The circumcisions performed on boys in non-religious families in the USA came from a tradition of preventing teenage boys from masturbating. Mr Kellogg, the health nut who started the famous...
The circumcisions performed on boys in non-religious families in the USA came from a tradition of preventing teenage boys from masturbating. Mr Kellogg, the health nut who started the famous cereal company, recommended removing boys' foreskins to make masturbation more difficult for them - and American parents in the late 1800s & early 1900s followed this dictum.
Then it became unquestioned tradition.
I remember having a discussion in a private Facebook group with the father of a baby boy. He came to the group to ask for our opinions about whether he should circumcise the boy or not. After getting a variety of opinions, he decided to circumcise the boy. His final reason for choosing to do this was effectively peer pressure: he didn't want his son to look different in locker rooms when he was a teenager and adult.
That's how circumcision is so accepted in the U.S.: it started for puritanical reasons, and is now continued because it's just what everyone does.
Because (IMHO) religion permeates a massive amount of US culture. Even with the separation of church and state, religious thinking influences politics and policies. When was the last time a...
Because (IMHO) religion permeates a massive amount of US culture. Even with the separation of church and state, religious thinking influences politics and policies.
When was the last time a self-described irreligious politician was elected?
I get why it's accepted - since it's a religious thing for a lot of people. What I don't get is why on earth is it so common! The majority of people (e.g. my very own ma 'n' da) are not terribly...
I get why it's accepted - since it's a religious thing for a lot of people. What I don't get is why on earth is it so common! The majority of people (e.g. my very own ma 'n' da) are not terribly religious and yet they circumcise their sons (e.g. me) seemingly by default. So strange. So so strange.
These discussions always get very heated on reddit. I also think it's super messed up comparing these two things to each other. It's like comparing a piercing to a chopped off finger
These discussions always get very heated on reddit. I also think it's super messed up comparing these two things to each other. It's like comparing a piercing to a chopped off finger
You are doing it again, despite multiple people telling you not to. Pierced ears are in no way, shape or form comparable to cutting off a finger. Resorting to hyperbole for dramatic effect and/or...
You are doing it again, despite multiple people telling you not to. Pierced ears are in no way, shape or form comparable to cutting off a finger.
Resorting to hyperbole for dramatic effect and/or self-righteousness, you make your argument less, not more convincing.
Levels of severity may be obvious to you, they're not to some other people (in this very thread even). FGM especially is a rare enough practice in the west that it's not obvious to most people...
Levels of severity may be obvious to you, they're not to some other people (in this very thread even). FGM especially is a rare enough practice in the west that it's not obvious to most people online how severe it is.
Also, I'm not @calcifer but this is a bit of a shitty thing to say:
If that's not the argument you want to have, please don't respond to me.
If you don't want to have a specific discussion with someone, you should be the one taking the step not to respond rather than responding to ask them to stop. Or take it to DMs, I dunno.
For what it's worth, I agree with what you've been saying, and support you in saying it. I have even made a couple of comments here to support your points.
For what it's worth, I agree with what you've been saying, and support you in saying it. I have even made a couple of comments here to support your points.
The results of genital mutilation performed on girls and boys might be different, but the principle in @koan's argument is the same: it's about the bodily autonomy of young human beings in our...
The results of genital mutilation performed on girls and boys might be different, but the principle in @koan's argument is the same: it's about the bodily autonomy of young human beings in our care. Sure, some bodily mutilations are worse than others, but they are still all examples of permanent damage inflicted on babies and children without their consent.
I would have thought that adding more examples of this type of child abuse would strengthen this argument. Rather than just focussing on one type of damage inflicted on some children, we're including all types of damage inflicted on many children.
IIRC there are different types of FGM, which range from removing the clitoral hood only (which is the anatomical analogue of the foreskin in a male) to removing the clitoris (which would be like...
IIRC there are different types of FGM, which range from removing the clitoral hood only (which is the anatomical analogue of the foreskin in a male) to removing the clitoris (which would be like chopping off part of a man's penis.) Comparing MGM to FGM of the first type is not messed up, it's a good analogy.
Procedures differ according to the country or ethnic group. They include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glans; removal of the inner labia; and removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. In this last procedure, known as infibulation, a small hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid; the vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth.[7]
Agreed. I think the crucial distinction is that WTW is trying to make is that FGM is part of systemic patriarchal oppression of women and circumcision is perverse holdover from a more religious...
It should all be blanket banned in an enlightened society.
Agreed. I think the crucial distinction is that WTW is trying to make is that FGM is part of systemic patriarchal oppression of women and circumcision is perverse holdover from a more religious time. Yes, they are undeniable comparable but there is a dimension to FGM not present in circumcision. Drawing a comparisson and focusing on degrees of severity tacitly erases that aspect of systemic repression of women.
It treats it merely on the surface as a gross genital procedure without the wider issues of women's body autonomy in a patriarchal society. It's not about degrees. It's about oppression.
Men do this thing where when an issue around systemic oppression of women (patriarchy) is raised they try to point to some vaguely similar thing that is done to men and say "men are oppressed to!"...
Men do this thing where when an issue around systemic oppression of women (patriarchy) is raised they try to point to some vaguely similar thing that is done to men and say "men are oppressed to!" It's toxic because it whitewashes the systemic aspects of the the women's issue which is inevitable absent in the comparable men's issue.
Then they get all aggressive and defensive when you call them out on actually not being such a great ally to women as they thought (fragile masculinity) Then they start saying things like "dude what hell are you talking about" instead of "wow, i never thought of that. tell me more about how I can show solidarity with women and work to lessen my own subtle patriarchal tendencies" even though that's probably what they meant because who even wants to be misogynistic anyway?
If you're not a feminist that's fine I guess. I'm gonna try and change your ideology on a forum.
This is so not about toxic masculinity. It's about the fact that operating on all children's genitals is wrong. Full stop. Are you aware that the circumcisions performed on boys in non-religious...
Exemplary
This is so not about toxic masculinity. It's about the fact that operating on all children's genitals is wrong. Full stop.
Are you aware that the circumcisions performed on boys in non-religious families in the USA come from a tradition of preventing teenage boys from masturbating? Mr Kellogg, the health nut who started the famous cereal company, recommended removing boys' foreskins to make masturbation more difficult for them - and American parents in the late 1800s & early 1900s followed this dictum. Then it became unquestioned tradition.
