I was more than a little disheartened upon Googling "biden vawa " to find that the top several links were to sites like mensactivism.org and misandryreview.com. These sites decry the apparently anti-male agenda of the Violence Against Women Act. Perhaps I missed something, but I fail to see how allowing women recourse against violence and abuse is anti-male.
Of course, it's clear that the architects and contributors to these sites have worldviews I just simply can't reconcile with my own. Part of Misandry Review 's tagline is "bloggers in opposition to misandry - the teaching of contempt for men in popular culture." This is a good point. All those advertisements I see on the subway dissecting men's bodies. All those Circuit Court decision s forcing men to conform their appearance to particular standard or else risk being fired. All that man-hating going on in Hollywood and Washington.
But on a more serious note, perhaps the reason the contributors to these sites feel threatened is not because of a "contempt for men," but because of a reconsideration of standards of mascuilinity . I'm sure that men who strictly conform to traditional standards of masculinity worry about shifts in society away from such standards. Thus, this sort of backlash. But to insist that they have some sort of right to the preservation of these standards, and that VAWA somehow violates their rights... I find this particularly repulsive. It's not hard to draw an inference from this rhetoric that this, what I might call extremist, group of men, believes that their ability to be manly men should be preserved at the expense of women, and abused women at that. Is that really the sort of masculinity we want to preserve?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Men's Rights".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9402
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
What MRAs really want to preserve is patriarchy. They're not pissed because they think their manhood is being demonized in a way that womanhood has been demonized since the beginning of time. They're pissed because legislation that protects women from an unregulated patriarchy takes some power away from men. And MRAs don't simply want more power than women; they want all the power. Even if these guys have never abused their girlfriends or wives, they simply hate the fact that if they do, she can go to the cops and he'll go to prison. How dare she have the legal right to do so!
I agree completely, the vast majority are predjudiced and unwilling to share their vast stores of power. They think they can do what ever they want and the government will let them off easy.
...wait we're talking about feminists right?
Whenever the anti-misandrists have a point, they miss it by not acknowledging that women suffer the same, or very close to the same thing. Men's beauty standards are getting ridiculous, but women's beauty standards have been ridiculous for far longer, and in far greater degrees, for example. Whereas a good solution would be to team up with feminists and work on making the beauty standards inclusive and reasonable, they blame women and feminists. Men shouldn't have to shave their backs or chests--but I shouldn't have to shave my legs either.
Of course, most of the time they are just bitter because some of their privilege is getting taken away.
Libertyburning,
The Patriarchy =/= "a gender or a sex."
The Patriarchy is, in the immortal words of Bourdieu, habitus. It is the invisible framework upon which our society is built. Men and Women, Old and Young, lawmakers and toymakers and manual laborers, all add to and reinforce this framework.
FEMINISM WANTS EVERY OPTION TO BE AVAILABLE TO EVERY MAN AND TO EVERY WOMAN.
Wouldn't it be nice to not have to check your actions against Maxim and Men's Health tells you defines "men"?
TO wear whatever color or style you damn well please without having to answer to the Masculinity Police?
To be an unathletic, softspoken teen who can walk his high school's halls with impunity, without fear of being bullied or harassed?
To be a part-time, work-from-home artist who's not into the rat race and yet be greeted with approval and not dismay by potential parents-in-law and female partners?
FEMINISM= HUMANISM.
Why, oh why, is this incomprehensible
Hello,
I´ll just start with adressing here:
meghanquoi: These sites decry the apparently anti-male agenda of the Violence Against Women Act. Perhaps I missed something, but I fail to see how allowing women recourse against violence and abuse is anti-male.
- Please read this interview where Glenn Sacks stated pretty clear what problems MRAs have with VAWA:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask_dr_helen_5/
Also don´t you think it is sexist that there is a VAWA but no act against violence against the other gender?
----------------------------------------------
Okra: FEMINISM WANTS EVERY OPTION TO BE AVAILABLE TO EVERY MAN AND TO EVERY WOMAN.
FEMINISM= HUMANISM.
Why, oh why, is this incomprehensible
- What feminism is about depends on the feminist you ask, and if feminism is humansim and wants everyone to have the same opportunity why is it called feminism?
A lot of the time I hear feminism is about equality and when I asks feminist what is done on the rights of males I often get the "women have it worse, all men are rapist treadment". So what is wrong with having another movement that wants equality but has a focus on males, the same way feminism is focused on females? This is something I don´t get (and one user might explain to me).
Greets
Feckless
1. it is not sexist because women are overwhelmingly victims of violence perpetrated on them by men.
2. feminists want to bring everyone up by bringing women up to where men are. This will also free men to live the kind of lives they want, rather than being tied to a soul-less masculinity. mra groups want to keep men dominant over women, they don't want equality.
Men *as a group* have much much more power than women do in this country, and men in plenty of other countries have total power over the lives of women. I fail to see where men *as a group* need a hand up.
KingFeckles, the MRA movement isn't about bringing equality with a focus on men. Otherwise, they wouldn't be hating on VAWA. They would do more to end violence against women, which is what feminist men (or pro-feminist men, if one prefers) fight for. Men need to give up some of their power to women for us to live in an equal society, but MRAs don't support any laws that benefit women. They think it's their right to control us.
And let me add that gender stereotypes were invented by men. Women never had enough power to invent them, and they still don't have enough power to perpetuate them on their own. And stereotypes and roles for guys are hardly oppressive, as they don't involve a double bind or a sense of uselessness like women's gender stereotypes and roles.
Hello,
thiskiss: 1. it is not sexist because women are overwhelmingly victims of violence perpetrated on them by men.
- There is a growin number of studies that prove that DV is perpetrated by both genders. So it is not a female issue it is a human issue.
( http://www.csulb.edu/%7Emfiebert/assault.htm )
- In our society female violence against males has sadly become socially acceptable. Just watch a comedy and you will see what I mean (A knee in the genitals is not funny). This is what leads to the positive portrayal of violence towards male in the media:
Reaction to women abusing men in public
( http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2008...blic/#more-45 )
- Sexism can refer also to any and all systemic differentiations based on the gender of a person, not based on their individual merits. In some circumstances this type of sexism may constitute sex discrimination, which in some forms is illegal in some countries. (from Wikipedia). But ask yourself how is it not sexist to have a law in favor for women and not for men? By havin not WAMA act you are basicly saying that men aren´t worth to be protected. That is not true. The reality for a battered man is that he gets not protection, can go to no shelter and if he calls the police he often gets imprisoned. How is that not sexist? How can you be against one form of violence and on the other hand tolerate another form of violence? You clearly show that you are not for equality.
----------------------------------------------
thiskiss: 2. feminists want to bring everyone up by bringing women up to where men are. This will also free men to live the kind of lives they want, rather than being tied to a soul-less masculinity. mra groups want to keep men dominant over women, they don't want equality.
Men *as a group* have much much more power than women do in this country, and men in plenty of other countries have total power over the lives of women. I fail to see where men *as a group* need a hand up.
- Please help me here. Beside gender roles are there special privileges a man has? I am not aware of this. So please enlight me. I agree with you that women who don´t live in the 3rd world have it harder than men. But I can´t see this in the western world. Neither can my wife or my mother.
If men don´t need a hand up then why is the male suicide rate 4 times higher than the female suicide rate (why are the “opressors” more likely to kill themselves than the “oppressed”)? Why is there more awareness / money spend on breast cancer than on prostate cancer even though more people die through prostate cancer (why are the “opressors” supporting a cure for the “oppressed” while ignoring an illness that kills more of themselves)? Why are there special government agencies for women and none for men? Why is there no equality in child custody (equal parenting)? Why do men get harsher punishments for the same crime than women? Why do male victims of domestic violence or victims of male-by-female rape get little to no sympathy and get laughed at? Why are there no mans-shelters even though men are battered as well? Why is nothing done to stop prison-rape from happening? Why is male genital mutilation socially accepted (studies prove there is a reason for the skin to be there)? Why are there more social programs for women than for men? Why is there money invested adressing female underachieving in math or science while ignoring male underachievement in reading? Why are there harder physical entrance criteria for men in the army than for women? Why is there no penalty for denying child access?
These are some of the points we would like to address. Shouldn´t we have the right to do so?
Oh and before I stop here is an interesting read for you (http://www.westernstandard.ca/websit...le.php?id=2775).
Surely if you say men don´t need support, you can´t be for equality.
-----------------------------------------------
AnUnfunnyFeminist: And let me add that gender stereotypes were invented by men. Women never had enough power to invent them, and they still don't have enough power to perpetuate them on their own. And stereotypes and roles for guys are hardly oppressive, as they don't involve a double bind or a sense of uselessness like women's gender stereotypes and roles.
- I guess I answered your first paragraph with the above. MRAs are for equality, they just have a male point of view. So if there is a VAWA to protect women, why can´t the other group have a VAMA to protect man?
Gender stereotypes don´t get invented. And don´t forget that women are responsible for gender stereotypes (that hurt men as well as women just look at the male suicide rate if you don´t belive me) as well. Just look in awomens magazine and you will find fashion tips, the newest diet, good looking models etc. Look how many mothers tell their sons to suck their feelings up and take it like a man. This hurts all of us and we all play a part in it. You can´t blame this on men.
Also note that women benefit from it as well. Females have far more sexual power than males, as the female beauty has a higher value than the male beauty. Just look at how much a female models earns compared to a male one. Or without googling tell me 3 female supermodels and 3 male supermodels.
Greets
Feckless
Hello,
thiskiss: 1. it is not sexist because women are overwhelmingly victims of violence perpetrated on them by men.
- There is a growin number of studies that prove that DV is perpetrated by both genders. So it is not a female issue it is a human issue.
( http://www.csulb.edu/%7Emfiebert/assault.htm )
- In our society female violence against males has sadly become socially acceptable. Just watch a comedy and you will see what I mean (A knee in the genitals is not funny). This is what leads to the positive portrayal of violence towards male in the media:
Reaction to women abusing men in public
( http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2008...blic/#more-45 )
- Sexism can refer also to any and all systemic differentiations based on the gender of a person, not based on their individual merits. In some circumstances this type of sexism may constitute sex discrimination, which in some forms is illegal in some countries. (from Wikipedia). But ask yourself how is it not sexist to have a law in favor for women and not for men? By havin not WAMA act you are basicly saying that men aren´t worth to be protected. That is not true. The reality for a battered man is that he gets not protection, can go to no shelter and if he calls the police he often gets imprisoned. How is that not sexist? How can you be against one form of violence and on the other hand tolerate another form of violence? You clearly show that you are not for equality.
----------------------------------------------
thiskiss: 2. feminists want to bring everyone up by bringing women up to where men are. This will also free men to live the kind of lives they want, rather than being tied to a soul-less masculinity. mra groups want to keep men dominant over women, they don't want equality.
Men *as a group* have much much more power than women do in this country, and men in plenty of other countries have total power over the lives of women. I fail to see where men *as a group* need a hand up.
- Please help me here. Beside gender roles are there special privileges a man has? I am not aware of this. So please enlight me. I agree with you that women who don´t live in the 3rd world have it harder than men. But I can´t see this in the western world. Neither can my wife or my mother.
If men don´t need a hand up then why is the male suicide rate 4 times higher than the female suicide rate (why are the “opressors” more likely to kill themselves than the “oppressed”)? Why is there more awareness / money spend on breast cancer than on prostate cancer even though more people die through prostate cancer (why are the “opressors” supporting a cure for the “oppressed” while ignoring an illness that kills more of themselves)? Why are there special government agencies for women and none for men? Why is there no equality in child custody (equal parenting)? Why do men get harsher punishments for the same crime than women? Why do male victims of domestic violence or victims of male-by-female rape get little to no sympathy and get laughed at? Why are there no mans-shelters even though men are battered as well? Why is nothing done to stop prison-rape from happening? Why is male genital mutilation socially accepted (studies prove there is a reason for the skin to be there)? Why are there more social programs for women than for men? Why is there money invested adressing female underachieving in math or science while ignoring male underachievement in reading? Why are there harder physical entrance criteria for men in the army than for women? Why is there no penalty for denying child access?
These are some of the points we would like to address. Shouldn´t we have the right to do so?
Oh and before I stop here is an interesting read for you (http://www.westernstandard.ca/websit...le.php?id=2775).
Surely if you say men don´t need support, you can´t be for equality.
-----------------------------------------------
AnUnfunnyFeminist: And let me add that gender stereotypes were invented by men. Women never had enough power to invent them, and they still don't have enough power to perpetuate them on their own. And stereotypes and roles for guys are hardly oppressive, as they don't involve a double bind or a sense of uselessness like women's gender stereotypes and roles.
- I guess I answered your first paragraph with the above. MRAs are for equality, they just have a male point of view. So if there is a VAWA to protect women, why can´t the other group have a VAMA to protect man?
Gender stereotypes don´t get invented. And don´t forget that women are responsible for gender stereotypes (that hurt men as well as women just look at the male suicide rate if you don´t belive me) as well. Just look in awomens magazine and you will find fashion tips, the newest diet, good looking models etc. Look how many mothers tell their sons to suck their feelings up and take it like a man. This hurts all of us and we all play a part in it. You can´t blame this on men.
Also note that women benefit from it as well. Females have far more sexual power than males, as the female beauty has a higher value than the male beauty. Just look at how much a female models earns compared to a male one. Or without googling tell me 3 female supermodels and 3 male supermodels.
Greets
Feckless
Sorry for the doublepost (please delete one)
And of course one real stupid typo:
I agree with you that women who don´t live in the 3rd world have it harder than men.
It should read:
I agree with you that women who don´t live in the western world have it harder than men.
Stupid me.
Clarification on men's issues vs oppression.
