Male circumcision

182 posts / 0 new
Last post
lagatta

Slumberjack, speaking of nasty, what you wrote in post #94 is incredibly vicious. Sexist prick.

rhubarb

As I said, truths were revealed.  lagatta, as Slumberjack said, you made the thread all about you.  Unionist, you did the same thing.

It is the practice of respect that is essential to me. I don't always succeed. People say things and do things that I don't agree with but because I understand that nasty words push people away and provoke them to manifest their nasty selves, I make an effort to speak from a respectful place.  Unionist,  it is why I am still talking to you.Smile

I have changed my mind about the use of the term mutilation, although I do see circumcision as mutilation, I now see that for those affected by it or any other modification of their sexual organs it is a trigger word and a demeaning thing to say, and for that I am sorry. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

Timebandit, please read lagatta's first and second posts in this thread, and try to determine the source of her complaints from what had been previously said in this thread up to the point of her 'intervention.'

The first one? She didn't say much of anything that Magoo hadn't said. And you don't see what she's responding to in the one following that because rhubarb has engineered it so you only see half the conversation. Besides which, nothing was said in either post that wasn't true and pretty much uncontroversial.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

rhubarb wrote:

It is the practice of respect that is essential to me. I don't always succeed. People say things and do things that I don't agree with but because I understand that nasty words push people away and provoke them to manifest their nasty selves, I make an effort to speak from a respectful place.  Unionist,  it is why I am still talking to you.Smile

Yeah, butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it.

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
But honestly, the claims and connotations warranted some response.

What claims and connotatons?  The accusations were tossed in without any claims or connotations being made.  There was this:

Quote:
I think it is medical interference, but it really isn't as mutilating as FGM. 

Up to that point there was no discussion or comparison between the two forms of mutilation.  But the accusation was made, and it stuck, that somehow one form of mutilation (circumcision) was being made out to be more than the other (FGM) without a single word having been uttered to that effect.  And it steamrolled from there, which I contend was the intent behind that statement and others like it, to derail and destroy the conversation.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

rhubarb wrote:

It is the practice of respect that is essential to me. I don't always succeed. People say things and do things that I don't agree with but because I understand that nasty words push people away and provoke them to manifest their nasty selves, I make an effort to speak from a respectful place.  Unionist,  it is why I am still talking to you.Smile

Yeah, butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it. Let's please remember that this is the same poster who gave me shit for modifying a post to be more respectful in another thread.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

But it isn't, and there was some inference there. So not an entirely unwarranted statement, and not disrespectfully addressed in the least.

lagatta

That stemmed from the thread title. FGM has a very specific meaning in medical and feminist literature. I did not support circumcision in either of those initial posts referred to. I merely thought the title was insulting to victims of FGM. I think not making the distinction is masculinist.

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
The first one? She didn't say much of anything that Magoo hadn't said.

She did.  Are you reading the same conversation?  Magoo stated that the problem of infant male mutilation seemed to be on the wane in some societies.  There is nothing particularly controversial that stands out in that statement, although it is a matter of debate about whether the practice is in decline.  Lagatta's comments infers a specific charge, in that, discussion of male circumcision, described as a form of mutilation, effaces the debate around FGM.  In other words this is a sexist conversation for the participants here to be having.

lagatta

Referring to the oppression of women is SEXIST????? HUH?????

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:
That stemmed from the thread title.

BS.  That stemmed from the recesses of your mind.  You're being a silly word nazi by saying the word mutilation can't be used in this context because it's covered by the FGM issue, and using it to describe male infant circumcision is inherently sexist because it somehow equates and compares the two unrelated issues and thus the male issue detracts from the female issue.  It's pure nonsense.  I'm surprised that anyone got sucked in by it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
On a micro level, I do feel that the subject warrants discussion as performed for non religious purposes here in North America.

Just curious, but why do we need to make some kind of exception for "religious purposes"?

Do we make an exception to spanking laws for religious purposes?

Do religious parents own their children in a way that non-religious parents don't??

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:

Referring to the oppression of women is SEXIST????? HUH?????

There you go again, making shit up as you go.

Slumberjack

I caught that last insult lagatta before you erased it.  Thanks.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Rates of non religious circumcision have fallen, though. And the equation of all circumcision to full scale mutilation is pretty broad and the language is similar to conversations around FGM, plus Sineed's point about the timing of the thread makes it a little more suspect. But you've very right to disagree - I just don't think getting snarkily personal is entirely justified. Make your case if you disagree. It'd be nice, actually, to have someone demonstrate for rhubarb that it can be done without throwing a tantrum.

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
But it isn't, and there was some inference there. So not an entirely unwarranted statement, and not disrespectfully addressed in the least.

I disagree. It was contrived, and it was disrespectful.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
On a micro level, I do feel that the subject warrants discussion as performed for non religious purposes here in North America.

Just curious, but why do we need to make some kind of exception for "religious purposes"?

Do we make an exception to spanking laws for religious purposes?

Do religious parents own their children in a way that non-religious parents don't??


Personally, I would like to see any number of religious exemptions nullified. Circumcision and vaccinations (lack of) are top of the list.