Both types of genital mutilation are intended to suppress the child's sexuality as the enter puberty and adult life.
My favorite user name on tildes! Nice to it in my inbox once again. Funny you should say this Because this is me in another comment. And no I did not know that! That's is a very satisfying answer...
My favorite user name on tildes! Nice to it in my inbox once again.
Funny you should say this
This is so not about toxic masculinity. It's about the fact that operating on all children's genitals is wrong. Full stop.
Because this is me in another comment.
The conversations worth having here (imo):
1 Society grants parents undue license to mutilate their children male and female.
2 FGM is deplorable. Smash the patriarchy.
Conversations not worth having (imo):
1 Men are oppressed by society and I can prove it because look at circumcision.
And no I did not know that! That's is a very satisfying answer to my question "why the hell do so many people do this to baby boys non-religiously?" I'm really glad you had that lil knowledge nugget to share.
Literally it does not matter at all if you are offended. What matters is oppression. FGM is an oppressive practice and circumcision is not. Glad you were able to read all that and walk away with...
Literally it does not matter at all if you are offended. What matters is oppression. FGM is an oppressive practice and circumcision is not. Glad you were able to read all that and walk away with your preconceptions intact.
FGM and circumcision should be illegal. Full stop.
FGM and circumcision are not actually that similar. Full stop. [Except in the regard that they are tactics to suppress sexuality]
E: [Addendum, to the above] Snaps to Algernon for the correction.
Why, exactly, do you find FGM oppressive and circumcision not? Assuming both are performed in sterile environment, etc. Both are designed to inhibit sexuality. Are you sure you aren't just used to...
Why, exactly, do you find FGM oppressive and circumcision not? Assuming both are performed in sterile environment, etc. Both are designed to inhibit sexuality. Are you sure you aren't just used to the one, and the other one is something that is performed in barbaric foreign lands?
Because women are systematically oppressed based on, now and historically, and men are not. There are of course many types of oppression and many types of men are oppressed. However there is a...
Because women are systematically oppressed based on, now and historically, and men are not. There are of course many types of oppression and many types of men are oppressed. However there is a patriarchy for women and nothing similar for men.
AFIK circumcision's only long-term effects on men (barring medical complications related to a botched procedure) are reduced sensitivity and that's actually something that most men would want...
it is incredibly rare to have serious long-term effects on men
AFIK circumcision's only long-term effects on men (barring medical complications related to a botched procedure) are reduced sensitivity and that's actually something that most men would want since that helps with sexual endurance.
Therefore it seems to me that the comparison is entirely moot. I suspect the reason internet men always bring it up is an attempt at solidarity and distancing themselves from a practice they don't do. I don't get it. Why do privileged groups play up their own lesser issues in response to learning about marginalized groups? As if to say, "I can't be culpable of perpetuating the patriarchy because I'm circumcised and that's a mutilation of my genitals. See we're all marginalized!" It's fucking yucky.
FGM is part of the systemic repression of women's body autonomy which is something that they have a lifelong experience of and men do not. They are certainly cosmetically similar but there is a dimension to FGM which is not present in circumcision. This is why the comparison is fundamentally invalid.
For sure we should oppose both practices. But they are about as similar as male pattern balding is to a bad hair day.
I get the impression the problem is that you're pushing a high level idea that they're both abuse while ignoring any discussion about the difference in severity and what impact that might have on...
I get the impression the problem is that you're pushing a high level idea that they're both abuse while ignoring any discussion about the difference in severity and what impact that might have on what's acceptable and important.
That's fair, to be honest tildes hasn't done a good job creating good discussion on this topic. in my opinion. But I enjoyed hearing your point of view, hope the rest of your day goes well.
That's fair, to be honest tildes hasn't done a good job creating good discussion on this topic. in my opinion. But I enjoyed hearing your point of view, hope the rest of your day goes well.
That's true, it also has to do with how the subject was brought up. This news article isn't really a comprehensive look at the issues people want to discuss and so we don't have a great...
That's true, it also has to do with how the subject was brought up. This news article isn't really a comprehensive look at the issues people want to discuss and so we don't have a great foundation. That isn't to say it shouldn't have been posted or that any of it is bad. Just that we should probably make a post based on a comprehensive overview of the issues because that's what the community wants to talk about and would help navigate those twists and turns.
Idk from where I'm sitting, someone made a post about a pretty terrible thing that is done to women in America and a bunch of dude rolled through and used it as an opportunity to talk about their...
Idk from where I'm sitting, someone made a post about a pretty terrible thing that is done to women in America and a bunch of dude rolled through and used it as an opportunity to talk about their dicks.
I don't think this comment is in the best faith. I believe there is a very real discussion to be had here, and this comment is unfairly discrediting it. I agree with rocket_man that this article...
I don't think this comment is in the best faith. I believe there is a very real discussion to be had here, and this comment is unfairly discrediting it. I agree with rocket_man that this article is not the best one to spawn this sort of discussion, however.
The conversations worth having here (imo): Society grants parents undue license to mutilate their children male and female. FGM is deplorable. Smash the patriarchy. Conversations not worth having...
The conversations worth having here (imo):
Society grants parents undue license to mutilate their children male and female.
FGM is deplorable. Smash the patriarchy.
Conversations not worth having (imo):
Men are oppressed by society and I can prove it because look at circumcision.
I think the reason you are getting the bad faith vibe is because I am getting the sense that people are talking about that last one a lot more than first two. But I am will volunteer that it is possible that this is due to a misreading on my part.
Lmao, I guess I did some reading into subtexts that didn't actually exist then. Or perhaps I am over attributing. Man you're seriously cutting though the crap today.
Lmao, I guess I did some reading into subtexts that didn't actually exist then. Or perhaps I am over attributing. Man you're seriously cutting though the crap today.
That is fair, however I believe that even if you believe a conversation is not worth having, rather than act in bad faith, simply don't participate in it.
That is fair, however I believe that even if you believe a conversation is not worth having, rather than act in bad faith, simply don't participate in it.
I don't actually think it's not worth talking about circumcision. If you can find it, my first comment in the thread is me being baffled that it has flown under the radar for so long and remains a...