On suicide rates: Actually, females attempt suicide more often. More men die from suicide, maybe because men more male kill in general? And how many of those male suicides are murder-suicides where the men took someone else's life as well? If anything this is more evidence against the availability of firearms (50% of suicides are by firearms in western countries) and for better support systems for depressed people.
On healthcare:
There are many other areas of healthcare to examine inequalities. Why focus on prostate and breast cancer? And actually breast cancer afflicts as small % of men as well. The number 1 killer is heart disease, and we are just NOW learning that we have insufficient data on how to diagnose and treat women. Meanwhile, another huge killer HIV disproportionately affects women. For some disease states, being pregnant and requiring medical treatment is a crap shoot because there is insufficient drug data on the safety in efficacy in pregnancy.
On governmental agencies: the need for funds and programs directed toward women and girls is not evidence in of itself that a society is non discriminatory against these groups. Also it IS recognized that boys have special needs in areas of under-performance which warrant attention, especially African American boys. Or are you just concerned with white kids?
On child custody: The best thing that men can do to increase their custodial positioning in the event of a divorce is to INSIST on a more equitable division of child care within their marriages.
On the criminal justice system: multi-faceted I won't try to address everything here. The criminal justice system is flawed, racist institution. It's not off the radar of feminists.
On the military: "Why are there harder physical entrance criteria for men in the army than for women?" I would need to see data on this. In of itself I'm not sure it's discriminatory. It may be a way to broaden their pool of applicants.
For example, the army has changed other criteria with this goal in mind. They've recently lowered intellectual criteria for recruitment (e.g. high school grad and test scores). Yet, according to their own studies, the less qualified a recruit in meeting educational and intellectual standards the less likely he/she will succeed for certain tasks.
But a discussion of the military and its flaws isn't complete without mention of the disproportionately higher sexual assault against women, discrimination against gays and systemic use of anti-female language and psychological manipulation (e.g. calling grown men little girls) to train recruits.
On male victimization: Bottom line here. Society needs to stop equating masculinity with strength and femininity with weakness. Until then, men are going to have change minds the old fashioned way, i.e.. one man at a time. Welcome to the club. Everybody else who had to fight for change has had individuals who faced hardship and even persecution for standing up for what is right. I'm waiting.
On sex work, modeling, etc: female beauty is appreciated but at the expense of traits. Don't mistake this for power.
Furthermore beauty is subjective and fleeting. On the other hand, education, experience, intelligence and knowledge grow over time, are not fleeting and can be objectively quantified.
If you want to talk about sexual power, consider this: The raw power of the economic engine that drives a market mostly of DEMAND by western males and SUPPLY by poorer females from less developed economies. There are whole segments of the economy in places like the Philippines, Brazil, Cuba, Kenya, etc that are dependent on the sex trade and subsequent flow of cash from Europe and the Americas.
Men can participate in this marketplace largely without fear of the consequences of pregnancy, while in many of these countries abortion is ILLEGAL for the women they pay to fuck. Men have a statistically lower risk of being infected with HIV not only by virtue of choosing to wear protection (the customer ALWAYS has that choice), but simply be the fact that the female-male transmission rate is lower.
On circumcision: Israel, USA and Australia practice male circumcision to a wider degree than other industrialized "western" cultures. Instead of blaming male oppression, a better question is to ask what is it about USA as opposed to Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand etc that allows this practice to continue.
Hello,
that was a big (and good) post. Before I answer let me bore you with my opinion. I don´t think that men or women get opressed in western society. That what I understand under opression (Appartheit in South Africa for example) can not be compared with the injustice we face in our society. I never said men are oppressed, but used the word first because it is a word I often here from feminists (not this time so I´ll excuse for that). Spike the cats headline is "Clarification on men's issues vs oppression" you can argue that there are womens issues and no oppression. Anyhow here my answer:
spike the cat: On suicide rates: Actually, females attempt suicide more often. More men die from suicide, maybe because men more male kill in general? And how many of those male suicides are murder-suicides where the men took someone else's life as well? If anything this is more evidence against the availability of firearms (50% of suicides are by firearms in western countries) and for better support systems for depressed people.
- That is an interesting fact. Did you know that in countries were there are much stricter gun laws than in the USA (and there are far stricter laws in European countries than in the USA) there are still much more male suicides than females? ( http://www.who.int/mental_health/pre...iciderates/en/ ) Sometimes a suicide attempt is a cry for help. Could it be that women probably attempt more half-hearted tries just to be heard? I am just making assumptions here but look at the worldwide rates and tell me why they are almost everywhere higher than female ones (I guess we can agree that WHO is a reliable source). Even in countries where women have a much worse standing than in the USA. Interesting what this ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1112075159.htm ) article has to say: There are roughly 30,000 suicides in the United States each year, and three-fourths of those are men. But the number of attempted suicides is at least 10 times that, and even that estimate may be low because many suicide attempts are euphemistically classified as lacerations or accidental poisonings when patients receive treatment in hospital emergency rooms.
Although suicide rates are lower among women, women lead men two to one in suicide attempts. So, Murphy says at least 200,000 women are involved in suicide attempts annually. But he points out that attempted suicide most often is not an attempt to actually end one's life. Its purpose, he says, is to survive with changed circumstances.
"An attempted suicide is not really an attempt at suicide in about 95 percent of cases. It is a different phenomenon. It's most often an effort to bring someone's attention, dramatically, to a problem that the individual feels needs to be solved. Suicide contains a solution in itself," he says.
In attempted suicide, both men and women tend to use methods that allow for second thoughts or rescue. Murphy says that when people intend to survive, they choose a slowly effective, or ineffective, means such as an overdose of sleeping pills. That contrasts to the all-or-nothing means like gunshots or hanging used by actual suicides.
In the past, researchers who looked at the high rate of attempted suicide in women concluded that women were just not as efficient as men at taking their own lives. Murphy calls that "sexist baloney" and points to statistics that show that like men, women who commit suicide most often use guns. However, even as the number of women using the most lethal means increases, the suicide rate in women has slowly declined.
"So it really goes back to the same thing -- that women, when they intend to do it, can be just as effective as men in committing suicide. But they aren't so inclined," Murphy says.
spike the cat: On healthcare:
There are many other areas of healthcare to examine inequalities. Why focus on prostate and breast cancer? And actually breast cancer afflicts as small % of men as well. The number 1 killer is heart disease, and we are just NOW learning that we have insufficient data on how to diagnose and treat women. Meanwhile, another huge killer HIV disproportionately affects women. For some disease states, being pregnant and requiring medical treatment is a crap shoot because there is insufficient drug data on the safety in efficacy in pregnancy.
- Okay lets talk about healthcare. Men die at higher rates than women from the top 1ß causes of death (this includes HIV and heart disease) and are victims of over 92% of workplace deaths. In 1920 women lived on average 1 year longer than men. Now men on average die almost 6 years earlier than men. Men are significantly less likely to have health insurance than woman and the gap is rising ( in 2004 of all uninsured 53,5% are men). Infos taken from menshealthnetwork.org. The NY Times had an interesting article as well (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/he...ewanted=1&_r=1 ). Let me cite:
“We’ve got men dying at higher rates of just about every disease, and we don’t know why,” said Dr. Demetrius J. Porche, an associate dean at Louisiana State University’s Health Sciences Center School of Nursing in New Orleans, and the editor of a new quarterly, American Journal of Men’s Health, that will publish its first issue next March.
Topping the list for both sexes is heart disease.
But while the American Heart Association has been conducting an aggressive public education campaign to raise awareness about heart disease among women, called Go Red for Women and featuring pins in the shape of dresses, progress among men has been slipping, said Dr. Steven Nissen, the chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. Yet, he added, the illness exacts a disproportionate toll on men.
Although heart disease occurs in women in their 30s and 40s, he said, it is “extremely unusual,” while severe heart disease in men that age is “not exceptionally rare.” Heart disease in women increases as they age, he noted.
“We’ve got to put it all in perspective,” Dr. Nissen said. “Coronary heart disease has a devastating impact on men, particularly on men who are in the prime of life — 45-year-old men with major heart attacks, who may never work another day in their life, who may have children.”
So let me conclude:
-Men die at higher rates than women from the top 1ß causes of death
-Men die earlier than women
-More money on healthcare is spent on women (if I remember correct it was Warren Farrell that said 2 out of 3 $ in healthcare are spend on women)
This is not equality.
spike the cat: On governmental agencies: the need for funds and programs directed toward women and girls is not evidence in of itself that a society is non discriminatory against these groups. Also it IS recognized that boys have special needs in areas of under-performance which warrant attention, especially African American boys. Or are you just concerned with white kids?
- Of course not. I see this as a gender not a race issue and I guess we will all agree that the life of the average African American is harsher then the life of the average white American. It might be recognized, but is there anything done to change this underperformance?
spike the cat: On child custody: The best thing that men can do to increase their custodial positioning in the event of a divorce is to INSIST on a more equitable division of child care within their marriages.
- At the moment I guess you are absolutely right. Perhaps current laws need some tweaking so divorce courts are not that biased against men.
spike the cat: On the criminal justice system: multi-faceted I won't try to address everything here. The criminal justice system is flawed, racist institution. It's not off the radar of feminists.
- You are right it is totally biased and not only racist. Did you know that males get longer sentences for the same crime than women? This might be an interesting read ( http://www.ifeminists.com/introducti...002/0423a.html )
spike the cat: On the military: "Why are there harder physical entrance criteria for men in the army than for women?" I would need to see data on this. In of itself I'm not sure it's discriminatory. It may be a way to broaden their pool of applicants.
For example, the army has changed other criteria with this goal in mind. They've recently lowered intellectual criteria for recruitment (e.g. high school grad and test scores). Yet, according to their own studies, the less qualified a recruit in meeting educational and intellectual standards the less likely he/she will succeed for certain tasks.
But a discussion of the military and its flaws isn't complete without mention of the disproportionately higher sexual assault against women, discrimination against gays and systemic use of anti-female language and psychological manipulation (e.g. calling grown men little girls) to train recruits.
- Have to agree with you on discrimination and manipulation in the army. But you can´t argument with the lowered intellectual criteria as it was for both genders. Harder physical entrance criteria for men in many occupations, such as the army, police and fire service. Requiring men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work, for no more pay. One might think that these harder physical criteria are there for a reason.
spike the cat: On male victimization: Bottom line here. Society needs to stop equating masculinity with strength and femininity with weakness. Until then, men are going to have change minds the old fashioned way, i.e.. one man at a time. Welcome to the club. Everybody else who had to fight for change has had individuals who faced hardship and even persecution for standing up for what is right. I'm waiting.
- Agree with you. But I would rather blame it on society than on one gender. We all sit in the same boat and get influenced by main stream media a lot. And men as well as women do a “great” job to keep gender stereotypes alive.
spike the cat: On sex work, modeling, etc: female beauty is appreciated but at the expense of traits. Don't mistake this for power.
Furthermore beauty is subjective and fleeting. On the other hand, education, experience, intelligence and knowledge grow over time, are not fleeting and can be objectively quantified.
If you want to talk about sexual power, consider this: The raw power of the economic engine that drives a market mostly of DEMAND by western males and SUPPLY by poorer females from less developed economies. There are whole segments of the economy in places like the Philippines, Brazil, Cuba, Kenya, etc that are dependent on the sex trade and subsequent flow of cash from Europe and the Americas.
Men can participate in this marketplace largely without fear of the consequences of pregnancy, while in many of these countries abortion is ILLEGAL for the women they pay to fuck. Men have a statistically lower risk of being infected with HIV not only by virtue of choosing to wear protection (the customer ALWAYS has that choice), but simply be the fact that the female-male transmission rate is lower.
- Are you talking about sex tourism? Exploiting poor girls from poor countries is moraly not acceptable. But to talk again about sexual power. There is sth like beauty discrimination going on. There are studies that proove that good looking people have it far easier in life. And there are this so called "gold diggers" who use their looks go get a life full of luxury. A short note on HIV, according to the latest (2007) WHO and UNAIDS global AIDS estimates, worldwide, approximately as many women as men are living with HIV. You are right that men have a lower risk to get infected. But (and I found that hard to believe, too) the risk is still really small. This is what I found on Wikipedia: Which says, assuming a normal heterosexual intercourse without condoms, the male has a risk of 5 in 10.000 while a female has a 10 in 10.000 risk. Using my math skill we can see a man has a 1/2000 chance while a female has a 1/1000 chance. Which means if 2000 males sleep with an infected female ONE of them gets aids and if 2000 females sleep with an infected male TWO of them get aids. I still think it is hard to believe. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiv )
spike the cat: On circumcision: Israel, USA and Australia practice male circumcision to a wider degree than other industrialized "western" cultures. Instead of blaming male oppression, a better question is to ask what is it about USA as opposed to Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand etc that allows this practice to continue.
- That is a good question to ask. I want to add another point. It is assumed that male circumcism happens in African countries arround six times as often as female circumcism under the same circumstances (locals with knifes, razors or shards and no medical care). Though this is known the UN and WHO still are only concerned with female circumcism. This is just wrong.
Greets
Feckless
(in hope for shorter topics)
more huge thread jack here:
Feckless,
On healthcare:
Part of the reason why men die earlier from certain diseases is simply because men are less likely to seek medical attention sooner.
And yes part of this problem is institutional (e.g. access, not having a job or insurance); but this gap persists in countries with universal care as well. It would seem that part of it might be perceived gender stereotypes keeping men out of the doctor's office.
How about some acknowledgment that feminism is working to free both genders from these damaging perceptions?
And interestingly enough, the institution of marriage, which many men's rights groups rail against actually closes some of the health gap for men.
