge and money. Yet we are still mutilating our baby boys and me as a woman know I need to be part of stopping this barbaric practice. This is done to the most vunerable members of our society and as human beings first we need to stand up against this practice.

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#76 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 11:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
Quirky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 12,113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ack! Jesus, I wish I had never mentioned the word "feminist." I had no idea this thread had gotten to be like this - I wasn't getting email notifications. I have no time and no energy to go through everyone's posts and quote up a storm, but I did want to put a response out here.

As some of you have noticed, I didn't post because I wanted to discuss the so-called feminist agenda(s), and whose group supports whose agenda. I think all anti-FGM activists should embrace the cause of MGM, and all anti-MGM activists should embrace the cause of FGM. Doesn't mean they have to spend their lives working on it but solidarity is a no-brainer. I have seen far too many articles about FGM dismiss MGM as trivial, and it does nothing to advance the cause of anti-FGM and much to perpetuate human rights abuses. And I also agree that it's more likely that we in the US will be more effective advocating for change at home than pontificating about how evil FGM is and how much worse it is abroad.

Since I'm almost all the way through Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, I think it's critical that we see circumcision (of any gender) as a feminist/humanist issue - Ron Goldman raises more question than he answers, but certainly the correlations between circumcision and violence against women, violence in general in our society, child abuse, etc. make for some pretty chilling thinking. How much more peaceful and humane would our society be if half its members' lives didn't begin with sexual assault and trauma?

A&A, I will definitely read the article you linked.

But to get back to my OP - I still really want to come up with slam-dunk, pithy arguments that cut through the "women are so much more SPECIAL than men genitally speaking and therefore FGM is wrong while MGM is no big deal" crap. I think way too many women - and this includes women of my acquaintance, as well as women I see online who just don't think about it - dismiss the harm that is done to baby boys because they don't empathize with them. I just want to get through to them that you don't have to minimize the suffering of FGM in order to recognize the suffering of MGM, and unlike the former in this country, the latter is something we actually have the power to do something about.

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  
#77 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 11:57 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama
But it's not babies who are approaching feminists and telling them that they better get onboard with this issue. It's grown men. Some of whom are angry and who don't hesistate to use fairly ugly language when women aren't willing to immediatly sign onto their agenda. So, it comes across as a "men's issue" to some women. And I don't think those women are crazy or wrong, it's how the issue has been presented to them.
That's a very small minority of the men involved in this issue. I think the reason there are not more men involved is because most men work long hours to support their families. I am very lucky in that I was very successful in business and hoarded my pennies to be able to take the time I do with this issue. Most men are not in that position and are not able to take such an active part.


Quote:
When a some women who have dedicated a good part of their activist life to ending FGM hear things like this, it sounds like they are being dismissed. Like what is she doing wasting her time worrying about girls half a world away when boys are suffering right here at home.
In my business life I learned that some goals are attaainable and some are not. I also learned that some goals that are not now attainable will be attainable in the future. For example, I started one of my businesses with 13 competitors. I was determined to narrow the playing field by taking out some of those competitors. Going after the biggest one first was an unattainable goal but going after the smallest one was an attainable goal. Four years later, I only had three competitors and was almost as big as #1. That biggest competitor was trying to get me to sell to them because I was "eating their lunch" every day. My overall goal was to become the largest in the Atlanta area. That was not an attainable goal until I had realized my smaller goals. as I reached each of my smaller goals, the ultimate goal inched closer and closer until it was attainable.

It's the same with genital mutilation. Our overall goal is to end it world wide for all babies and children. The short term attainable goal is to end it for boys here in America. Once we have reached that goal, we'll go global and we will eventually realize our overall goal.

We are getting there. I was thinking just today that when I first came to Mothering.com that there would be maybe 4-6 posts a day. Now, I suspect there are 30-40 posts a day. that's an amazing change in just a few short years.



Quote:
And Frankly Speaking expressed himself calmly, without name calling and anger. Not all intactivsts approach the issue so calmly (again, read over this thread to see the hostility expressed towards some feminists)
To be quite honest, I went through my beligerent, angry and confrontive stage several years ago. I finally got past that at least in the way I post messages and let people get to me. I learned that it is counterproductive. I think all intactivists eventually go through that stage. I have one friend who has been in this fight for years. She used to be the sweetest and most gentle person you could imagine and she finally had her cup run over and now she is in that belligerent, angry and confrontive stage. She will eventually pass through it as she realizes that she is distancing her audience instead of pulling them closer. It just takes time.




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#78 of 111 Old 06-08-2004, 11:59 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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirky
I just want to get through to them that you don't have to minimize the suffering of FGM in order to recognize the suffering of MGM, and unlike the former in this country, the latter is something we actually have the power to do something about.
EXACTLY!!!

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#79 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 12:08 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugmadmama
And many feminists, myself included this time, are very wary when encouraged by primarily male-led activists groups to put their efforts into the male issue first, then trust that the female issue will recieve as much attention and effort in the future.
Believe it or not, the intactivist movement is 90% female. There are relatively few males actively involved. This movement is all about mothers protecting their sons and trying to help other mothers protect their sons. Take a look at this site. I am the only man who regularly posts on this subject. There are three other men who post occasionally but irregularly. We are seriously outnumbered by FEMALES! NOCIRC, the pre-eminent orgainzation involved in this issue was founded and is operated by (gasp!) a
FEMALE! Many of the other orgainzations are almost all FEMALES!




Frank
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#80 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 02:07 AM
 
Veritaserum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If it's about equality, shouldn't the male infants in our country be protected from genital mutilation just as the female infants are?

It's possible to be a feminist without discriminating against males.

Homeschooling Mom of 5 dds reading.gif

Planning my fifth natural birth using Hypnobabies for baby boy coming in June 2012! nocirc.gif

Veritaserum is offline  
#81 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 02:46 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?

-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  
#82 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 03:49 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#83 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 04:37 AM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

-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  
#84 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 07:40 AM
 
Stardust27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Stardust27 is offline  
#85 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 10:07 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 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
Sarah is offline  
#86 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 10:50 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)
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
Sarah is offline  
#87 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 12:13 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#88 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 02:02 PM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Rainbow is offline  
#89 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 02:39 PM
 
Nathan1097's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Senior-Title-Less!
Posts: 3,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.... )
Nathan1097 is offline  
#90 of 111 Old 06-09-2004, 03:34 PM
 
pugmadmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
pugmadmama 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