I don't actually think it's not worth talking about circumcision. If you can find it, my first comment in the thread is me being baffled that it has flown under the radar for so long and remains a common cultural practice. My tune changed when I found that basically every other comment was about the same thing.
Jw what comes off as bad faith about that? I try to avoid it and so if there's something I overlooked I'm open to some self-correction
Personally, I found "a bunch of dude rolled through and used it as an opportunity to talk about their dicks." as insulting and dismissive of the discussion that was occurring. However this is a...
Personally, I found "a bunch of dude rolled through and used it as an opportunity to talk about their dicks." as insulting and dismissive of the discussion that was occurring. However this is a matter of interpretation of course.
For the conversation happening in this thread, I think it is important to recognize that controversial discussions will typically rise to the top in an exchange of ideas. I think this is actually a good sign, as it signifies many people here are of a similar opinion regarding FGM.
That's a fair assessment. I was trying to convey my feeling of irritation and probably should spend a few second trying to figure out a better way to say that. But I am drawing a big fat old blank...
insulting and dismissive
That's a fair assessment. I was trying to convey my feeling of irritation and probably should spend a few second trying to figure out a better way to say that. But I am drawing a big fat old blank how that would be done.
I've noticed this seems to happen with almost every post about women's issues on Tildes, whether it is about single mothers or domestic violence or female tropes in the media. It is actually...
I've noticed this seems to happen with almost every post about women's issues on Tildes, whether it is about single mothers or domestic violence or female tropes in the media. It is actually pretty frustrating that these threads get hijacked with comments about how men suffer too. Not saying that men don't suffer, but it would be nice if there could be a separate post about it if that's what folks want to talk about.
Anyways, back on topic. I am actually really surprised with this ruling as I kind of assumed that FGM was already illegal. I'm not familiar with the US system, but why would this be a state issue instead of a federal issue?
That's my experience. Woah who does that?! /s ;) A similar thing happened around gay marriage and abortion. There are two major factions in American politics: a conservative coalition b/w radical...
I've noticed this seems to happen with almost every post about women's issues on Tildesin circumstances where there are lots of men around.
That's my experience.
Anyways, back on topic. I
Woah who does that?! /s ;)
why would this be a state issue instead of a federal issue?
A similar thing happened around gay marriage and abortion. There are two major factions in American politics: a conservative coalition b/w radical proto-fascist Trumpist and far right neo-conservatives; and a moderate centrist "Liberal" party.
At the federal level, it is much more difficult for them to get their way on these issues - because of liberals and swing votes, judicial precedents, idk (not a scholar on this). So they "punt" the issue to the states, that way the conservative can get their way in their home turf rather than fight a tougher, national fight.
I agree with you in that it's negative to make inaccurate comparisons because they often fail to recognize the suffering of the other for emotional reasons. However, the sentiment of "Don't...
Don't compare male circumcision with FGM
I agree with you in that it's negative to make inaccurate comparisons because they often fail to recognize the suffering of the other for emotional reasons.
However, the sentiment of "Don't compare..." is similarly reductive to men who experience the negative consequences of a needless primitive medical operation.
A better approach might be to recognize, understand, and seek to alleviate each others suffering. Comparing can be a part of this process. "The common practice of cutting a boy's foreskin for religious reasons bears no relation to the abominable act of FGM, writes Simon Hochhauser". The claim "no relation" should require no explanation as to why polarized perspective is damaging.
Yeah that's not great but FGM is part of the systemic repression of women's body autonomy which is something that they have a lifelong experience of and men do not. They are certainly cosmetically...
is similarly reductive to men who experience the negative consequences of a needless primitive medical operation
Yeah that's not great but FGM is part of the systemic repression of women's body autonomy which is something that they have a lifelong experience of and men do not. They are certainly cosmetically similar but there is a dimension to FGM which is not present in circumcision. This is why the comparison is fundamentally invalid.
For sure we should oppose both practices. But they are about as similar as male pattern balding is to a bad hair day.
Male circumcision has occurred at high rates in many countries for a long time. This is a systematic repression of a man's body autonomy by definition of the terms. They connection isn't...
FGM is part of the systemic repression of women's body autonomy
Male circumcision has occurred at high rates in many countries for a long time. This is a systematic repression of a man's body autonomy by definition of the terms.
They are certainly cosmetically similar but there is a dimension to FGM which is not present in circumcision.
They connection isn't superficial at all. It's cutting off parts of the genitals. A difference is that male circumcision is the norm in developed nations and thus is done by real doctors rather people in countries who don't have the ability to do a surgery that doesn't result in mutilation and infection similar to people preforming it in countries where it is illegal.
This is why the comparison is fundamentally invalid.
I have demonstrated to be false by making a comparison that in my opinion is pretty clear. Calling a comparison a fundamentally invalid is a very strong claim. This is why we discuss comparisons rather than lining up words to reject them.
But they are about as similar as male pattern balding is to a bad hair day.
Yeah that definitely doesn't demonstrate a callous ability to trivialize a more accurate demonstration of systematic injustice over body autonomy. (Based on the frequency and history)
I should clarify that I oppose both practices. My comments are more about why I think it's distasteful to make this comparison. Obviously some people don't want to talk about the systemic shit and...
I should clarify that I oppose both practices. My comments are more about why I think it's distasteful to make this comparison. Obviously some people don't want to talk about the systemic shit and I guess that's just the way it is.
Either way, we need to end these practices because they are clearly unilateral and abusive.
I can see how you think it's distasteful. But is that fair? Society doesn't treat male circumcision with much outrage. When FGM occurs and is decried as a crime against humanity, people use it to...
I can see how you think it's distasteful.
But is that fair?
Society doesn't treat male circumcision with much outrage. When FGM occurs and is decried as a crime against humanity, people use it to highlight a worse problem which results in accusations of being distasteful.
I can't help but wonder if your reaction to this is influenced by gender bias.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'm seriously wtfing a bit at this exchange. This is super accusatory and IMO a bit projectionist: I also vehemently oppose the practice for both males...
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'm seriously wtfing a bit at this exchange. This is super accusatory and IMO a bit projectionist:
I can't help but wonder if your reaction to this is influenced by gender bias.