On healthcare spending: Might some of the spending be skewed considering the fact that for years a lot of primary and clinical research excluded women? Also, as I said before, data is woefully lacking for pregnant persons, so I know in my field at least, there is a push for money in that direction.
On men lacking health insurance: Point taken. 1 more reason we should be looking toward universal health care.
On HIV: Careful: those statistics only tell part of the story. The absolute risk ratios do not account for the apparent fact that there are more males than females engaging in high-risk behaviors in certain communities.
If you read the real-life risk factors (@CDC or WHO) for women vs men, it becomes clear that women are at a real disadvantage.
In some areas of Africa and India, simply being a married woman is a risk factor for contracting HIV. This is not the case for men: in essence, by virtue of being married, men are at no special risk for contracting HIV.
I mention this because in the United States, the pattern in the African American community is beginning to look quite similar, where woman are unknowingly being infected by their primary partners. For men though, the risk factors include quite specific behaviors such as unprotected sex with another male or unprotected sex with a prostitute (especially if drugs are involved).
On Beauty: Studies also show that tall males earn more than shorter people of both genders. So again, why pick on beauty alone? Why not pick on those tall males out earning us all?
But let's get serious here. What is beauty? It is a reproductive (e.g. sex) marker of youth and fertility (albeit these days has gotten away from this with racial-preference based marketing, hair dye and starvation diets, lol).
You point out that some women benefit by being beautiful. Go back to what beauty is supposed to represent, i.e, youth and fertility.
While some individual women may benefit (your so-called gold diggers and models), I'm not sure this demonstrates a net advantage to women as a whole.
Instead of focusing on the relatively few high-fashion models or mega porn stars, my response was to look at economics.
The largest, most profitable industry where beauty is most marketable is the sex industry. Most data indicates that this form of labor for MOST WOMEN is low skilled, low status and thus low paid. Sure there some porn stars, high-end escorts and top models that make it big. Even actors and models will tell you that most people don't make it in their respective fields. It's only a few that really strike it big. And the sex industry is no different. Why should it be? Most women are scraping by like everybody else.
So again. I challenge the notion that beauty (i.e., that marker of youth and fertility) equates to net power for women as a whole.
I also invite you to think of the ways that being conventionally beautiful (or simply being a young woman of childbearing age, and the expectations that come with that) could be a hinderance to the development of a person's other attributes and competencies.
Lastly, the studies that show that attractive people enjoy an advantage, also demonstrate that pretty people are no more happy than the rest of us. This is probably because people tend to make a lot of unfounded, inaccurate assumptions about beautiful people and minimize their achievements in other areas.
On suicide. Well, all we know are the numbers; the reasoning is speculation. The bottom line is men kill more in general. This is nothing new. There is ample anthropological and historical record demonstrating this.
My point was simply to rebut the idea that male suicide rates are an indicator of male oppression or are indicative of something inherently wrong with feminism. Suicide is definitely deserving of attention, no one would ague against that.
On male circumcision: You are correct I did not know that the WHO, et. al. consider only FGM a serious human rights violation. That is terribly problematic. I have a suspicion why this is though, just from looking at a distribution of the prevalence of MGM vs FGM on the map of the world.
Men dying in dangerous jobs: gender integration of dangerous jobs might actually create a safer environment.
For example, it's been shown that mixed gender teams doing dangerous sports (like heli-skiing or mountaineering) suffer fewer casualties. The reasoning is that women (being the scardy cats that we are, lol) tend more to speak up if they sense a situation is dangerous (like an approaching storm). All-male teams tend to want to "suck it up" and keep going or they simply underestimate the conditions or overestimate their abilities.
But here is the problem with integrating dangerous professions (including the military): besides overt sexism, many dangerous jobs have physical demands that have traditionally steered women away. So to recruit from a good pool of women, you will probably have to lower the physical requirements. Yet in doing so, men say that this is unfair.
Well then what's the answer? Women as a group aren't going to magically gain muscle mass; so either we allow some flexibility and at least entertain the idea that women can and will do these jobs and be good at them; or keep us out and then accept the fact that more men will die doing dangerous jobs.
Folks can't have it both way though. You can't say that more men die doing dangerous jobs and then criticize efforts to get more women in the field.
I didn't get to read your link yet about crime, but I'll check it out.
I understand the frustration with a lot of rhetoric and finger pointing from both sides. And you are right that society should not be synonymous with "the males". But consider that feminists, blacks, poor people, Muslims, Jews, etc, etc. are being similarly blamed for the ills of the world.
Ciao.
Hi,
another big one (and an interesting one again)....damn (lol I guess this is my fault for bringing up so much topics in the first place)....I´ll try to answer tomorrow...
Good Night
Feckless
Misandry Review??? Misandry Review? Who's the Einstein that came up with that idea?
Oh yeah, me! I created and own that sucker.
I've got a few questions for you femmies. If men decry the exploitation of their sex as success objects, why try to impede or malign them? What threat does that represent to you?
Okay, two questions. If men decry VAWA for its funding of shelters that specifically exclude administering to men as a policy, is that the privilege and power that you expected men to give up? A particular man -- scared that his psycho girlfriend will make good on her threat to douse him in his sleep with scalding hot cooking oil -- gets turned away from a shelter, is denied a voucher, is denied an advocate, and is asked what he could have done to set off his victimizer... Is that what you consider turnabout being fair play?
If you're really about reducing domestic violence, why not join us? Why protect your little fiefdoms with federal money, excluding abused fathers and their children (while suspecting the fathers to boot)?
Hi,
So to make sense in this one I guess I have to say that I am living in Germany. So why am I even interested in the American point of view? In short you have flashier forums. In long there is far more going on in the English speaking world than in Germany. And don´t get me started on German feminist, I have the feeling there are far more radical feminists here you simply can´t talk too.
spike the cat: more huge thread jack here
- Sadly…
spike the cat: On healthcare:
Part of the reason why men die earlier from certain diseases is simply because men are less likely to seek medical attention sooner. It would seem that part of it might be perceived gender stereotypes keeping men out of the doctor's office.
- It is not only that. There are still much more things done to raise awareness on female issues. Pink ribbons, the heart disease campaign mentioned above, there a TV ads running here on female cancer, when I visit a doctor there are posters reminding me on womens problem etc. One classmate I had lost one testicle because he had testicular cancer. He was arround 25 years old at that time. That scared me and doing some research I found out that it was seldom (over his lifetime, a man's risk of testicular cancer is roughly 1 in 250) but it is the cancer that occurs most often for men between 20-40. It can easily be detected by manual scanning. If you know about it. But there are no posters, adds, or anything to raise awareness on such a topic.
spike the cat: And interestingly enough, the institution of marriage, which many men's rights groups rail against actually closes some of the health gap for men.
I am married and I think it is a great think, IF IT WORKS. It took me 8 years to say yes. Why did it take so long you might ask? Well the short answer is, divorce courts are not in favour of men. Oh and I noticed an article in a German womens magazine with an advice to abuse a law similar to VAWA to get the husband arrested. So if a friend asks me if he should marry I would say no. The odds are against him. More than 50% of all couples divorce here and there are barely benefits a man can gain from it. You are right that marrying closes the health gap (it reminds me of my wife remembering me to see a dermatologist again) but that gap is closing ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,401361,00.html ). Now if you look at the effects of a divorce there are some interesting studies out there as well: For the entire sample, higher risks of suicide were found in divorced than in married persons. Divorced and separated persons were over twice as likely to commit suicide as married persons (RR=2.08, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.58, 2.72). Being single or widowed had no significant effect on suicide risk. When data were stratified by sex, it was observed that the risk of suicide among divorced men was over twice that of married men (RR=2.38, CI 1.77, 3.20). Among women, however, there were no statistically significant differentials in the risk of suicide by marital status categories. Marital status, especially divorce, has strong net effect on mortality from suicide, but only among men. ( http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/54/4/254 )
Knowing this we can calculate a bit:
Total Suicides: 30,000 per year
Men's Suicides: 22,500 per year
Women's Suicides: 7,500 per year
Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 14,850 per year.
Hmm. I wonder how many men committed suicide outside of a divorce/separation.
...Well, I know how to subtract, lets see...
Non Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 7,650 per year.
Wait... that's approximately equal to the number of suicides for women.
Now I don´t think that this is the only reason for suicide, but consider this:
Most marriages end in divorce – over 60% by my numbers.
66% of these are initiated by the wife and few of them for abuse or any real fault. -No-fault divorces are initiated by women three times as often as by men.
The courts award physical custody to the man about 3% of the time – the odds are 40 to 1 against the man winning physical custody.
Truly shared custody is so rare that the courts don’t even know how to calculate support for it – their spreadsheets don’t support it. They have to fill out one for the father as primary, and one for the mother, and then average the two. - I believe that loss of access to one’s children and alienation are key factors in male suicide.
Women commonly interfere with the visitation rights of the ex husband. 75% of men complain of this behavior, and 40% of women admit it. If one assumes complaints are lower than the actual number of abuses, the numbers must be staggering.
Add the loss of the vast majority of the marital assets and the house, and everything that the man has worked for, financial contributions being where men are expected to excel, and what they are supposed to judge themselves by, and you have taken away a lot of the reasons that men have to live.
Add alimony and child support, all while not being allowed to co-parent your own children.
Add to all this the fact that the state’s machinery grinds very finely – loss of a job, ‘underemployment’, and bankruptcy are good enough reasons to lose almost any debt, but not alimony and child support, no, these continue unabated, plus penalties and legal fees.
And if our poor man is unlucky enough to lose his job, or become ‘underemployed’, then the legal system in many of our states, including NJ, will take 60-65% of his income, even unemployment, irregardless of what his spouse is earning. Imagine, a spouse with a $150,000 salary, collecting 65% of the income of a man scratching by on $405 per week unemployment, or a $40,000/year job. NJ would do it in a heartbeat. I bet they already have.
To get more specific I found that interesting as well:
fathers are no different in their biological programming than mothers when raising children. That divorced dads who "feel" a need to be with their children, is not only an emotional reaction but a biological one as well.
This evidence hits hard at social workers, family court judges and elected legislators who abide by archaic research and outdated laws which state that it is in the best interest of the child to be with the divorced mother - not the divorced father.
"Here is the first hard evidence that men are biologically prepared for fatherhood," says Psychology Today. "In fact, this is the first evidence that to nurture is part of man's nature."
This medical evidence would explain why father's rights groups such as Fathers 4 Justice in England, the US, Italy and in Israel would risk getting arrested in their high profile protests to see their children with equal access.
The research, which clearly illustrates how a father biologically responds to the birth of his children, also explains why thousands of men become clinically depressed when separated from their children to the point of actually committing suicide.
( http://www.israelnewsagency.com/psyc...t48060307.html )
spike the cat: How about some acknowledgment that feminism is working to free both genders from these damaging perceptions?
- There are simply to many people calling themselves feminist all with a different meaning of what feminism is about. Before my first contact with feminists I pretty much had no opinion on feminist. I pretty much agree with Wendy McElroy and her individual feminists. After talking to a few online I got a bit upset with that movement. So I give kudos to those that think outside damaging perceptions. *Hands-over-a-cup-of-Kudos*
spike the cat: Also, as I said before, data is woefully lacking for pregnant persons, so I know in my field at least, there is a push for money in that direction.
- So they are funding it right now? It is good that they are going to take care on that issue.
spike the cat: On HIV: Careful: those statistics only tell part of the story. The absolute risk ratios do not account for the apparent fact that there are more males than females engaging in high-risk behaviors in certain communities.
- Wait what? Now I am not sure where this discussion is going. It is true that people having anal sex have a far higher risk to get aids then women. And I guess with males engaging in high-risk behaviors in certain communities you are talking about gays. Well gays are male, too and that pretty much adds to the risk ratios. Anyhow I´d say it is a human problem and calculating homosexuals out of this statistics so that risk ratios for females are higher does not do anything to solve this problem.
spike the cat: If you read the real-life risk factors (@CDC or WHO) for women vs men, it becomes clear that women are at a real disadvantage.
- Well I said this before, too. This is topped of course by unprotected anal sex and infected needles.
spike the cat: In some areas of Africa and India, simply being a married woman is a risk factor for contracting HIV. This is not the case for men: in essence, by virtue of being married, men are at no special risk for contracting HIV.
- I don´t get it. Could you explain?
I mention this because in the United States, the pattern in the African American community is beginning to look quite similar, where woman are unknowingly being infected by their primary partners. For men though, the risk factors include quite specific behaviors such as unprotected sex with another male or unprotected sex with a prostitute (especially if drugs are involved).
- I often wonder about strategies to prevent this. If I remember correctly George Bushes solution was, that people shouldn´t have sex before marriage. Well I guess sex education, legalisation of prostitution (with regular health checks) and a lot of condoms for everyone could help prevent spreading of HIV. Also if the church could start encouraging the use of condoms like the bishop of Brazil did this would surely help.
spike the cat: On Beauty: Studies also show that tall males earn more than shorter people of both genders. So again, why pick on beauty alone? Why not pick on those tall males out earning us all?
- Well tallness is an characteristic of beauty for men. That is why small men have problems to find a woman. And the reason why they put Tom Cruise on a box to make him look taller than the females he is shooting with.
spike the cat: But let's get serious here. What is beauty? It is a reproductive (e.g. sex) marker of youth and fertility (albeit these days has gotten away from this with racial-preference based marketing, hair dye and starvation diets, lol).
- Beauty standards really scare me these days. I personally think that make up, long fingernails and especially those girls with size zero are a huge turnoff and have nothing to do anymore with a female form or beauty at all. Scary. A woman like Keira Knightley should start eating burgers. Lots of burgers. This can´t be healthy and is definitely no good example for young females.
spike the cat: While some individual women may benefit (your so-called gold diggers and models), I'm not sure this demonstrates a net advantage to women as a whole.
