Male circumcision

Misfit wrote:

... Rhubarb is also FN, and circumcision is a white foreign imposition on her people. So Unionist, I think religious and cultural respect is a two way street.

Are you quite certain of this Misfit... if you go back into the threads that Rhubarb has posted in (within the aboriginal issues and culture forum), you will find that she has quite consistently employed the pronoun "they" when referring to FN people, and "we" when referring to settlers.

Rhubarb deleted all her posts in this thread. Anybody get screen shots?

Unionist, I consider the Jewish Holocaust to be the most abhorrent and reprehensible crime against humanity ever committed. It is a very dark reality of our history which disturbs me deeply. Having said that, circumcision IS foreign to First Nations people and I do concede that a small percentage of men are adversely affected by the procedure and makes for life due to botching. On a micro level, I do feel that the subject warrants discussion as performed for non religious purposes here in North America. And again, I will reiterate that it is a foreign procedure imposed on First Nations people.

misfit wrote:

And bag kitty, if you read what she wrote, she did not equate it with FGM at all.

The very existence of this thread and its title, Male Genital Mutilation, came about one day after an old thread on female genital mutilation was bumped to the front page.

And the OP of this thread has deleted her posts.

There may well be issues to be discussed, but this is not the place. This is nothing more than a trolling thread and should be closed.

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.

I understand completely. I'm disgusted by the way you've been attacked here.

Sineed wrote:

Female genital mutilation is equivalent to cutting off the entire glans, or head of the penis. There is no comparison.

FGM encompasses a wide range of practices. In Singapore, FGM consists of a symbolic 1cm incision performed by female physicians:

http://www.courtchallenge.com/news/torstar1.html  

Thread title changed upon request.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

 I'm disgusted by the way you've been attacked here.

As am I.  It was uncalled for.  It's clear that some people (Lagatta) derive a certain sense of glee in attacking discussion that doesn't conform to their list of approved topics.

I was circumcized as a baby on the advice of the hospital. They claimed it as more 'hygenic'

I have no animosity towards the doctors or my parents for making that decision.

Whether I had foreskin and ultimately I don't,it makes very little difference or importance in my life.

IMHO,female circumcision is barbaric. Male circumcision,not so much.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

I'm disgusted by the way you've been attacked here.

Well, you should try harder to distinguish between someone's uninformed offensive opinion on a subject being attacked, vs. the person being attacked. Rhubarb brought significant contributions to the discussion about indigenous medicine. She brought nothing but truther-style second-hand offensive nonsense to this conversation. You can call an opinion by its proper name without being accused of "attacking" someone. Or you should be able to.

Slumberjack wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

IMHO,female circumcision is barbaric. Male circumcision,not so much.

I don't recall that olympic style scoring comparisons were being made between the two distinct practices.  It was brought to the discussion, whereupon the discussion became consumed by it.

Half of all circumcisions go wrong. Two methids 1-knife (negative issues tend to be infections) and 2- a device that looks like a date stamp from the post office (negative issues tend to be more removal than necessary)

Not comparable to FGM but definitely not a bag of fun either

rhubarb wrote:

To say you have respect and then to attack with sarcasm and hostility, is not respect.  Respect would be a straightforward comment about what you find disturbing. 

I use sarcasm and hostility toward ignorant, offensive and uninformed comments. I have zero respect for such comments. Just the opposite of the great respect I have for the views and information you put forward in the threads about Aboriginal medicine. It's about what you say. Not who you are.

Quote:

To demand to have the thread shut down, is not respect.  It is possible to simply not read a thread if you don't like what the discussion is, that would be respectful.

That's never going to happen. When I see memes of men's rights, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia (whether you intended it or not - and I'm absolutely certain that you didn't intend that), I will read them, and then demand that they be stopped. I will never be "respectful" to such falsehoods.

lagatta wrote:

#84 flagged as a fairly obvious personal attack.

Not surprising.  You're well known for resorting to childishness like that.  The fact of the matter is that this topic started out as a conversation about male circumcision, not about FGM.  It is a distinct topic of its own.  If you don't like the subject, why don't you butt out and allow the discussion to move beyond whatever it was that you wanted to make it into.  But no, you want to turn it into something that it is not.  Whatever the follow on explanations and excuses for your unwelcomed intervention into this thread with the unrelated introduction of FGM, as if people were making light of it, the fact of the matter is that you initially sowed what this thread became.  You.  Must every topic of conversation require your stamp of approval before it is allowed to take shape?  If people want to talk about circumcision and describe it as mutilation, which it is, what business is it of yours?

To try and get the conversation back on track from being so rudely knocked off track with nonsensical accusations that some competition between various forms of mutilation has been going on here, mostly it's infants who are maimed by this practice.  The time is long overdue to make the practice illegal until the individual is old enough to decide for themselves.

Timebandit wrote:

SJ, you're accusing lagatta of being childish in a thread where another poster has removed all her comments because she was disagreed with? Can I lend you my irony meter for a mo, I think yours might be malfunctioning.

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?  Something that had not occurred, which was discussion and comparison to FGM, was said to have occured by lagatta.  I call it bullshit, and it was a needless attack by her.  The removal of comments I attribute to the second guessing of what is permissible to discuss under the divisive circumstances that were introduced to this thread by lagatta.

And I call bullshit right back, SJ. Sineed and lagatta both made some strong points. I can't point to rhubarb's double-down responses because she's pulled a pouty-poo and removed 'em. But honestly, the claims and connotations warranted some response.