I also vehemently oppose the practice for both males and females, but FGM is more akin to cutting off the entire head of a man's penis. I would give you the benefit of the doubt in that most people don't know/realize how barbaric the practice is and relate it to male circumcision, but if you're going to actually accuse people of gender bias, and so sternly make your position, I would like to think you've at least somewhat researched the topic first.
Society doesn't treat male circumcision with much outrage.
American society, perhaps. Most modern western countries treat it anywhere between "morally ambiguous" and "seriously wtf". I agree with you though, the practice in babies is disgusting either way but just because they're both disgusting doesn't mean one can't be in a comparatively completely different league.
I am sorry you are reacting so strongly but I think you should reconsider what was said. Bias is inescapable and that's a fairly neutral way to phrase that sentiment. It's okay to point out if you...
I am sorry you are reacting so strongly but I think you should reconsider what was said.
I can't help but wonder if your reaction to this is influenced by gender bias.
Bias is inescapable and that's a fairly neutral way to phrase that sentiment. It's okay to point out if you think someone is going wrong with a bias or idea.
I think the need to set FGM in a different league or dimension is demonstrating gender bias. It seems like a way to "accept" while still holding a personal issue at a far higher level. I see no meaningful justification for that level of separation between male and female genital mutilation. Edit: To the point that the idea of comparing them is offensive.
FGM is a cog in a machine which oppresses women in society based on their gender. Men are not oppressed in society based on their gender. Circumcision is not part of a system which oppresses men...
I see no meaningful justification for that level of separation between male and female genital mutilation.
FGM is a cog in a machine which oppresses women in society based on their gender. Men are not oppressed in society based on their gender. Circumcision is not part of a system which oppresses men based on their gender.
Both practices are abhorrent and should be ceased. They both rob people of their body autonomy. The both just fucking suck so much. But FGM is an expression of a culture which systematically oppresses women.
Of course they are. Everyone is oppressed for some aspect of their biology in their lives. This arbritrary line of not oppressed enough to be fought is oppressive by itself.
Men are not oppressed in society based on their gender.
Of course they are. Everyone is oppressed for some aspect of their biology in their lives.
This arbritrary line of not oppressed enough to be fought is oppressive by itself.
The actual mutilation done is different. It's like cutting an earlobe vs. cutting an entire ear. Neither sound good but one's far more barbaric. This isn't gender bias, it's just what it is.
The actual mutilation done is different. It's like cutting an earlobe vs. cutting an entire ear. Neither sound good but one's far more barbaric. This isn't gender bias, it's just what it is.
FGM doesn't refer soley for removing the whole thing, it also applies to the practice of removing the clitoral hood alone. I'm bringing this up because I think a lot of this arguement is...
FGM doesn't refer soley for removing the whole thing, it also applies to the practice of removing the clitoral hood alone.
I'm bringing this up because I think a lot of this arguement is misconstruing what everyone is talking about. I think mutilating babies in any way is a bad thing.
Im circumcised and I'm pissed about it. So maybe its more outraged than you think. And yeah if you want to label feminism a "gender bias" then yeah I'm as biased as I can muster.
Im circumcised and I'm pissed about it. So maybe its more outraged than you think.
And yeah if you want to label feminism a "gender bias" then yeah I'm as biased as I can muster.
Saying that I am irrational and have a gender bias is not what you are talking about? Or yes? Idk I guess this whole thing sucks cause the OP is about the state marginalizing women and children...
Saying that I am irrational and have a gender bias is not what you are talking about? Or yes?
Idk I guess this whole thing sucks cause the OP is about the state marginalizing women and children and we like 85% talking about circumcision. Like the word vagina has been used one single time in the whole thread and circumcision has been used at least 30 times.
Yeah for good reason; everybody already sees FGM as horrenous. There's much more productive conversation to be had in addressing why some people tend to not see male circumcision as a big of an...
Yeah for good reason; everybody already sees FGM as horrenous. There's much more productive conversation to be had in addressing why some people tend to not see male circumcision as a big of an problem as it is.
Seems like the only contention is over whether men have a right to make the comparison.
We're highlighting a problem that mostly exists in other cultures while ignoring a systematic history of doing something similar. A problem that we all have far more responsiblity as well as ability to address.
Agreed. I concede that this is a marginal issue in light of the bigger issue that parents are mutilating their children and the government is okay with it. And also I concede that a conversation...
Seems like the only contention is over whether men have a right to make the comparison.
Agreed. I concede that this is a marginal issue in light of the bigger issue that parents are mutilating their children and the government is okay with it. And also I concede that a conversation about circumcision is worth having. My entire bone of contention is that I think it's whack that we are talking about circumcision to this great extent in a thread that's not about that.
I donno. Either way it's been valuable to have a discussion about this area either way since I'm learning about what and how all you smart tilderoonies are thinking.
I know it seems bad, kids, but just remember: children are property! It's completely fine to abuse them; you own them! It'd be like abusing a table, chair, box, dog, TV remote or printer:...
I know it seems bad, kids, but just remember: children are property! It's completely fine to abuse them; you own them! It'd be like abusing a table, chair, box, dog, TV remote or printer: completely okay!
Who cares if you want to force them into permanent mutilation of their bodies in a nonconsensual manner? They're property, they can't consent!
Remember, if they're under 18 you can make them work while taking their wages, tell them what they can and cannot do, and control just about every aspect of their lives.
Don't need to have regulations on what to do with slaves, really.
I think this raises a great point. Children's rights is something that no one ever talks about but which has profound societal implications. Obviously minors having the guardianship of a parent is...
I think this raises a great point. Children's rights is something that no one ever talks about but which has profound societal implications. Obviously minors having the guardianship of a parent is valuable and often that means the parent does things on the child's behalf. But in general I think our culture does a pretty bad job of curtailing the utter domination of children by parents.
Why is this up to state legislatures to decide but not Congress? This doesn't sound like a privilege* reserved to the state or the federal level. I hope this gets appealed, this ruling seems odd,...
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said Tuesday that Congress lacks the authority to outlaw the procedure, and insisted only states can make such a decision, the Detroit Free Press reports.