- A lot of women are not aware of their sexual powers. And most of the time it’s the little things. Guys buying you drinks in a bar, paying for a dinner on a date. A lot of those little things are done because men expect to have a better chance to get laid if they behave that way towards females. Dating gurus proved that to be wrong. Anyhow when there is a relationship a lot of women are aware of their sexual power. That is why withholding of sex is used to punish husbands. According to this in England around 40% ( http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8142200_ITM ) Well it is probably easier understood if we all could swap genders for a while and walk a mile in the others shoes. Norah Vincent did that and wrote a book about it ( http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/06/01/09/2149225_F.shtml ).
spike the cat: The largest, most profitable industry where beauty is most marketable is the sex industry. Most data indicates that this form of labor for MOST WOMEN is low skilled, low status and thus low paid. Sure there some porn stars, high-end escorts and top models that make it big. Even actors and models will tell you that most people don't make it in their respective fields. It's only a few that really strike it big. And the sex industry is no different. Why should it be? Most women are scraping by like everybody else.
- When it comes to prostitution I would say you are right but if we are talking about pornographic movies there is usually one actor of both gender. Those males usually get paid less than the actresses and have far less chances to get popular. But they have one advantage as they are seen more as studs while females in this sector are more seen as sluts.
spike the cat: My point was simply to rebut the idea that male suicide rates are an indicator of male oppression or are indicative of something inherently wrong with feminism. Suicide is definitely deserving of attention, no one would ague against that.
- Well I agree and would say that the male suicide rate is one indicator that there is no oppression of females by males.
spike the cat: I have a suspicion why this is though, just from looking at a distribution of the prevalence of MGM vs FGM on the map of the world.
- Please explain.
More to come....
Greets
Feckless
damn, is it wrong to overtake a whole thread here?
Feckless,
Buon Giorno (I'm on your continent)
OK. Some of your links didn't work, but that's OK because I am aware of some of the studies, I'll try to google the others.
Do you by any chance have a blog where I can post my response? 'Cause I wrote another long reply...I fear I've been bad mannered...
Cheers
Hi,
ah a woman from bella Italia (I really, really love Italian food. I wonder how Italians could stay so slim, compared to us “heavy” Germans). Really nice. I don´t have a blog, we could just start a new thread here or on another board if you like. Or an Email conversation. Or keep posting on this one. You decide.
So the 2nd part.
spike the cat: But here is the problem with integrating dangerous professions (including the military): besides overt sexism, many dangerous jobs have physical demands that have traditionally steered women away. So to recruit from a good pool of women, you will probably have to lower the physical requirements. Yet in doing so, men say that this is unfair.
- Well we have to specify here. Let us talk about firefighters for example. If you lower the physical demands for women this could mean two things. A) A firefighter with less strength can´t perform all the tasks that had to be done (carrying people out of burning buildings). So it would be discriminating if those firefighters receive the same payment. B) A firefighter with less strength still has enough strength to perform all the tasks. Joe Average with lesser strength has no chance while Jane Average has this chance. That would mean we have a quote here, also called affirmative action also called positive discrimination. And that is where you should here the alarming bells ring. Discrimination is never positive. Women are usually better with language. Would you say it is fair when a company accepts females with an “A” grade in a foreign language for a job but males with a “B” grade? Perhaps you will find this ( http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/affirm-action.html ) interesting.
spike the cat: I understand the frustration with a lot of rhetoric and finger pointing from both sides. And you are right that society should not be synonymous with "the males". But consider that feminists, blacks, poor people, Muslims, Jews, etc, etc. are being similarly blamed for the ills of the world.
That is true. But those do have a lobby as well. Obama can attack fathers on fathers day without having to fear a backlash. Try to attack mothers on mothersday. Nobody is stupid enough to do this. They have stronger lobbies. Look what happened to that Lawrence Summers. He was Harvard President and got fired because he said men are better in math then women (and was right). Nowadays it seems that it is not political correct to do sth only for men. You see places for men only get teared down and places for women only built up. Women studies, female gyms, woman libraries etc. A current example ( http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/a-dose-of-stupid-v19/#more-590 ) Only girls can be discriminated against. So despite the fact that Philadelphia already funds an all-girl public high school and has done so for 160 years with apparently no complaint, any attempt to improve boys’ chances of graduating and going on to college by creating an environment specifically suited to their needs is unjustified and sexist.
Greets
Feckless
Ciao,
So nobody complained so I guess I'll just keep posting here :)
Ok so I made a huge post but it looks like it got held in moderation because I included links but didn't use proper HTML tags?
I am going to redo the post in shorter pieces, and I will include the source but not the exact links.
For now I'm still looking at the previous topics that we were discussing. I will address the new stuff as we go.
On HIV: So you asked me to clarify how the risk of transmission related to real world risk. So I included 2 really good articles which describe women's risk (real world) very well:
Women and HIV in the African American community:
www dot slate dot com/id/2108724
Women and HIV in other parts of the world
guttmacher dot org /media/nr/2006/07/18/index dot h t m l
If these don't work you can find the articles easily through google.
So let's recap: For both men and women it takes exposures on the order of thousands for transmission. The absolute risk is pretty small, the relative risk for men is 50% that of women.
The key is that an individual's exposures can come from unprotected sex with 1 partner, or unprotected sex with multiple partners. Worldwide, women are more often in the former circumstance, and men in the latter.
There is actually a story in the nytimes about the US exporting HIV to small villages in Mexico. Male migrant workers coming to the US, visit sex workers (in this case trafficked women) in our urban centers, contract the virus and return home. Nice neighbors, eh?
And for the US, abstinence-only education doesn't work. What the US needs is access to affordable health care and comprehensive sex ed, especially in the hardest hit communities. And it would really help the black community if so many males where not in and out of jail. Because I think the slate article makes a pretty good case for this.
*************************************************
On Health care spending gaps:
From my preliminary research the increased spending for women can be attributed at least partly to the following:
1) women outlive men, thus use more medical services
2) women of child bearing age typically require more preventative reproductive health care services, e.g. annual paps, abortion access, contraception, etc.
3) the cost of pregnancy, and treating complications of pregnancy
a excerpt from Rand Health study, 2004 that was published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, on elderly and end of life expenditure:
"Shugarman said that women’s expenditures are higher than men’s in part because women frequently have accumulated more physical disabilities than men and are more likely to see a physician. Additionally, while men often have a spouse at home to provide care, women frequently outlive their spouses, so they must rely more on the health care system to meet their health care needs."
On research:
Ok so, male reproductive physiology is pretty well understood, e.g. orgasms, the ejaculate, etc. (except we still don't have a male birth control pill--big problem, but not for lack of trying or lack of money).
For women on the other hand, we are just now doing imaging and understanding that there is indeed a G-spot, that some women do ejaculate, etc.
It's only been pretty recently that evolutionary biologists have finally figured out that humans female are not monogamous by nature (while for decades, the community had pretty much reached this consensus about males).
I have an ex-classmate who got grants to study the kinetics (fancy pharmacology talk) of anti-retrovirals (for HIV/AIDS) in pregnant women. It's been over 2 decades and we are just now getting this information, even though we've been kinda using these meds for some time now.
So again, these are some research examples from reproductive anatomy, pharmacology and evolutionary biology where we've been lagging for females.
So in conclusion I don't see the spending gap as strong evidence for inequities between men and women.
Ciao, a presto!
Health continued:
You seem a teeny bit dismissive of the fact that a spouse may remind her partner to go to the doctor. But that is precisely one of the reasons why men have poorer health outcomes. Also women often take on a caregiver role.
It's a myth that more money spent automatically means better health outcomes. Sometimes, relatively inexpensive things like getting people in the docs office AND even harder, getting people to take their medication results in dramatic results.
And the fact that the gap is narrowing for single men, gives support to the fact that the public health messages are increasingly there for men (via men's magazines, TV ads, promotions) and thus more men are getting those messages. You seem to see it as a failure of marriage, but I see it as a win for public health.
Anecdote: when I was home in California there was a campaign for Prostate cancer at the grocery store. People where being asked to donate at the checkout counter. This is a great way to donate because people can simply add the donation right then and there, which I did.
KF,
Now for the fun stuff: SEX!
I read the article on witholding sex. Well Details magazine's blog hand even more outrageous article detailing how men push and manipulate their partners into performing sex acts for the wrong reasons, e.g control, ego, bragging rights.
(google Details magazine, anal sex for the link)
Yes, I take these articles with a grain of salt; I don't think they represent the majority of folks. But I don't think that women are alone in using sex to control aspects of their relationships.
That article from Details is pretty disgusting actually, with a reference to women who like anal sex as pigs (very common double standard that men adhere to even in their own relationships and that is promulgated by mainstream porn) and glorifying rape:
"For most of my friends, it's sort of a domination thing," says John (not his real name), 30, a writer in New York. "[It's] basically getting someone in a position where they're most vulnerable. My friends enjoy that and they tell their friends they did it. But it's not like girls are ready for it—it's something they do when they're really drunk."
************************************************
KingFeckless says: "A lot of women are not aware of their sexual powers. And most of the time it’s the little things. Guys buying you drinks in a bar, paying for a dinner on a date."
You see, males actually have sexual powers over females, too. If men weren't so busy putting "beautiful" women onto pedestals that they don't deserve to be on, men would understand this.
This is partly the result of mindless objectification of women. But I'm going to let you in on a secret that I learned from a pick-up-artist. As a woman, this is the most enlightening thing I've heard them say.
One of the main reasons that men fear rejection is that they don't like to lose TO a women. I'm not making this up. He said it, not me. Think about that. That's where a lot of the perceived female power is coming from--Fear.
*************************************************
On the wage gap in porn:
Why do women make more money? Here you have to consider the market for porn as a consumable item. I think a disproportionate chunk of the the demand is by and large coming from heterosexual males. So then, wages, become a question of supply and demand.
My guess is that if heterosexual males where not so homophobic (toward other men) in their tastes, we would see more male stars. As it is now, a lot of porn focuses on the women. The women are the stars because the fantasy is the viewer having sex with her.
And could it be that woman's role is tougher? I mean I'm not an avid porn watcher, but I think the demand for the range of activities that women do is in general a lot harder, physically, mentally and emotionally.
*language warning, explicit stuff, not suitable for work below*
There is trend toward more and more hard core stuff and I mean some of that stuff is rough. I don't think 5 guys facef*cking a woman until she is purple and vomits and then standing around wanking have earned equal pay on the shoot. It's an extreme example, to make the point.
more later on divorce courts and fathers (here I think is where we will find a lot of common ground though) and physically demanding jobs.
Ciao
"I wonder how Italians could stay so slim, compared to us “heavy” Germans)."
Well as you probably figured, I emigrated to Italy here from the US...
But it appears that Italians are slim partly because of genetics & partly because they eat smaller portions of very, very tasty foods. And perhaps the espresso???
So you say German feminists are more radical or something? In what way? I was surprised at how traditional Switzerland is (haven't been to Germany yet). In general I get the sense that it's harder to move up in class here than in the US. And that divisions of labor outside the home are still pretty traditional (fewer women CEOs, managers, entrepreneurs, etc.) I kind heard that Germany is like that too...
Cheers
Hi,
Spike the Cat: So let's recap: For both men and women it takes exposures on the order of thousands for transmission. The absolute risk is pretty small, the relative risk for men is 50% that of women.
The key is that an individual's exposures can come from unprotected sex with 1 partner, or unprotected sex with multiple partners. Worldwide, women are more often in the former circumstance, and men in the latter.
- I am sorry but this is based on a false assumption. No matter how much you turn it, this is mathematical not possible. But why explain it with my words when I can cite someone: ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/we.../12kolata.html )
Surveys bear this out. In study after study and in country after country, men report more, often many more, sexual partners than women.
One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.
But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women. Those survey results cannot be correct. Men and women in a population must have roughly equal numbers of partners.
You already said that researchers found out that women are not monogamous. So why should they have less partners? And still I don´t see this as a female problem. The death rate from HIV is higher for men and as I mentioned before the same amount of males and females are infected.
Spike the Cat: And for the US, abstinence-only education doesn't work. What the US needs is access to affordable health care and comprehensive sex ed, especially in the hardest hit communities. And it would really help the black community if so many males where not in and out of jail. Because I think the slate article makes a pretty good case for this.
- Absolutely agree with you.
Spike the Cat: On Health care spending gaps:
"Shugarman said that women’s expenditures are higher than men’s in part because women frequently have accumulated more physical disabilities than men and are more likely to see a physician. Additionally, while men often have a spouse at home to provide care, women frequently outlive their spouses, so they must rely more on the health care system to meet their health care needs."
- Hu? Women frequently have accumulated more physical disabilities than men – I don´t believe that. Good stuff for female supremacists ( http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1609?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=gender&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0 )
The disadvantages of the male are usually seen as socially mediated
________________________________________
Even from conception, before social effects come into play, males are more vulnerable than females
________________________________________
Social attitudes about the resilience of boys compound the biological deficit
________________________________________
Male mortality is greater than female mortality throughout life
________________________________________
The causes are a mixture of biological and social pressures: we need to be aware of both in order to promote better development and health for boys and men
Spike the Cat: For women on the other hand, we are just now doing imaging and understanding that there is indeed a G-spot, that some women do ejaculate, etc.
It's only been pretty recently that evolutionary biologists have finally figured out that humans female are not monogamous by nature (while for decades, the community had pretty much reached this consensus about males).