Sineed

slumberjack wrote:
Who made the accusation that the problem of FGM is being cast in a lesser light to the problem of male circumcision?  Who maintained this point of view?

Okay, I'll say it again: this thread was created one day after a thread on female genital mutilation was bumped to the front page, and was given the name, "Male genital mutilation." When I pointed this out, the OP deleted all her posts in the thread.

This thread was created for the purpose of making the comparison to FGM.

rhubarb

I think this thread is toxic and should be closed, everybody knows where they stand.

Slumberjack

For the record, the toxicity in this thread wasn't introduced by me.

lagatta

I have no intention of erasing anything. What you called me is deeply masculinist and sexist.

Now I'm a "word Nazi". Holy Godwin!

Edited to add: Make that a "silly word Nazi" - as in the Ministry of Silly Goosestepping. Holy Python!

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
But it isn't, and there was some inference there. So not an entirely unwarranted statement, and not disrespectfully addressed in the least.

I disagree. It was contrived, and it was disrespectful.


And I disagree with you, because the first reaction I had was to think was - is this was another "what about teh menz!!!!!!!1!1!11!" discussion? so it's not so far beyond the pale to make the association and not out of line to point out the distinction before it went very far. As to respect.... I don't know what you're looking for, here. It wasn't rudely put, no name calling. I'm at a bit of a loss. What was so disrespectful about it?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

DP

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

For the record, the toxicity in this thread wasn't introduced by me.


You're right, it wasn't. Rhubarb took care of that. She's very skilled.

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

For the record, the toxicity in this thread wasn't introduced by me.

You're right, it wasn't. Rhubarb took care of that. She's very skilled.

Smile

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
And I disagree with you, because the first reaction I had was to think this was another "what about teh menz!!!!!!!1!1!11!" discussion,  It wasn't rudely put, no name calling. I'm at a bit of a loss. What was so disrespectful about it?

Discussing the pros and cons of male genital mutilation is not the sexist topic and conversation that it has been made out to be.  Having such a conversation is not to say 'what about the men.'  Nor does having such a conversation have to be interferred with by someone saying 'what about the women.'  It was a needless and frankly thoughtless intervention imo.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Okay. But that is the direction this conversation so often goes - and given the links rhubarb provided and has since removed, there was every indication it would this time, too. Which is why some of us don't think it was needless to point that out.

Sineed

slumberjack wrote:
Discussing the pros and cons of male genital mutilation is not the sexist topic and conversation that it has been made out to be.

Taken on its own merits, no. But when a thread on male circumcision is started one day after one on FGM, and is titled, "Male Genital Mutilation," the glaring coincidence of this timing, the thread's provocative title, and the thread's author's subsequent guilty-seeming behaviour (deleting all self-recriminating posts on the thread) tends to leap out at anybody not being deliberately obtuse.

This probably could apply to me also:

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If there were no such thing as FGM (Hallelujah to that!) would it still be controversial to refer to circumcision as mutilation?

If a parent were to feel that it was their right to remove their child's earlobes, would calling that "mutilation" be a hard sell?

I'm not saying this to complain about my own circumcision, nor to in any way compare the outcomes of male versus female (shall we just say ) "unnecessary pediatric genital plastic surgery", but OMFG, so much gravitas over one word!

Sineed

It's not the m-word per se, Magoo. It's the context. Have a look at what I said in # 128.

rhubarb

rhubarb wrote:

Yes, I deleted all my posts other than the opening one and the request for a thread title change.  If anyone has screen shots feel free to post them again, I did not delete them because I do not stand by them, I deleted them because my intention has been twisted and my words have been consistently warped to conform to the biases of those who cannot address this issue. I see my words as energy, I take them back to take my energy back.

To those of you open to discussing this issue, thank you, I am grateful for your words.Smile

lagatta

Well, for that matter, it was technically "mutilation" when my earlobes were pierced when I was small. And I doubt very much that I'd do that to a small child. But there is a matter of proportion. And of patriarchy. (And I'm not what is referred to as a "radical feminist").

I've worked on occupational disease and injury issues, many of which mostly affected men. I am not in the slightest unconcerned with men's health or bodily integrity.

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:
Slumberjack, speaking of nasty, what you wrote in post #94 is incredibly vicious. Sexist prick.

It ranks nowhere near to what you've initated here.  You were named, and rightly so, and then you ran off to get someone to sort me out.  It's a well known tactic, hence my describing it as unsurprising, coming from you, instead of owning up to the unnecessary accusations that you levelled early into the conversation.  The tone of the response is no different than what i might expect to receive, and rightly so, if the situation were reversed, and it was me who was saying what should or what should not be discussed, and how it should be discussed and described.  That last bit of yours is another unfounded accusation involving comparison of myself to male genitalia.  It would never be acceptable to me to respond in kind, but you get the pass.  Why is that, and what gives you that sense of entitlement to say anything you want about someone?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Thank you Mr.Magoo for dragging me back into a conversation I no longer wanted to be a part of. My original posts in this thread very clearly express where I stand. However, ODA brought up two good points in this thread about removing body parts without consent. NDPP and some other men expressed that this was a sensitive topic. As long as there is no equating male circumcision with FGM, and that it is not a MRA talking piece, which is a legitimate concern of many women. I believe that men should be allowed to discuss this issue and keep the thread open if that is what some men have expressed they want. I also agree with ODA that rhubarb was been attacked unfairly, and not just in this thread either. And if I were in rhubarb's shoes, I would have likely deleted all my posts as well. This board can be very nasty and unwelcoming at times, and most of it is totally unnecessary. And as for forskin, it's not mine, and I am staying out of it.