Why is this up to state legislatures to decide but not Congress? This doesn't sound like a privilege* reserved to the state or the federal level. I hope this gets appealed, this ruling seems odd, and I believe FGM has no defense since the first amendment does not protect the right to hurt others. (Even if a child is properly anesthetized, it's an absurd procedure with no value besides showing a woman they do not deserve to be equal with men, and the underage girls were lied to to get them to do this. Children cannot consent to abuse, and their parents cannot consent to it on their behalf, either.) If it's child abuse for any other religion/culture, I don't see why it should be protected.
Assuming it's not a procedural reason, federal judges punt issues that conservatives feel strongly about down to the states so that liberals, which outnumber conservatives at the federal level,...
Why is this up to state legislatures to decide but not Congress?
Assuming it's not a procedural reason, federal judges punt issues that conservatives feel strongly about down to the states so that liberals, which outnumber conservatives at the federal level, don't get a say. IIRC they put gay marriage to the states for this reason.
tl;dr because the GOP are slimy lizard people from outer space.
this article didn't work with adblock and NoScript, but the Guardian one did, here it is https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/20/us-female-genital-mutilation-detroit-michigan-unconstitutional...
this article didn't work with adblock and NoScript, but the Guardian one did, here it is
So the judge ruled that it was unconstitutional because it falls outside congress' general duty of regulating trade, but wouldn't regulating FGM fall under the 8th and 5th amendments? 'No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Is the ability to refuse consent to a medical procedure considered a liberty?
the answer to both of these questions is probably no. the 5th amendment and the 8th amendment almost certainly cannot be applied to FGM since those deal almost exclusively with the legal process,...
but wouldn't regulating FGM fall under the 8th and 5th amendments? 'No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Is the ability to refuse consent to a medical procedure considered a liberty?
the answer to both of these questions is probably no. the 5th amendment and the 8th amendment almost certainly cannot be applied to FGM since those deal almost exclusively with the legal process, criminality, sentencing, and other things of that nature. also, like i said in @dubteedub's chain, i don't believe we have any on-the-books federal laws regarding things like treating someone to a religious medical procedure against their consent or to procedures against religious beliefs (there may be state or local laws on that matter) so consequently i doubt theres's any case law about whether or not you have the liberty to refuse consent to a medical procedure of this sort.
I wonder if the sixth circuit will kick this back to Friedman, like they did when he ruled a state ban on same sex marriage was not within states rights...
I wonder if the sixth circuit will kick this back to Friedman, like they did when he ruled a state ban on same sex marriage was not within states rights...
I hope this will cause people to react more strongly to male genital mutilation which is the norm being classified by the neutral term, circumcision. The difference in terminology, circumcision...
I hope this will cause people to react more strongly to male genital mutilation which is the norm being classified by the neutral term, circumcision.
The difference in terminology, circumcision versus genital mutilation, is a needed to shift how people things about these issues.
it's a little bit of both, with the line being somewhat blurry for most areas. it is definitely a part of some animist religious in africa, but it's also considered a cultural and religious...
I'm of the understanding that it's not a religious practice anyway, but a cultural one.
it's a little bit of both, with the line being somewhat blurry for most areas. it is definitely a part of some animist religious in africa, but it's also considered a cultural and religious requirement by the populations of some countries according to UNICEF, and native african religions, christians, muslims, and historically some jews alike have practiced it.
because it is a part of some religions, and the religious justification you're talking about here appears to be--in america anyways--a sort of informal thing which doesn't have law surrounding it...
This is just sick. I never thought anything like this would be happening in the United States and I cant fathom how a judge could rule this a religious protection.
I was under the impression that religious justification does not apply to things like parents refusing to provide medical assistance to their kids if they are sick or dying. How are we going to allow them to be mutilated using a procedure that is recognized around the world as a human rights abuse?
because it is a part of some religions, and the religious justification you're talking about here appears to be--in america anyways--a sort of informal thing which doesn't have law surrounding it but which is an unspoken standard to doctors. ultimately if you come at this from the standpoint of defining FGM as a religious practice and not a culturally-mandated medical procedure, a ban by the federal government stands as a pretty obvious violation of the first amendment because i mean, you can't just federally ban what is considered a religious practice.
The article didn't say the laws were invalidated on religious grounds, but rather that the federal government had no jurisdiction and the state government would have to criminalize it or not.
The article didn't say the laws were invalidated on religious grounds, but rather that the federal government had no jurisdiction and the state government would have to criminalize it or not.
i'm aware. my point is more that if you take FGM as a religious practice, it's fairly obvious why a federal ban of any sort wouldn't really stand if you actually challenged it in court even though...
The article didn't say the laws were invalidated on religious grounds, but rather that the federal government had no jurisdiction and the state government would have to criminalize it or not.
i'm aware. my point is more that if you take FGM as a religious practice, it's fairly obvious why a federal ban of any sort wouldn't really stand if you actually challenged it in court even though the practice is shit.
Federal courts have upheld the banning of all sorts of religious practices, though. Not allowing the Native American church to use marijuana is the first that comes to mind.
Federal courts have upheld the banning of all sorts of religious practices, though. Not allowing the Native American church to use marijuana is the first that comes to mind.
(disclosure - US male) I've always wondered why the practice of circumcision is allowed/accepted in the US.
The circumcisions performed on boys in non-religious families in the USA came from a tradition of preventing teenage boys from masturbating. Mr Kellogg, the health nut who started the famous cereal company, recommended removing boys' foreskins to make masturbation more difficult for them - and American parents in the late 1800s & early 1900s followed this dictum.
Then it became unquestioned tradition.
I remember having a discussion in a private Facebook group with the father of a baby boy. He came to the group to ask for our opinions about whether he should circumcise the boy or not. After getting a variety of opinions, he decided to circumcise the boy. His final reason for choosing to do this was effectively peer pressure: he didn't want his son to look different in locker rooms when he was a teenager and adult.
That's how circumcision is so accepted in the U.S.: it started for puritanical reasons, and is now continued because it's just what everyone does.
Because (IMHO) religion permeates a massive amount of US culture. Even with the separation of church and state, religious thinking influences politics and policies.
When was the last time a self-described irreligious politician was elected?
I have no idea but there are also local laws preventing irreligious people from running in some places.