- Again I am a bit wondering. If you have read the “Hite Report” or look at infidelity statistic you have to come to the conclusion that female are not monogamous by nature and that monogamy has sth. to do with our social structure. The G-Spot was first talked about in 1944, first written about in 1981. I have heard of it from the 90 as well as female ejaculation which was even known in the ancient world. So this is not new information to anyone. So I am not sure what you are talking about. What I heard about female ejaculation though, was that scientist were arguing where the fluid comes from. And btw I think you are getting a bit unfair here. It is logical that scientist focus on the more obvious parts of sexuality which have to do with reproduction (btw the were guessing a lot on what sperm really is, too). Or have you heard or read studies about male lactation, male breast cancer, the male g-spot (probably if you have seen the movie Roadtrip, I wasn´t aware of that), male dry orgasm or male multiple orgasms. A lot of people, especially females, are not even aware that there is a fundamental difference in penises among males. Or have you ever heard the term blood penis or flesh penis?
More healthcare:
I have never seen sth on TV or in my doctors offices (or in the newspapers or magazines I read) that raises awareness on typical male healthcare problems. Shouldn´t be some money put in that one? To remind men to go to the doctor, to take their prevention examination? There is a lot of funding spend on females. Allthough men die at higher rates than women from the top 10 causes of death. This does make no sense to me. Oh and btw I don´t really see benefits for males in marriage.
Spike the Cat: Why do women make more money? Here you have to consider the market for porn as a consumable item. I think a disproportionate chunk of the the demand is by and large coming from heterosexual males. So then, wages, become a question of supply and demand.
- It is said that 49% of Germans watch porn at least once a month. I´ve read that 1 in 3 visitors to adult websites are actually female (it seems women favour chats over porn sites). This ( http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Women_&_Porn.htm ) said 40% of the adult videotape rental audience is female. Porn is not a mostly male think anymore. Interestingly the sex toy maket seems to be clearly in womens hand.
Spike the Cat: And could it be that woman's role is tougher? I mean I'm not an avid porn watcher, but I think the demand for the range of activities that women do is in general a lot harder, physically, mentally and emotionally.
- Hard to say. Normally the guy has to do a lot of….movement. And I don´t think there is much emotion involved in porn. The market is flooded with homemade porn which is viewable for free (the amount of women masturbating makes me wonder if exhibitionism is more common in females).
Spike the Cat: There is trend toward more and more hard core stuff and I mean some of that stuff is rough. I don't think 5 guys facef*cking a woman until she is purple and vomits and then standing around wanking have earned equal pay on the shoot. It's an extreme example, to make the point.
- Are you sure you are not an avid porn watcher o_O ? Without a doubt there is a lot of weird stuff out there. My views on sexuality are quite liberal. As long as every participant agrees and it is not against the laws, I am not judging them.
Spike the Cat: Yes, I take these articles with a grain of salt; I don't think they represent the majority of folks. But I don't think that women are alone in using sex to control aspects of their relationships.
- Well the withholding part is sth I experienced with every partner I had (as well as being slapped). It is pretty common I wonder that the percentage is so low (40%)
Spike the Cat: Well as you probably figured, I emigrated to Italy here from the US...
- I didn´t figure that out but really wondered about how well you speak English.
Spike the Cat: But it appears that Italians are slim partly because of genetics & partly because they eat smaller portions of very, very tasty foods. And perhaps the espresso???
- I am jealous that I don´t have that much tasty food around…..
Spike the Cat: So you say German feminists are more radical or something? In what way? I was surprised at how traditional Switzerland is (haven't been to Germany yet). In general I get the sense that it's harder to move up in class here than in the US. And that divisions of labor outside the home are still pretty traditional (fewer women CEOs, managers, entrepreneurs, etc.) I kind heard that Germany is like that too...
- Hu? Is that the old cliché that all Germans wear lederhosen and live in the mountains? We have a female chancellor (Angela Merkel) now who is traditional? There are not much feminist really popular but the most famous (Alice Schwarzer) says some pretty radical stuff. And you can´t really have a civilised conversation with them online (at least with those I met)
Greets
Feckless
"But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women. Those survey results cannot be correct."
Sorry the NYTimes link didn't work for me :(
Actually it's not mathematically impossible. There are several studies that support the theory that sex workers account for the differences in the average number of partners. And considering the worldwide demand for prostitution and the clandestine nature of the transaction, I think it's a very plausible explanation.
Over a career some sex workers can have sex with on the order of hundreds or thousands of male partners. And many surveys from different countries estimate that males visiting prostitutes (whether legal or not) is not than uncommon at all.
I will find the the studies and post them, once I figure out how post links correctly.
It's a female problem because in many countries women think that they are at low risk of HIV/AIDs because they are married and faithful to their partner. In many cultures, women often marry older men as well, who may have had many more sex partners. And married people are the least likely group to use protected sex, because they might be trying for a baby.
************************************************
I didn't say porn was mostly a male thing. I said the a larger proportion of porn caters to a somewhat narrow and rigid male fantasy. Hence, a higher demand for female starlets. Higher demand, lower supply means higher pay. Male actors have the opposite problem.
I'm only mentioning this in response to your original assertion, here. You brought it up, not me. In reality it has less to do with men's rights but more to do with male fantasy and what consumers will PAY to watch.
There is a big difference between video taping a lovemaking session with your partner vs a working in the industry. And actually there are plenty of guys online taking pictures of their goods and posting them, and doing web cams. So I don't think voyeurism is anymore female than male.
And no I'm not an avid watcher, but there are many folks blogging or doing conferences on trend in the industry. Plus if I'm gonna talk about something I at least should know what kind of stuff is out there (good and bad). It's not that hard to research at all, really. I have a male friend who worked on the production side too.
On healthcare.
On disabilities, I hope it was clear that the article was talking about folks over 65! Most likely most men with disabilities didn't even make it to 65, they died younger.
But the point of the article was NOT to say that women have more disabilities than men over a lifetime.
It's to explain the fact that women live longer contributes to higher expenditures!! Not the other way around! It's not that we spend more money on women, thus they live longer. It's they live longer, so they use more resource dollars. Do you see the difference?
As we close the life expectancy gap spending for males, we should see increased health care spending for men too.
Look, we seem to be arguing different things here. Everything you are saying about closing the health care gap I agree with. Do I think the mere fact we have a gap means that men are oppressed by society, I'm not sure.
Let's put it another way. We could be spending equal money on men or even more money, and men could still be falling behind on health outcomes, OK? It's like how in the US we spend all of this money on inner city schools and they are still shitty. There's more to it than spending. I mean we could talk about the cost of war on men's health as a better example of how men get screwed over and we would probably agree.
And on research spending. Again go back to the original assertion floating around: that more dollars spent on female research means that men are getting short changed, essentially.
I know these things I brought up (g-spot, female ejaculate) were theorized and studied previously even in ancient times, etc. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RESEARCH SPENDING HERE, RIGHT? Well, I gave an example of female reproduction because one of the biggest breakthroughs was magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). So here we have a gaps in knowledge and now some new EXPENSIVE tools to play with. The argument is that the spending gap is purely evidence of anti-male bias correct? Only anti-male bias, no other reason?
"Or have you heard or read studies about male lactation"-absolutely
"male breast cancer"- um yes I mentioned it above, actually in one of my 1st postings :)
"the male g-spot"- of course!
"Or have you ever heard the term blood penis or flesh penis?" You got me on that one. I have not heard of that, lol!
You said:"Male mortality is greater than female mortality throughout life. The causes are a mixture of biological and social pressures: we need to be aware of both in order to promote better development and health for boys and men"
I agree! And testicular cancer, that is a great example you brought up.
Now.
If you are just going to start tossing around insults, like Female Supremacist (whatever that means) then we don't need to continue this conversation. And I asked an honest and straight forward question about about the workplace in Germany. I'm sorry you feel the need to assume that I don't know who your head of state is (stupid Americans, doooh!)
I just asked because it's come up in a few conversations with other German women (and 1 Texan who moved to Germany then Switzerland and started her own company) comparing the higher level job situation with the US. So that's all. I didn't mean any offense. I'll refrain from any personal questions.
If you want to continue I recommend focusing on one topic per posting. You pick the topic if you like. Otherwise, see you around,
peace
C
Here are the references that I promised regarding number of sex partners and the math.
From the proceedings of the national academy of science (PNAS) website:
Prostitution and the sex discrepancy in reported number of sexual partners
"One of the most reliable and perplexing findings from surveys of sexual behavior is that men report substantially more sexual partners than women do. We use data from national sex surveys and studies of prostitutes and their clients in the United States to examine sampling bias as an explanation for this disparity. We find that prostitute women are underrepresented in the national surveys. Once their undersampling and very high numbers of sexual partners are factored in, the discrepancy disappears. Prostitution's role in the discrepancy is not readily apparent because men are reluctant to acknowledge that their reported partners include prostitutes."
And via Slate magazine, The New York Times slips up on sexual math is another article probably in reference to your reference. Slate does a nice job of explaining the math and difference between the mean and median as it pertains to sex partners. They also talk about sampling bias as well.
"Consider a village with 200 people, evenly divided by sex. Ninety of the women are virgins, but none of the men is. Each man has slept with just one of the sexually active women; each woman who's had sex, then, has had 10 partners. In this case, the median woman has zero sexual partners, but the median man has one. So we see a big difference in medians between the male and female populations, just as in the CDC data."
Ciao
Hi,
I guess there are a lot of misunderstanding. This could have sth to do with me speaking in a foreign language and problems while talking with someone you can not see (a lot of language is transported via vacial expressions and gestures)
spike the cat: If you are just going to start tossing around insults, like Female Supremacist (whatever that means) then we don't need to continue this conversation.
- This was not meant to insult you, but this is stuff female supremacist cite as well. It means people like *forgot name, wrote the SCUMM Manifesto, Valentie Solana?* argue with articles like this that the male Y-Chromosome is a crippled female X-Chromosome. I am not saying anyone here is a FS.
spike the cat: And I asked an honest and straight forward question about about the workplace in Germany. I'm sorry you feel the need to assume that I don't know who your head of state is (stupid Americans, doooh!) I just asked because it's come up in a few conversations with other German women (and 1 Texan who moved to Germany then Switzerland and started her own company) comparing the higher level job situation with the US. So that's all. I didn't mean any offense. I'll refrain from any personal questions.
- Again this wasn´t meant offending. Just imagine there was a ;-) I forgot to post. Sometimes my tries to be funny are just confusing people. Sorry for that. I really can´t compare the workplace here with the workplace in the US. I always assumed (keeping in mind that the wage gap is roughly the same in both our countries) that there is no big difference but I don´t really know the truth. I wasn´t sure what traditional as well. Please ask personal question if you like (I appreciate the more specified questions).
Ah stupid internet, please imagine me as someone smiling writing this. I really am.
I´ll write my answer on your points during the next view days. Did you google flesh and blood penis already or should I post an explanation?
Greets
a "Feckless" that should never be taken too seriously
Ps.: The part about you as an avid porn watcher has to be understand as me poking you with a stick ( or ;-) ) as well. Maybe I should stop trying to be funny ( or adding more or better emoticons)
Ok then, we are cool. Yeah, a couple of smiley faces would have been helpful ;).
Hmmm. I looked up flesh penis and blood penis. Not much info on that...what else do you know about it?
Cheers.
Hi,
short one again (my daughter is keeping me away from the computer. And that is a good thing)
A blood penis is relatively small when limp and becomes multiply larger with an erection. A flesh penis in contrast already looks like a similar size when it is stiff.
Well thats it. I´d say those with blood penises are more often having penis complexes. A German study on sexuality done this year (with more than 50,000 participants) revealed that 47% are happy with there penis while the rest would like to have a larger or thicker one. I think porn has an impact here.
Well thats it for now. But there is more to come
Greets
Feckless
So my answer to your last biggie. I noticed that your links don´t work for me too. That’s weird as if we were having to separate internets with different links.
On CDC and meridian of partners:
You are definitely right on this. I myself had to look up what meridian is and still not sure about what it says (from my understanding it is a sort of average which excludes most of the extremes and gives you information on the person in the middle / Half of this group is above or equals the number while the other half is underneath or equals this number). The article I posted confused meridian with average. The CDC study was interesting. I found it shocking to find out how much boys and girls have sex at young ages. There are some things that I´d like to take into consideration. People without sexual experience were excluded in the meridian and there are more males who had no sex than females. Although CDC did do some efforts to get honest answers, I wonder how faithful participants of that study were. Are men more likely to add a few females to feel more like a stud? A females perhaps more likely to forget an affair or one night stand or to round the number down a bit to feel better about themselves? I still think the promiscuous men vs promiscuous women bias plays a role in this. How does the lower number of males influence this study? Interesting is the customer behaviour of prostitutes as well. How often do prostitutes have loyal customers? If men going to prostitutes is so common there must be a huge number of sex workers. Why are they not present in those studies? Do they lie about their amount of partners as well? Separating “job” and privacy? There are some points I don´t really know what to think about anymore. I would have said that prostitution and sextourism is a male thing in 99% of all cases. Then there are articles suggesting otherwise. There are studies or scientist out there saying women have a lower sexdrive. On the other hand I´ve read feminist opinions saying that this is not true. As you pointed out before women are promiscuous by nature as well as men. Recent studies I have read suggest that nowadays females cheat slightly more than males. But still according to CDC more than half of all women have less than 4 partners. I found this hard to believe. It would have been interesting if CDC calculated an average so we could have a hint on how faithful the participants were.