Slumberjack

Mr. Magoo wrote:
but OMFG, so much gravitas over one word!

Exactly my point.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Well, here's a definition of mutilate: 1.
to deprive of a limb, essential part, etc; maim; dismember
2.
to mar, expurgate, or damage (a text, book, etc). I suppose if you accept that a foreskin is an essential part of a penis, it fits. However, I don't think the majority of men who are circumcised would concur. So it's a rather dramatic choice of word, coupled with the context Sineed has pointed out, that weights the choice further.

rhubarb

Thank you Misfit.

Slumberjack

Misfit wrote:
And while we are at it, why don't we talk about botched hysterectomies and the permanent scars left with these women,

Open a thread and have at it.  I doubt anyone would stop you.

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:
Slumberjack, with your "childish" stuff, you already did. Typical machist talking down to women.

You initiated a course of action that I deem childish, as I have often held it out to be, irrespective of the gender of the person doing it.  If you don't like debate and the exchange of words that suit the occasion, it doesn't necessarily imply that I am talking down to you as a woman.  That is another nasty and delimiting accusation on your part.  It's the equivalent of tossing out controversy and running for cover, and it is a sad tactic that gets used when there is nothing else aside from more groundless accusations.

Misfit Misfit's picture

SJ, I said that I support the continuation of this discussion.

lagatta

Slumberjack, with your "childish" stuff, you already did. Typical machist talking down to women.

Edited to add: I really don't understand where his animus towards me is coming from. Not that I care, but I find it very strange.

lagatta

I suppose he thinks it is okay to call FN comrades "savage" if he doesn't like the tone of what they are saying...

He is calling a mature female comrade with over four decades of activist experience under her belt "childish" and he doesn't think that makes him a patriarchal enforcer? To laugh.

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
Well, here's a definition of mutilate: 1. to deprive of a limb, essential part, etc; maim; dismember 2. to mar, expurgate, or damage (a text, book, etc). I suppose if you accept that a foreskin is an essential part of a penis, it fits. However, I don't think the majority of men who are circumcised would concur. So it's a rather dramatic choice of word, coupled with the context Sineed has pointed out, that weights the choice further.

Maiming is included in the definition.  It doesn't matter if the majority of men who are circumcised don't refer to it as mutilation.  If the religously inspired justifications were not present, there would be little reason to continue such practices, and the men still getting circumcised as infants would likely grow up to say 'wtf was that done for?'  "Who gave who the right?'

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:

I suppose he thinks it is okay to call FN comrades "savage" if he doesn't like the tone of what they are saying...

He is calling a mature female comrade with over four decades of activist experience under her belt "childish" and he doesn't think that makes him a patriarchal enforcer? To laugh.

Right.  Treating you as an equal to others that I have debated with here is patriarchal enforcment.  My take is that if the shoe fits, wear it.  You seem to think that as a woman i should select from a different list of descriptions.  You prefer if more flowerly, agreeable words were sent your way and you get to say whatever you want?  That can't be right.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I agree that there's no good reason to circumcise, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's maiming (implies dysfunction). Definition : wound or injure (someone) so that part of the body is permanently damaged.
"100,000 soldiers were killed or maimed"
synonyms: injure, wound, cripple, disable, incapacitate, impair, mar, mutilate, lacerate, disfigure, deform, mangle
"a dog maimed by a coyote"

Bacchus

Well having cut it off, it IS permanently damaged, is it not? Permanently damaged doesn't mean no longer functional, tho as I pointed out, half of all of them go wrong

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

lagatta wrote:

I suppose he thinks it is okay to call FN comrades "savage" if he doesn't like the tone of what they are saying...

He is calling a mature female comrade with over four decades of activist experience under her belt "childish" and he doesn't think that makes him a patriarchal enforcer? To laugh.

Right.  Treating you as an equal to others that I have debated with here is patriarchal enforcment.  My take is that if the shoe fits, wear it.  You seem to think that as a woman i should select from a different list of descriptions.  You prefer if more flowerly, agreeable words were sent your way and you get to say whatever you want?  That can't be right.

Wait, that can't be right.... We only do that for rhubarb. Clearly, deleting all your responses in a fit of pique is far less juvenile than making an inference several other women have made. So we really have to call out the inference while patting our deleter of posts on the head.

lagatta

#144. Sexism.

Coupled with denial of sexism as a thing.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

How many circumcised men actually think their pecker is damaged? Srsly, they tend to be as proud of 'em as the intact guys.

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:

#144. Sexism.

Coupled with denial of sexism as a thing.

With circular logic like this, you would have been an effective inquisitor back in the day.  Heresy, made worse by denying that heresy has taken place.

Pages

Topic locked