I get why it's accepted - since it's a religious thing for a lot of people. What I don't get is why on earth is it so common! The majority of people (e.g. my very own ma 'n' da) are not terribly religious and yet they circumcise their sons (e.g. me) seemingly by default. So strange. So so strange.
These discussions always get very heated on reddit. I also think it's super messed up comparing these two things to each other. It's like comparing a piercing to a chopped off finger
You are doing it again, despite multiple people telling you not to. Pierced ears are in no way, shape or form comparable to cutting off a finger.
Resorting to hyperbole for dramatic effect and/or self-righteousness, you make your argument less, not more convincing.
Levels of severity may be obvious to you, they're not to some other people (in this very thread even). FGM especially is a rare enough practice in the west that it's not obvious to most people online how severe it is.
Also, I'm not @calcifer but this is a bit of a shitty thing to say:
If you don't want to have a specific discussion with someone, you should be the one taking the step not to respond rather than responding to ask them to stop. Or take it to DMs, I dunno.
For what it's worth, I agree with what you've been saying, and support you in saying it. I have even made a couple of comments here to support your points.
The results of genital mutilation performed on girls and boys might be different, but the principle in @koan's argument is the same: it's about the bodily autonomy of young human beings in our care. Sure, some bodily mutilations are worse than others, but they are still all examples of permanent damage inflicted on babies and children without their consent.
I would have thought that adding more examples of this type of child abuse would strengthen this argument. Rather than just focussing on one type of damage inflicted on some children, we're including all types of damage inflicted on many children.
IIRC there are different types of FGM, which range from removing the clitoral hood only (which is the anatomical analogue of the foreskin in a male) to removing the clitoris (which would be like chopping off part of a man's penis.) Comparing MGM to FGM of the first type is not messed up, it's a good analogy.
yep. to quote wikipedia:
Agreed. I think the crucial distinction is that WTW is trying to make is that FGM is part of systemic patriarchal oppression of women and circumcision is perverse holdover from a more religious time. Yes, they are undeniable comparable but there is a dimension to FGM not present in circumcision. Drawing a comparisson and focusing on degrees of severity tacitly erases that aspect of systemic repression of women.
It treats it merely on the surface as a gross genital procedure without the wider issues of women's body autonomy in a patriarchal society. It's not about degrees. It's about oppression.
No problem. Gotta stand up to toxic masculinity.
Men do this thing where when an issue around systemic oppression of women (patriarchy) is raised they try to point to some vaguely similar thing that is done to men and say "men are oppressed to!" It's toxic because it whitewashes the systemic aspects of the the women's issue which is inevitable absent in the comparable men's issue.
Then they get all aggressive and defensive when you call them out on actually not being such a great ally to women as they thought (fragile masculinity) Then they start saying things like "dude what hell are you talking about" instead of "wow, i never thought of that. tell me more about how I can show solidarity with women and work to lessen my own subtle patriarchal tendencies" even though that's probably what they meant because who even wants to be misogynistic anyway?
If you're not a feminist that's fine I guess. I'm gonna try and change your ideology on a forum.
This is so not about toxic masculinity. It's about the fact that operating on all children's genitals is wrong. Full stop.
Are you aware that the circumcisions performed on boys in non-religious families in the USA come from a tradition of preventing teenage boys from masturbating? Mr Kellogg, the health nut who started the famous cereal company, recommended removing boys' foreskins to make masturbation more difficult for them - and American parents in the late 1800s & early 1900s followed this dictum. Then it became unquestioned tradition.
Both types of genital mutilation are intended to suppress the child's sexuality as the enter puberty and adult life.
My favorite user name on tildes! Nice to it in my inbox once again.
Funny you should say this
Because this is me in another comment.
And no I did not know that! That's is a very satisfying answer to my question "why the hell do so many people do this to baby boys non-religiously?" I'm really glad you had that lil knowledge nugget to share.
Literally it does not matter at all if you are offended. What matters is oppression. FGM is an oppressive practice and circumcision is not. Glad you were able to read all that and walk away with your preconceptions intact.
FGM and circumcision should be illegal. Full stop.
FGM and circumcision are not actually that similar. Full stop. [Except in the regard that they are tactics to suppress sexuality]
E: [Addendum, to the above] Snaps to Algernon for the correction.
Why, exactly, do you find FGM oppressive and circumcision not? Assuming both are performed in sterile environment, etc. Both are designed to inhibit sexuality. Are you sure you aren't just used to the one, and the other one is something that is performed in barbaric foreign lands?
Because women are systematically oppressed based on, now and historically, and men are not. There are of course many types of oppression and many types of men are oppressed. However there is a patriarchy for women and nothing similar for men.
AFIK circumcision's only long-term effects on men (barring medical complications related to a botched procedure) are reduced sensitivity and that's actually something that most men would want since that helps with sexual endurance.
Therefore it seems to me that the comparison is entirely moot. I suspect the reason internet men always bring it up is an attempt at solidarity and distancing themselves from a practice they don't do. I don't get it. Why do privileged groups play up their own lesser issues in response to learning about marginalized groups? As if to say, "I can't be culpable of perpetuating the patriarchy because I'm circumcised and that's a mutilation of my genitals. See we're all marginalized!" It's fucking yucky.
From another comment of mine
I get the impression the problem is that you're pushing a high level idea that they're both abuse while ignoring any discussion about the difference in severity and what impact that might have on what's acceptable and important.
That's fair, to be honest tildes hasn't done a good job creating good discussion on this topic. in my opinion. But I enjoyed hearing your point of view, hope the rest of your day goes well.
In fairness it's a tricky issue full of twists and turns that aren't easy to talk about unless you have practice.
That's true, it also has to do with how the subject was brought up. This news article isn't really a comprehensive look at the issues people want to discuss and so we don't have a great foundation. That isn't to say it shouldn't have been posted or that any of it is bad. Just that we should probably make a post based on a comprehensive overview of the issues because that's what the community wants to talk about and would help navigate those twists and turns.
Idk from where I'm sitting, someone made a post about a pretty terrible thing that is done to women in America and a bunch of dude rolled through and used it as an opportunity to talk about their dicks.
I don't think this comment is in the best faith. I believe there is a very real discussion to be had here, and this comment is unfairly discrediting it. I agree with rocket_man that this article is not the best one to spawn this sort of discussion, however.