On the thesis of HIV risk in marriages:
I would generally say people who don´t use condoms have a higher risk. Your thesis on the risk of married women, in my opinion there are to many ifs and buts to have a significant higher risk there. We talked about the risk of receiving HIV before. So the bride must live with a husband who has a lot of unprotected sex out of wedlock with someone who has hiv. Lets assume he has 100 unprotected encounters with a HIV positive prostitute. His chance of getting HIV is 5%. Considering your thesis, and to be fair, you have to subtract all marriages where the wife herself is unfaithful / HIV positive before. You have to subtract those where the husband is faithful or only has protected sex. In the remaining marriages for the wife to not be aware of HIV risks, where the husband has a lot of unprotected sex out of wedlock (without her noticing) how often does that happen?
On voyeurism:
What I was saying, look at free portals and the amount of videos of males masturbating vs the amount of videos with females masturbating. Who do you think is contributing more (out of free will)?
On healthcare:
What I was complaining about was research and fundings on raising awareness. You can´t deny that there is more money spent on females. Interesting note, most of the money spent is paid by males via taxes. Again what I am saying is, just look at the amount of males dying of certain diseases and compare this with females. You will see a huge discrepancy there. Funding is needed especially on raising awareness for precaution checkups. There is far more done for females than for males.
On Studies:
There are scientific studies on the male g-spot and male lactation? Please share them with me!
It took me far too long to write this. Hope you are still reading.
Greets
Feckless
Hi KF,
Right then. So let's see what we agree on.
We AGREE that there needs to be more spending in many areas of men's health, especially outreach and promotion for diseases such as heart disease, prostate and testicular cancers, male birth control...
We DISAGREE on the following:
1) That the disparity in spending with regard to men's health is an indicator of inequality toward men.
2) That the spending differences are most likely multi-factorial, some of which I've already addressed, such as:
a. women entering the health care sooner as the result having a disproportionate reproductive health burden
b.the burden and cost of pregnancy and complications thereof, and abortion.
c. women live longer and thus using more health care dollars
d. for research: women of childbearing age and pregnant women have been excluded from studies (still a problem today actually); pregnant women are often in need of life saving treatments, of which we still have gaps in knowledge. This is an ethical challenge, but a challenge that is worthy of overcoming nonetheless.
I'm sorry if my data is mostly from the USA, but we are number 1 in health care spending yet we are #19 for preventable deaths. With this point I debunk the myth that spending is automatically correlated to better outcomes.
The only piece of research I have found compelling is a recommendation for shifting some spending from elderly women to elderly men. This sounds perfectly reasonable based on my previous points.
Lastly on tax dollars and health care spending. Do those tax figures take into account the unpaid labor force? This is non-productive labor that is essentially done for free, and therefore it is not taxed. When there aren't enough people to do these jobs it falls on the state; the best example is the eldercare and childcare.
This labor doesn't generate tax revenue, but it saves the state money (somebody has to do it, and it's better for everybody to have a family member do it for free).
I don't need to point out that this type of labor has traditionally fallen on women. So any comparisons regarding taxes and gender should take that into account.
Cheers,
I'll be writing more soon.
On HIV and sex:
KF:"Your thesis on the risk of married women, in my opinion there are to many ifs and buts to have a significant higher risk there."
It's actually not MY thesis. These are recommendations based on over 2 decades of data looking at HIV epidemiology and statistics. And the recommendations are be supported by both observation in the field and self-reporting of people's behaviors.
KF: "As you pointed out before women are promiscuous by nature as well as men."
Actually I didn't quite say that. What I said was that women are not monogamous--meaning hardwired to mate with only 1 person at a time.
Promiscuity refers to being indiscriminate, and having multiple, casual partners.
Here is a good example to make the distinction. A man can marry 1 woman and take a lover. In his lifetime he has only those 2 partners. He is NOT practicing monogamy but his behavior would NOT be described as promiscuous.
On average most people who study human behavior agree that
1) Neither males not females are hardwired to be monogamous
2) In general (GENERAL so that means it's a trend with exceptions) males are more promiscuous than females
Of course the exceptions are many. Female Prostitutes are an example of promiscuity. Of course the behavior is also rooted in economics.
On sex drive. I found a really good article which after reading I am convinced that men have higher sex drives. You can google it:
Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence
Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen R. Catanese, and Kathleen D. Vohs Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2001
To get to the bottom of the question the authors did a pretty exhaustive look at behaviors and reported behaviors in areas such as the following:
a) number of reported partners of homosexual men vs lesbians
b) behavior in people who take vows of celibacy for religious purposes (e.g. priests vs nuns)
c) polygynous cultures (common) vs cultures where 1 woman is allowed 2 husbands (rare),
d) the fact that across cultures men are more likely to trade resources to get sex.
They concede that at least part of the sex drive difference is rooted in biology. Some of the behavioral difference can be accounted for by social norms, of course. And we see this as sexuality has become more fluid for both genders in recent decades.
Cheers!
I thought I'd interject something in here... While I'm not a fan of circumcision for males, it's also true that removing foreskin does NOT have the same consequences to male genitalia that removing the clitoris does to female genitalia...I mean, seriously.
BillybobbySue,
That's right. I didn't fully appreciate until recently (thanks partly to a point brought up earlier in this thread) the devastating consequences of FGM that linger even later in life---some of which are really too gruesome to read about. As if childbirth with intact genitalia isn't traumatizing enough...
Another thing is that female circumcision at least in Africa and Asia, is practiced among various tribes and peoples, sometimes as part of Abrahamic religious culture, sometimes part of animist tradition;
whereas male circumcision is practiced overwhelmingly in communities practicing the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Catholicism and Judaism).
I wonder if this also is a reason that the WHO didn't outright classify male circumcision as a human rights violation as it has for female circumcision.
Hello Again,
before I stard answering your post spike_the_cat I will adress male circumcism here. I must admit that I thought the comment of not being a “fan” of circumscism was quite offending to me. (How would you feel if I say that I am not a fan of female circumcism? This is a babaric crime not a football team!). But then again circumcism of males is not sth seen as brutal as the circumcism for females. I found something you might find interesting (All translated from German):
Different kinds of male genital mutilation
Although the cultures who perform (or performed) genital cutting are clearly a minority, those were distributed all over the world. Another connection is that female genital mutilation only occur in cultures that also always perform male genital mutilations. An investigation found out that not one of the victims wanted to have the circumcism performed. Although certainly always traumatic for them, there are significant differences in the implementation of the ritual and thus also for the psychological consequences. For instance, there is a significant difference whether a boy on the small Pacific island of Tikopia, after he was mentally prepared, gets his foreskin cut in a ceremony, while his relatives are comforting him, or whether a boy in the province of a Islamic state is sent to a "haircut" and then held on a table, while a barber performs his circumcism no matter how he protests.
The following table lists the various forms of male genital mutilation, beginning with the lightest to heaviest known form (except castration). Information concerning the pain are of course very subjective. It is important, whether tissue on the ventral side of the penis is involved, because near the frenulum a heavy concentration of nerves are located. For initiation rituals the infliction of pain is usually intentional.
1. Kind of mutilation
2. Place
3. Who performs the operation?
4. Purpose
5. at what age?
6. still used today?
7. How is the operation done?
8. Result
9. Pain / anesthesia
1. Infibulation
2. "civilized" countries in the 19th Century
3. usually a doctor
4. Preventing masturbation
5. Adolescence
6. no
7. The foreskin is pierced twice. A silver wire or even a small padlock is put through the two holes
8. two holes in the foreskin
9. Moderate / no
1. Cut through the frenulum
2. In the Luos in Africa
3. Already initiated youths
4. Initiation rite
5. 12 years or older
6. possibly in rural areas partially replaced by radical circumcisions
7. Various methods:
1. Piercing the frenulum, which will be cut with a ligature within a few days
2. Piercing, and then cutting through the frenulum
3. In the most bizarre form a huge termite is forced to bite through the frenulum
8. The operation shortly before puberty is intended to ensure that the glans of the penis is exposed. No loss of sensitive tissue
9. 1: moderate to strong 2: strong 3: very much / no
1. Superinzision
2. in the Philippines, on many but not all tribes on the Fiji Islands, on the small Pacific islands of Tikopia (Polynesia), Tangaroa, Ra'ivavae and Niue
3. amateur, an uncle on Tikopia on Ra'ivavae it is self inflicted
4. Initiation rite
5. mostly aged 8 to 10 years (on Niue at the age of 8 years in Fiji during puberty)
6. still used, on the Philippines, however, increasingly replaced by radical circumcisions.
7. a dorsal cut, which cut the foreskin and the glans is exposed, but no tissue removed
8. exposed glans, skin flaps on the underside of the penis
9. strong / no
1. Bizarre form of Superinzision
2. a tribe in Melanesia (western Solomon Islands)
3. an amateur
4. Initiation rite
5. ?
6. ?
7. a horizontal cut on the foreskin is made the glans is than forced through
8. exposed glans, skin flaps on the underside of the penis
9. strong / no
1. Special form of Superinzision
2. a tribe in Melanesia (Solomon Islands)
3. an amateur
4. Initiation rite
5. ?
6. still used
7. there are 4 cuts made in the foreskin, the glans is exposed, but no tissue is removed
8. exposed glans, 4 skin flaps, like a flower, around the glans
9. very strong / no
1. partly circumcision (approximately 1 / 3)
2. A: Judaism into 2nd Century
B: in some African tribes
3. A: trained Mohel
B. an amateur
4. A: biblical commandment
B: initiation rite
5. A: On the 8 th Day after birth
B: varies
6. A: Not in this lighter form
B: still used
7. The foreskin gets pulled and is partially cut off with a sharp stone (nowadays with a razor blade)
8. partially exposed glans, loss of sensitive tissue
9. very strong / no
1. partly circumcision (at least half to 2 / 3)
2. A: In Islamic countries, Islamic groups
B: African tribes, Aborigines in north-west Australia
C: Western Australia
D: in Western countries
3. A: A barber, a trained cutter, sometimes a doctor
B: an amateur
C: an amateur
D: a doctor
4. A: initiation rite, tradition
B: ditto
C: ditto
D: problems during circumcism
5. A different, always before puberty
B: varies
C:?
D: varies, usually children
6. A: Yes
B: Yes
C: yes
D: yes
7. The foreskin gets pulled and is partially cut off with a sharp stone (nowadays with a razor blade) If carried out by a surgeon, both layers of skin are usually sewn
8. completely exposed glans, visible scar, loss of sensitive tissue
9. very strong (with anesthesia: no pain, but possibly unpleasant after-effects) / no or rare (always present at D)
1. plastic surgery, in which the inner layer of skin is removed
2. In civilized countries
3. a doctor
4. problems during circumcism
5. mostly children
6. yes
7. the inner layer of foreskin is removed, the outer layer of skin is folded inwards and sewn with the glans
8. largely exposed glans, great loss of sensitive tissue. The purpose of the technique, is to keep a certain reserve of skin to make the circumcision scar invisible.
9. no (possibly unpleasant after-effects) / yes
1. radical circumcision
2. A: newborns in the U.S.
B: Canada and Australia
C: South Korea
D: the Philippines
3.A: usually a gynecologist, sometimes a general doctor, seldom a children's doctor
B: a doctor, usually gynecologist
C: doctor
D: a doctor
4.A: tradition (originally to curb masturbation)
B: ditto
C: to emulate the Americans
D: ditto, partly as a substitute for traditional Superinzision
5. A: shortly after birth
B: ditto
C: usually before puberty
D: mostly aged 8 to 10 years
6. A: still often (57%)
B: mostly rare
C: very often
D: frequent
7. Die Vorhaut wird (nachdem sie bei Babies und Kleinkindern eingeschnitten und von der Eichel abgerissen wurde) vollständig weggeschnitten. The foreskin gets cut, then torn off. Remaining rests of the foreskin is completely cut off . Even the frenulum is sometimes removed.
8. completely exposed glans, great loss of sensitive tissue, visible scar, missing skin usually reserved for erections
9. extremely strong / babies usually no
1. Subincision, lighter form
usually in conjunction with previous circumcision
2. Some aboriginal tribes in Australia
3. an amateur
4. Initiation rite
5. ?
6. ?
7. The urethra on the underside of the penis is cut
8. Urinating while standing is impossible
9. strong / no
1. Subincision, heavier form
usually in conjunction with previous circumcision
2. Some aboriginal tribes in Australia
3. an amateur
4. Initiation rite
5. ?
6. ?
7. The urethra on the underside of the penis is completely cut
8. Appearance and function of the penis are massively changed. Urinating while standing is impossible
9. extremely strong / no
1. Skinning of the entire penis
2. Africa, a Tribe near the Red Sea
3. an amateur
4. Initiation rite
5. ?
6. Probably since about 1900 not longer practiced
7. The entire penile skin, including a piece of skin of the pubic mound, is torn off
8. serious mutilation
9. extremely strong / no
Of course not all forms are common anymore but as well as there are female circumcism are performed not in hospitals but in the bush there are as many male circumcism done and a lot of people die because of infections or complications in the wilderness. Note that in most cases NO anestehesia is used (even for babies born in the USA). Interesting to note as well most women that live in countries where female circumcism takes place are for continuing this practice (according to UN studies). Also note that women who were cutted say they feel the same as non-circumcised women. A lot of men act the same way. There are arround 3 or 4 different types of female circumcism. All horrible but most of the time (as far as I understand it) the mildest form is used (removal of the prepuce with or without the excision of part or all of the clitoris) note that not every time the clitoris gets removen). More info here: http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/fgmintro.php
Now more male circumcism. The following is from here. Nice ressources:
http://www.circumcision.org/index.htm
Recent Medical Studies on Circumcision
Circumcision Removes the Most Sensitive Parts of the Penis
A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity.
Sorrells, M. et al., “Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis,” BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869.
Circumcision Results in Significant Loss of Erogenous Tissue
A report published in the British Journal of Urology assessed the type and amount of tissue missing from the adult circumcised penis by examining adult foreskins obtained at autopsy. Investigators found that circumcision removes about one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The foreskin, according to the study, protects the head of the penis and is comprised of unique zones with several kinds of specialized nerves that are important to optimum sexual sensitivity.
Taylor, J. et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," BJU 77 (1996): 291–295.
Researchers Demonstrate Traumatic Effects of Circumcision
A team of Canadian researchers produced new evidence that circumcision has long-lasting traumatic effects. An article published in the international medical journal The Lancet reported the effect of infant circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The researchers tested 87 infants at 4 months or 6 months of age. The boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys. Differences between groups were significant regarding facial action, crying time, and assessments of pain.
The authors believe that "neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant’s central neural processing of painful stimuli." They also write that "the long-term consequences of surgery done without anaesthesia are likely to include post-traumatic stress as well as pain. It is therefore possible that the greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic and painful event and re-experienced under similar circumstances of pain during vaccination."
Taddio, A. et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination," The Lancet 349 (1997): 599–603.
Circumcision Study Halted Due to Trauma
Researchers found circumcision so traumatic that they ended the study early rather than subject any more infants to the operation without anesthesia. Those infants circumcised without anesthesia experienced not only severe pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing. The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Up to 96% of infants in some areas of the United States receive no anesthesia during circumcision. No anesthetic currently in use for circumcisions is effective during the most painful parts of the procedure.
Lander, J. et al., "Comparison of Ring Block, Dorsal Penile Nerve Block, and Topical Anesthesia for Neonatal Circumcision," JAMA 278 (1997): 2157–2162.
Poll of Circumcised Men Reveals Harm
A poll of circumcised men published in the British Journal of Urology describes adverse outcomes on men’s health and well-being. Findings showed wide-ranging physical, sexual, and psychological consequences. Some respondents reported prominent scarring and excessive skin loss. Sexual consequences included progressive loss of sensitivity and sexual dysfunction. Emotional distress followed the realization that they were missing a functioning part of their penis. Low-self esteem, resentment, avoidance of intimacy, and depression were also noted.
Hammond, T., "A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood," BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 85–92
Psychological Effects of Circumcision Studied
An article titled "The Psychological Impact of Circumcision" reports that circumcision results in behavioral changes in infants and long-term unrecognized psychological effects on men. The piece reviews the medical literature on infants’ responses to circumcision and concludes, "there is strong evidence that circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic." The article notes that infants exhibit behavioral changes after circumcision, and some men have strong feelings of anger, shame, distrust, and grief about having been circumcised. In addition, circumcision has been shown to disrupt the mother-infant bond, and some mothers report significant distress after allowing their son to be circumcised. Psychological factors perpetuate circumcision. According to the author, "defending circumcision requires minimizing or dismissing the harm and producing overstated medical claims about protection from future harm. The ongoing denial requires the acceptance of false beliefs and misunderstanding of facts. These psychological factors affect professionals, members of religious groups, and parents involved in the practice."
Expressions from circumcised men are generally lacking because most circumcised men do not understand what circumcision is, emotional repression keeps feelings from awareness, or men may be aware of these feelings but afraid of disclosure.
Goldman, R., "The Psychological Impact of Circumcision," BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 93–102
Serious Consequences of Circumcision Trauma in Adult Men Clinically Observed
Using four case examples that are typical among his clients, a practicing psychiatrist presents clinical findings regarding the serious and sometimes disabling long-term somatic, emotional, and psychological consequences of infant circumcision in adult men. These consequences resemble complex post-traumatic stress disorder and emerge during psychotherapy focused on the resolution of perinatal and developmental trauma. Adult symptoms associated with circumcision trauma include shyness, anger, fear, powerlessness, distrust, low self-esteem, relationship difficulties, and sexual shame. Long-term psychotherapy dealing with early trauma resolution appears to be effective in healing these consequences.
Rhinehart, J., "Neonatal Circumcision Revistited," Transactional Analysis Journal 29 (1999): 215-221
Male Circumcision Affects Female Sexual Enjoyment
A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. Without the foreskin to provide a movable sleeve of skin, intercourse with a circumcised penis resulted in female discomfort from increased friction, abrasion, and loss of natural secretions. Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes.
O’Hara, K. and O’Hara, J., "The Effect of Male Circumcision on the Sexual Enjoyment of the Female Partner," BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 79–84
Why Most Circumcised Men Seem Satisfied
Reports of negative reactions of men to circumcision (see Psychological Impact of Circumcision on Men) are surprising to those who assume that circumcision is a benign procedure. How can the existence of such reports be reconciled with the fact that the majority of circumcised men do not express these feelings about their circumcision? The following factors reduce the likelihood that circumcised men will express dissatisfaction with their circumcision:
1. Circumcised men do not know what they are missing. They believe that the sexual sensitivity they have without a foreskin is "normal." (Similarly, a woman born in Somalia who had been subjected to a severe form of female circumcision insisted that it had no impact. "It's the same thing. There is nothing different about my sexuality.") (1) According to one man who was circumcised as an adult, sex without a foreskin is like sight without color. Those who have not seen in color cannot appreciate what is lost. See Men Circumcised as Adults.
2. Young circumcised men may not notice the negative sexual effects of circumcision until they are older, because of the progressive desensitization of the exposed glans (head of the penis) from exposure and rubbing against clothes. See Functions of the Foreskin. It is possible that circumcision is an unrecognized factor in the high rates of impotence in older American men.
3. Accepting circumcision beliefs and cultural assumptions prevents men from recognizing and feeling their dissatisfaction. A typical response is “When I was young I was told it was necessary for health reasons. I guess I just didn’t question that. I assumed that was so.”
4. The emotions connected with circumcision that may surface are very painful. Repressing them protects men from this pain. A circumcised man recalled, “It was something I just didn’t examine. I put it away in the back of my mind like a lot of guys do.” If the feelings do become conscious, they can still be suppressed. After learning about circumcision, another man said, “I don’t want to be angry about this.”
5. Those who have feelings about their circumcision are generally afraid to express them because their feelings may be dismissed or ridiculed. When asked why he had not revealed his circumcision feelings before, one man said, “I would be looked upon as strange or else people would toss it off lightly.” Another said, “It’s not something that anyone talks about. If it is talked about, it’s in a snickering, comical way which I find disturbing. People laugh about it as if there is something funny going on.”
6. Verbal expression of feelings requires conscious awareness. Because early traumas are generally unconscious, associated feelings are expressed nonverbally through behavioral, emotional, and physiological forms.(2) Attitudes about people, life, and the future may also be affected. An example of an attitude resulting from childhood trauma is “You can’t count on anything or anyone to protect you.”(3)
Lack of awareness and understanding of circumcision, emotional repression, fear of disclosure, and nonverbal expression help keep circumcision feelings a secret.
FEELINGS OF DISSATISFACTION AND HAVING BEEN HARMED
The dissatisfaction of some circumcised men can be described in detail. It has been expressed in an increasing number of letters from men all around the country to the Circumcision Resource Center and to several other organizations that educate the public about circumcision. Moreover, in a recent issue of a major medical journal, twenty men signed a letter saying, “We are all adult men who believe that we have been harmed by circumcision.”( 1) We do not know how widespread the discontent is, but that these feelings exist at all is a noteworthy development and reason for concern.
Following are some statements about circumcision excerpted from letters written by dissatisfied circumcised men and received at the Circumcision Resource Center:
I have felt a deep rage for a long time about this.
My penis feels incomplete, deformed, maimed.
Circumcision has given my life a much diminished and shameful flavor.
The single most traumatic event of my life with the greatest psychological damage was my circumcision as an infant.
Circumcision: it’s taught me how to hate.
Being circumcised has ruined my sex life.
I feel violated and abused.
I have felt unhappy about it all my life.
I am very angry and resentful about this. I’ve had many physical, psychological, and emotional problems all my life.
No one had the right to cut my foreskin off!
I feel cheated at having been robbed of what is my natural birthright.
I never mentioned it to my parents.
I’ve always felt I’m missing normal male experience, and I’m embarrassed when in public dressing rooms.
I feel like the best part of me was severed from my body, and I have ugly scars to remind me. I am so ANGRY!!
The responses of men dissatisfied with their circumcision tend to include at least one of the following feelings:
anger, resentment, revenge, rage, hate
sense of loss, deficiency, diminished body image
disbelief, lack of understanding, confusion
embarrassment, shame
sense of having been victimized, cheated, robbed, raped,
violated, abused, mutilated, deformed
fear, distrust, withdrawal
grief, sadness, pain
envy, jealousy of intact men
Similar feelings were reported in a preliminary survey in which over 300 self-selected circumcised men responded to a request to document the harmful effects of their circumcision.( 2) Over 80 percent of respondents cited emotional harm.
Both circumism (male and female) must be stopped. We shouldn´t start to play the “we have it worse card”. To perform an unnecessary opreration on a newborn without amnesia can not be seen as sth we should tolerate. My body my choice as pro-choicers say so well.
Greets
Feckless
Missed that...
Men Circumcised as Adults
Only men circumcised as adults can experience the difference a foreskin makes. In the Journal of Sex Research, Money and Davison from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine reported on five such men. Changes included diminished penile sensitivity and less penile gratification. The investigators concluded,
Erotosexually and cosmetically, the operation is, for the most part, contraindicated, and it should be evaluated in terms of possible pathological sequelae.( 1)
Other men circumcised as adults regret the change.
I play guitar and my fingers get callused from playing. That’s similar to what happened to my penis after circumcision.( 2)
After the circumcision there was a major change. It was like night and day. I lost most sensation. I would give anything to get the feeling back. I would give my house. [This man’s physician persuaded him to be circumcised by warning he could otherwise get penile cancer. When the man complained of the result, the physician replied, “That’s normal” and would not help him.]( 3)
Slowly the area lost its sensitivity, and as it did, I realized I had lost something rather vital. Stimuli that had previously aroused ecstasy had relatively little effect. . . . Circumcision destroys a very joyful aspect of the human experience for males and females.( 4)
The greatest disadvantage of circumcision is the awful loss of sensitivity when the foreskin is removed. . . . On a scale of 10, the intact penis experiences pleasure that is at least 11 or 12; the circumcised penis is lucky to get to 3.( 5)
The sexual differences between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis is . . . like wearing a condom or wearing a glove. . . . Sight without color would be a good analogy. . . . Only being able to see in black and white, for example, rather than seeing in full color would be like experiencing an orgasm with a foreskin and without. There are feelings you’ll just never have without a foreskin.( 6)
After thirty years in the natural state I allowed myself to be persuaded by a physician to have the foreskin removed—not because of any problems at the time, but because, in the physician’s view, there might be problems in the future. That was five years ago and I am sorry I had it done. . . . The sensitivity in the glans has been reduced by at least 50 percent. There it is, unprotected, constantly rubbing against the fabric of whatever I am wearing. In a sense, it has become callused. . . . I seem to have a relatively unresponsive stick where I once had a sexual organ.( 7)
Mothers Who Observed Circumcision
The typical hospital circumcision is done out of view of the mother in a separate room. However, a few are observed by parents, and many Jewish ritual circumcisions are done in the homes of the parents and observed by family and friends. Although some parents may report that this is a positive experience, this is not always the case. Women are more likely than men to report distress from hearing an infant crying. (1) Regarding circumcision, the father is more likely to deny his son’s pain because it could remind him of his own circumcision feelings. Therefore, witnessing the circumcision and the infant’s response can have a particularly shocking effect on the mother. Only recently have some parents been willing to describe their agonizingly painful experiences at their son’s circumcision. Though further research is needed to tell us how common these responses are, the fact that they exist at all is reason for concern and reflection.
Some mothers have written about their experiences with circumcision during the previous year. “It was as close to hell as I ever want to get!” one wrote. Another related this memory:
My tiny son and I sobbed our hearts out. . . . After everything I’d worked for, carrying and nurturing Joseph in the womb, having him at home against no small odds, keeping him by my side constantly since birth, nursing him whenever he needed closeness and nourishment—the circumcision was a horrible violation of all I felt we shared. I cried for days afterward. (2)
Melissa Morrison was having a difficult time seven months after she had watched the (nonritual) circumcision of her son:
I’m finding myself obsessing more and more about it. It’s absolutely horrible. I didn’t know how horrific it was going to be. It was the most gruesome thing I have ever seen in my life. I told the doctor as soon as he was done, if I had a gun I would have killed him. I swear I would be in jail today if I did have a gun. (3)
Two other mothers have reported to the Circumcision Resource Center that watching their son’s circumcision was “the worst day of my life.” Another mother noted that she still felt pain recalling the experience about a year later. She wrote to her son:
I have never heard such screams. . . . Will I ever know what scars this brings to your soul? . . . What is that new look I see in your eyes? I can see pain, a certain sadness, and a loss of trust. (4)
Other mothers clearly remember their son’s circumcision after many years. Miriam Pollack reported fifteen years after the event, “The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind.” She added later, “His cry sounded like he was being butchered. I lost my milk.” (5)
Nancy Wainer Cohen recalled her feelings connected with the circumcision of her son, who is now twenty-two:
I heard him cry during the time they were circumcising him. The thing that is most disturbing to me is that I can still hear his cry. . . . It was an assault on him, and on some level it was an assault on me. . . . I will go to my grave hearing that horrible wail, and feeling somewhat responsible, feeling that it was my lack of awareness, my lack of consciousness. I did the best I could, and it wasn’t good enough. (6)
Elizabeth Pickard-Ginsburg vividly remembered her son’s circumcision and its effect on her:
Jesse was shrieking and I had tears streaming down my face. . . . He was screaming and there was no doubt in his scream that he wanted mother, or a mothering figure to come and protect him from this pain!! . . . Jesse screamed so loud that all of a sudden there was no sound! I’ve never heard anything like it!! He was screaming and it went up and then there was no sound and his mouth was just open and his face was full of pain!! I remember something happened inside me . . . the intensity of it was like blowing a fuse! It was too much. We knew something was over. I don’t feel that it ever really healed. . . . I don’t think I can recover from it. It’s a scar. I’ve put a lot of energy into trying to recover. I did some crying and we did some therapy. There’s still a lot of feeling that’s blocked off. It was too intense. . . . We had this beautiful baby boy and seven beautiful days and this beautiful rhythm starting, and it was like something had been shattered!! . . . When he was first born there was a tie with my young one, my newborn. And when the circumcision happened, in order to allow it I had cut off the bond. I had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I cut it off to repress the pain and to repress the natural instinct to stop the circumcision. (7) (italics added)
After several years, Pickard-Ginsburg says she can still feel “an element of detachment” toward her son. Her account is particularly revealing. That she “cut off” feelings toward her son by observing his circumcision suggests that her son may have responded similarly toward her by experiencing his circumcision. Furthermore, because she was willing to feel and communicate the intensity of her pain, we have a clue to why more mothers who observe their son’s circumcision do not report such pain. Denial and repression may keep this extreme pain out of their awareness.