The conversations worth having here (imo):
Society grants parents undue license to mutilate their children male and female.
FGM is deplorable. Smash the patriarchy.
Conversations not worth having (imo):
I think the reason you are getting the bad faith vibe is because I am getting the sense that people are talking about that last one a lot more than first two. But I am will volunteer that it is possible that this is due to a misreading on my part.
Absolutely noone has said this. You are projecting this assumption onto other people's comments: you're putting words in their ~mouths~ fingers.
Lmao, I guess I did some reading into subtexts that didn't actually exist then. Or perhaps I am over attributing. Man you're seriously cutting though the crap today.
That is fair, however I believe that even if you believe a conversation is not worth having, rather than act in bad faith, simply don't participate in it.
I don't actually think it's not worth talking about circumcision. If you can find it, my first comment in the thread is me being baffled that it has flown under the radar for so long and remains a common cultural practice. My tune changed when I found that basically every other comment was about the same thing.
Jw what comes off as bad faith about that? I try to avoid it and so if there's something I overlooked I'm open to some self-correction
Personally, I found "a bunch of dude rolled through and used it as an opportunity to talk about their dicks." as insulting and dismissive of the discussion that was occurring. However this is a matter of interpretation of course.
For the conversation happening in this thread, I think it is important to recognize that controversial discussions will typically rise to the top in an exchange of ideas. I think this is actually a good sign, as it signifies many people here are of a similar opinion regarding FGM.
That's a fair assessment. I was trying to convey my feeling of irritation and probably should spend a few second trying to figure out a better way to say that. But I am drawing a big fat old blank how that would be done.
I think that your response to my first comment was the perfect way to show that you are dissatisfied with the conversation at hand.
Thanks for the note. I will for sure consider that format next time I catch myself being a little bit rude.
I've noticed this seems to happen with almost every post about women's issues on Tildes, whether it is about single mothers or domestic violence or female tropes in the media. It is actually pretty frustrating that these threads get hijacked with comments about how men suffer too. Not saying that men don't suffer, but it would be nice if there could be a separate post about it if that's what folks want to talk about.
Anyways, back on topic. I am actually really surprised with this ruling as I kind of assumed that FGM was already illegal. I'm not familiar with the US system, but why would this be a state issue instead of a federal issue?
That's my experience.
Woah who does that?! /s ;)
A similar thing happened around gay marriage and abortion. There are two major factions in American politics: a conservative coalition b/w radical proto-fascist Trumpist and far right neo-conservatives; and a moderate centrist "Liberal" party.
At the federal level, it is much more difficult for them to get their way on these issues - because of liberals and swing votes, judicial precedents, idk (not a scholar on this). So they "punt" the issue to the states, that way the conservative can get their way in their home turf rather than fight a tougher, national fight.
I agree with you in that it's negative to make inaccurate comparisons because they often fail to recognize the suffering of the other for emotional reasons.
However, the sentiment of "Don't compare..." is similarly reductive to men who experience the negative consequences of a needless primitive medical operation.
A better approach might be to recognize, understand, and seek to alleviate each others suffering. Comparing can be a part of this process. "The common practice of cutting a boy's foreskin for religious reasons bears no relation to the abominable act of FGM, writes Simon Hochhauser". The claim "no relation" should require no explanation as to why polarized perspective is damaging.
Yeah that's not great but FGM is part of the systemic repression of women's body autonomy which is something that they have a lifelong experience of and men do not. They are certainly cosmetically similar but there is a dimension to FGM which is not present in circumcision. This is why the comparison is fundamentally invalid.
For sure we should oppose both practices. But they are about as similar as male pattern balding is to a bad hair day.
Male circumcision has occurred at high rates in many countries for a long time. This is a systematic repression of a man's body autonomy by definition of the terms.
They connection isn't superficial at all. It's cutting off parts of the genitals. A difference is that male circumcision is the norm in developed nations and thus is done by real doctors rather people in countries who don't have the ability to do a surgery that doesn't result in mutilation and infection similar to people preforming it in countries where it is illegal.
I have demonstrated to be false by making a comparison that in my opinion is pretty clear. Calling a comparison a fundamentally invalid is a very strong claim. This is why we discuss comparisons rather than lining up words to reject them.
Yeah that definitely doesn't demonstrate a callous ability to trivialize a more accurate demonstration of systematic injustice over body autonomy. (Based on the frequency and history)
I should clarify that I oppose both practices. My comments are more about why I think it's distasteful to make this comparison. Obviously some people don't want to talk about the systemic shit and I guess that's just the way it is.
Either way, we need to end these practices because they are clearly unilateral and abusive.
I can see how you think it's distasteful.
But is that fair?
Society doesn't treat male circumcision with much outrage. When FGM occurs and is decried as a crime against humanity, people use it to highlight a worse problem which results in accusations of being distasteful.
I can't help but wonder if your reaction to this is influenced by gender bias.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'm seriously wtfing a bit at this exchange. This is super accusatory and IMO a bit projectionist:
I also vehemently oppose the practice for both males and females, but FGM is more akin to cutting off the entire head of a man's penis. I would give you the benefit of the doubt in that most people don't know/realize how barbaric the practice is and relate it to male circumcision, but if you're going to actually accuse people of gender bias, and so sternly make your position, I would like to think you've at least somewhat researched the topic first.
American society, perhaps. Most modern western countries treat it anywhere between "morally ambiguous" and "seriously wtf". I agree with you though, the practice in babies is disgusting either way but just because they're both disgusting doesn't mean one can't be in a comparatively completely different league.
I am sorry you are reacting so strongly but I think you should reconsider what was said.
Bias is inescapable and that's a fairly neutral way to phrase that sentiment. It's okay to point out if you think someone is going wrong with a bias or idea.
I think the need to set FGM in a different league or dimension is demonstrating gender bias. It seems like a way to "accept" while still holding a personal issue at a far higher level. I see no meaningful justification for that level of separation between male and female genital mutilation. Edit: To the point that the idea of comparing them is offensive.
FGM is a cog in a machine which oppresses women in society based on their gender. Men are not oppressed in society based on their gender. Circumcision is not part of a system which oppresses men based on their gender.
Both practices are abhorrent and should be ceased. They both rob people of their body autonomy. The both just fucking suck so much. But FGM is an expression of a culture which systematically oppresses women.
Of course they are. Everyone is oppressed for some aspect of their biology in their lives.
This arbritrary line of not oppressed enough to be fought is oppressive by itself.
The actual mutilation done is different. It's like cutting an earlobe vs. cutting an entire ear. Neither sound good but one's far more barbaric. This isn't gender bias, it's just what it is.
I added: to the extent that comparing the two is outrageous.
As I was arguing against that point.
I recognize the difference.
FGM doesn't refer soley for removing the whole thing, it also applies to the practice of removing the clitoral hood alone.
I'm bringing this up because I think a lot of this arguement is misconstruing what everyone is talking about. I think mutilating babies in any way is a bad thing.
Im circumcised and I'm pissed about it. So maybe its more outraged than you think.
And yeah if you want to label feminism a "gender bias" then yeah I'm as biased as I can muster.
I did nothing of the sort. I conveyed that I thought you might have an irrational aspect to your opinion which overall seems quite reasonable.
Is saying that women are systematically oppressed the irrational thing perhaps?
No, women are systematically oppressed.
I've already conveyed what I disagree with in your point.
Saying that I am irrational and have a gender bias is not what you are talking about? Or yes?
Idk I guess this whole thing sucks cause the OP is about the state marginalizing women and children and we like 85% talking about circumcision. Like the word vagina has been used one single time in the whole thread and circumcision has been used at least 30 times.
Yeah for good reason; everybody already sees FGM as horrenous. There's much more productive conversation to be had in addressing why some people tend to not see male circumcision as a big of an problem as it is.
Seems like the only contention is over whether men have a right to make the comparison.
We're highlighting a problem that mostly exists in other cultures while ignoring a systematic history of doing something similar. A problem that we all have far more responsiblity as well as ability to address.
Agreed. I concede that this is a marginal issue in light of the bigger issue that parents are mutilating their children and the government is okay with it. And also I concede that a conversation about circumcision is worth having. My entire bone of contention is that I think it's whack that we are talking about circumcision to this great extent in a thread that's not about that.
I donno. Either way it's been valuable to have a discussion about this area either way since I'm learning about what and how all you smart tilderoonies are thinking.
Fair enough. I thought this was valuable too. Cheers.
Yay! Friends :D
I know it seems bad, kids, but just remember: children are property! It's completely fine to abuse them; you own them! It'd be like abusing a table, chair, box, dog, TV remote or printer: completely okay!
Who cares if you want to force them into permanent mutilation of their bodies in a nonconsensual manner? They're property, they can't consent!
Remember, if they're under 18 you can make them work while taking their wages, tell them what they can and cannot do, and control just about every aspect of their lives.
Don't need to have regulations on what to do with slaves, really.
I think this raises a great point. Children's rights is something that no one ever talks about but which has profound societal implications. Obviously minors having the guardianship of a parent is valuable and often that means the parent does things on the child's behalf. But in general I think our culture does a pretty bad job of curtailing the utter domination of children by parents.
Why is this up to state legislatures to decide but not Congress? This doesn't sound like a privilege* reserved to the state or the federal level. I hope this gets appealed, this ruling seems odd, and I believe FGM has no defense since the first amendment does not protect the right to hurt others. (Even if a child is properly anesthetized, it's an absurd procedure with no value besides showing a woman they do not deserve to be equal with men, and the underage girls were lied to to get them to do this. Children cannot consent to abuse, and their parents cannot consent to it on their behalf, either.) If it's child abuse for any other religion/culture, I don't see why it should be protected.
*Edit: privileged -> privilege
Assuming it's not a procedural reason, federal judges punt issues that conservatives feel strongly about down to the states so that liberals, which outnumber conservatives at the federal level, don't get a say. IIRC they put gay marriage to the states for this reason.
tl;dr because the GOP are slimy lizard people from outer space.
this article didn't work with adblock and NoScript, but the Guardian one did, here it is
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/20/us-female-genital-mutilation-detroit-michigan-unconstitutional
So the judge ruled that it was unconstitutional because it falls outside congress' general duty of regulating trade, but wouldn't regulating FGM fall under the 8th and 5th amendments? 'No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Is the ability to refuse consent to a medical procedure considered a liberty?
the answer to both of these questions is probably no. the 5th amendment and the 8th amendment almost certainly cannot be applied to FGM since those deal almost exclusively with the legal process, criminality, sentencing, and other things of that nature. also, like i said in @dubteedub's chain, i don't believe we have any on-the-books federal laws regarding things like treating someone to a religious medical procedure against their consent or to procedures against religious beliefs (there may be state or local laws on that matter) so consequently i doubt theres's any case law about whether or not you have the liberty to refuse consent to a medical procedure of this sort.
I wonder if the sixth circuit will kick this back to Friedman, like they did when he ruled a state ban on same sex marriage was not within states rights...
I hope this will cause people to react more strongly to male genital mutilation which is the norm being classified by the neutral term, circumcision.
The difference in terminology, circumcision versus genital mutilation, is a needed to shift how people things about these issues.
I'm of the understanding that it's not a religious practice anyway, but a cultural one.
it's a little bit of both, with the line being somewhat blurry for most areas. it is definitely a part of some animist religious in africa, but it's also considered a cultural and religious requirement by the populations of some countries according to UNICEF, and native african religions, christians, muslims, and historically some jews alike have practiced it.
because it is a part of some religions, and the religious justification you're talking about here appears to be--in america anyways--a sort of informal thing which doesn't have law surrounding it but which is an unspoken standard to doctors. ultimately if you come at this from the standpoint of defining FGM as a religious practice and not a culturally-mandated medical procedure, a ban by the federal government stands as a pretty obvious violation of the first amendment because i mean, you can't just federally ban what is considered a religious practice.
The article didn't say the laws were invalidated on religious grounds, but rather that the federal government had no jurisdiction and the state government would have to criminalize it or not.
i'm aware. my point is more that if you take FGM as a religious practice, it's fairly obvious why a federal ban of any sort wouldn't really stand if you actually challenged it in court even though the practice is shit.
Federal courts have upheld the banning of all sorts of religious practices, though. Not allowing the Native American church to use marijuana is the first that comes to mind.