Observing their son’s circumcision has left some parents with a deep feeling of regret. The following quotes are typical:
I am so sorry I was so ignorant about circumcision. Had I witnessed a circumcision first, I never would have consented to having my son circumcised. (8)
Always in the back of my mind I’ve thought, “I wish he hadn’t been cut.” I have apologized to him numerous times. (9)
If I had ever known, I wouldn’t have done this in a million years. (10)
I felt as if I might pass out at the sight of my son lying there, unable to move or defend himself. His screams tore at my heart as his foreskin was heartlessly torn from his penis. Too late to turn back, I knew that this was a terrible mistake and that it was something that no one, especially newborn babies, should ever have to endure. A wave of shock coursed through me—my body feeling nauseatingly sick with guilt and shame. All I could think of was holding and consoling my child, but his pain felt inconsolable—his body rigid with fear and anger—his eyes filled with tears of betrayal. (11)
Some mothers who did not witness the circumcision have since regretted allowing it:
The nurse came to take the baby for the circumcision. I have relived that moment over and over. If I could turn back the hands of time, that would be the one moment I would go back to and say, “I don’t think it’s a good idea. I need another day to think about it” and just hold on to him because I wasn’t sure. I think if I had held on to him it might have turned out differently. I just shouldn’t have let him go when I was so ambivalent. After they took him I went into the shower, and I cried. (12)
When they brought him back to me, I could see that he had been crying and had a glassy, wild look in his eyes. I think it was terror. I didn’t know what had been done to him, but I could tell whatever it was, it hurt. I’ll never forget that look. They probably shattered every bit of trust he had. I’m very angry about it. I would never have done that to my own son. No mother would take a knife to her child. When I looked at his penis, I was again instantly sorry that I had allowed it to be done. (13)
Circumcision is a Women's Issue
• The maternal instincts and experiences of women uniquely qualify them for the important responsibility of caring for infants and protecting them from pain and harm.
• Research demonstrates that women are generally more sensitive than men to the needs and feelings of infants, and newborn infants recognize, prefer, and are more responsive to their mothers.1
• Generally, because they are not themselves circumcised, females are not subject to the personal psychological motivations of circumcised men to perpetuate the practice (e.g., "I want him to look like me").2
• According to a recent study, circumcision can adversely affect female sexual enjoyment.3
• Any adverse psychological consequences of circumcision on males may adversely affect male-female relationships.4
• Because of the prevalence of circumcision in the United States, some potential adverse psychological effects of circumcision on males (known/unknown) may have indirect adverse social effects on women.5
• Mothers sign the majority of hospital circumcision consent forms.6
Thats it for now...Feck out
KF,
To say that "one is not a fan" is simply another way of saying that the person is not a supporter of something.
Also sometimes when people choose not to make direct comparisons it is not meant to say that something doesn't warrant concern or attention. Sometimes two things share superficial similarities but they are fundamentally very different.
What I was alluding to earlier was some of the following:
FGM can cause complications during pregnancy including serious bleeding and death of the child. A small proportion of women with type 3 and 4 FGM are at risk of fistula. This is an unnatural hole created between the vaginal wall and the bladder during labor. In case your physiology is rusty that means that urine is allowed to pass into the vagina.
FGM can affect a woman's monthly menstruation. In some of the extreme cases women will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their husband access to the vagina the first time she has intercourse.
There is also a clear link between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and child and early marriages.
So it was not my intent to start an oppression olympics, but I find the comparisons to male and female circumcision generally to be unproductive.
The information you have provided is very informative. I read all of it---learned some new stuff. Thanks.
A presto,
spikey
Hi,
getting back to circumcism:
Being a fan means you are someone who has an intense appreciation for something(s) or someone(s). Not being a fan falls in the category of not carring about sth, not supporting sth. In case of genital multilation not opposing it means supporting it. And it doesn´t warrant concern or attention it needs clear opposition by men and women alike (it is mostly mother who sign for circumcision). I am not into an ompression olympics, too. If you look at the post before she was doing it. It sounded to me like, "FGM is far worse, why are you complaining about this little part of skin". Of course especially the sickening types 2 and 3 of FGM that are out there are far worse than the normal procedure a male in the US has to endure. But where do you draw the line? I think both sexes have the right to have intact genitals the way they were born. The countries FGM takes place are almost always countries where MGM takes place under the same circumstances. There is however one important difference. While the WHO opposes FGM they are actively SUPPORTING MGM as a means to reduce HIV infections. And look at the USA. While females have the right to have intact genitalia there is hardly an opposition to a procedure
- that removes the most erogenous tissue of the penis, containing over 240 feet of nerves and over 1,000 nerve endings
- that destroys what would become 15 square inches of erogenous tissue, or approximately 50% of the adult penile shaft skin and its nervous system
- were rarely anesthesia and/or post-operative pain management is applied and leaves a newborn boy in great pain
- has no prove that it carries any significant medical advantage over the intact state for the majority of males or their partners
- that costs the parents and health insurers exceeding $200 million anually
- that leads to long term harm including: skin tags, skin bridges, prominent scars, tight/painful erections, bleeding during sex, bowing/curvature, loss of sensitivity, excessive/painful stimulation needed to orgasm, sexual dysfunction, anger, resentment, feelings of parental betrayal etc...
Now keep in mind that there are 6 times as many victims of MGM than females and that the procedures is most of the time done without anesthesia.
--------------------------------
A quote from a nurse:
"Expose yourself on a DAILY basis - and not just to the "good" ones. It is horrific. Whacking off skin with a knife without anesthesia is horrible. Man, you didn't want an episiotomy without an epidural - why can't your child have the same consideration? I have seen so many 'hack' jobs, where sometimes we wonder if this child will ever be able to urinate or have sex when he is older. I have seen babies literally roll their eyes into the back of their heads. I have witnessed pain like no other human being has felt pain - and for what??? Because people think he will forget it in a matter of minutes????"-- Tena, Labor and Delivery Nurse who assists with circumcisions. (3/99)
--------------------------------
Estimations of death in the US alone:
http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm
the above link shows that through estimated statistics one infant boy dies from circumcision every 152 days. Most in the medical community attribute the death to another cause therefore causing inaccurate reporting. (Such as infection at the wound site, causing infection spreading throughout the body and leading them to blame death on the infection in the body not the primary source.)
http://www.xyonline.net/Cut.shtml
Circumcision is major surgery with inherent risks, including death. Recently in Queensland a baby boy died as a result of circumcision complications. Rosemary Romberg notes 28 known risks associated with circumcision in Circumcision: The painful dilemma. Among these complications are haemorrhage, ulcerated urethral opening, retention of the Plastibell ring, urethral punctures and full or partial amputation of the penis. Wallerstein claims there could be up to 225 deaths per year in the United States from circumcision complications. Circumcision records in hospitals are very often incomplete or non-existent. I've often wondered how many babies are listed as dying from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome when the real cause of death is circumcision.
--------------------------------
This was an interesting text:
Isn't losing a foreskin pretty trivial compared to what they do to girls in Africa?
Genital mutilation is not an issue of severity, it’s one of sovereignty. If eradication of FGM were based solely on the notion that it harms health, one would expect women’s leaders to support a reduced form of cutting, comparable to male foreskin amputation, under hygienic and anesthetized medical conditions. That they are virtually unanimous in their opposition to even a "nicking" of the female foreskin indicates that the issue goes beyond severity and is one of sovereignty. Genital cutting of healthy unconsenting individuals fundamentally violates individual autonomy. In both forms of circumcision, adults usurp the child's right of choice before the child has any knowledge or ability to exercise sovereignty over her/his reproductive organs.
Those who dismiss the importance of the prepuce (foreskin) are unaware that male and female genitals evolve from the same embryologic tissue and share more anatomical similarities than differences. The prepuce is the most densely nerve-laden part of the penis with specialized anatomical structure and functions that serve a male throughout his life. The prepuce, while small in a baby, accounts for about 50% of an adult male’s penile skin, approximately 15 square inches of erogenous tissue.
Although male genital cutting often excists in areas without female genital cutting, we know that wherever female genitals are cut, male children are also genitally cut. It’s perverse to excuse one cruelty by invoking a worse one. The genitals of both sexes should be left intact without encouraging a "dreadfulness competition" between assaults on little girls or boys.
--------------------------------
Also another thing I´d like to add is that those women opposing FGM are often those compairing FGM and MGM. Some quotes:
Shamis Dirir (Coordinator, London Black Women’s Health Action Project, interviewed in NOHARMM Health & Human Rights Advocate/July, 1997 - full interview)
"…(B)oth male and female circumcisions raise the same human rights questions. Our mutual fight is against ignorance. People like us, those who have the pain, are the best fighters, because we know the pain of circumcision. What happened to you, you can’t change it, but you can help to stop it from happening to other children."
Fran Hosken (Founder, Women’s International Network, quoted in Circumcision: Medical or Human Rights Issue? in Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 37 (March/April 1992) pp. 87S-96S:
"Human rights are indivisible, they apply to every society and culture and every continent. We cannot differentiate between black and white, rich and poor, or between male and female, if the concept of human rights is to mean anything at all."
Hanny Lightfoot-Klein (Author, Prisoners of Ritual: An Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa) on p.193 of her book:
"The reasons given for female circumcision in Africa and for routine male circumcision in the U.S. are essentially the same. Both falsely tout the positive health benefits of the procedures. Both promise cleanliness and the absence of "bad" genital odors, as well as greater attractiveness and acceptability of the sex organs. The affected individuals in both cultures have come to view these procedures as something that was done for them and not to them."
[She has also stated to NOHARMM that "Childhood genital mutilations are anachronistic rituals inflicted on the helpless bodies of non-consenting children of both sexes."]
Soraya Mire (Somali filmmaker, Fire Eyes) in her endorsement of the video Whose Body, Whose Rights?
"The painful cries of little boys being circumcised remind me of my own painful experience of female genital mutilation. It is the norm in my culture to mutilate girls, as it is in the U.S. for boys. It really terrifies me to know this. Hopefully this film will educate Americans about the harmful effects of male genital mutilation."
Gloria Steinem (Introductory remarks to panel discussion of FGM, part of the "About Women" series held by the 92nd Street Young Women & Men’s Hebrew Association, New York City, 6 October 1997)
"I would like to remind us that we all share patriarchy, which is the pillar of almost every current political system, capitalist or socialist. And it has a rock bottom requirement, the control of women’s bodies as the most basic means of production, the means of reproduction. This control is used to determine how many workers a family, group or nation has and who owns children… These patriarchal controls limit men’s sexuality too, but to a much, much lesser degree. That’s why men are asked symbolically to submit the sexual part of themselves and their sons to patriarchal authority, which seems to be the origin of male circumcision, a practice that, even as advocates admit, is medically unnecessary 90% of the time. Speaking for myself, I stand with many brothers in eliminating that practice too."
"...Yes, there is a difference in degree that we experience in our different patriarchal cultures, and also in suffering, but not in the kind of social control and not in its purpose."
"...There is even a similar religious justification for this control in all of our countries."
"...Let us together see what we can do to preserve the wholeness of our bodies, and our minds, and our emotions."
Nahid Toubia, M.D. (Sudanese physician, in FGM and Responsibility of Reproductive Health Professionals - Int’l Journal Gynecology & Obstetrics, 46 (1994) pp. 127-135:
"The unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause should never be acceptable to the health profession. All childhood circumcisions are violations of human rights and a breach of the fundamental code of medical ethics. It is the moral duty of educated professionals to protect the health and rights of those with little or no social power to protect themselves." Additional Toubia excerpts relevant to male genital mutilation.
Alice Walker (Author, Possessing the Secret of Joy, and filmmaker, Warrior Marks) on "Talk of the Nation" National Public Radio, 11/9/93:
"I think it (male circumcision) is a mutilation. In working with FGM we often find that the battle is such an uphill one that we hope that the men who are working on this issue of male circumcision will carry that." And latter in the interview: "In all of it we have to try to think about what is being done from the point of view of the person to whom it is happening, namely the children."
I also found this comparrision (on mindsets) on a site against FGM: http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
--------------------------------
In short both kinds of circumcism is wrong, painful and should be forbidden.
Again sth to read....I will post more next time probably not about circumcism (depends on the anwers).
Arrivederci!
Feck
Feck,
"In short both kinds of circumcism is wrong, painful and should be forbidden"
Agreed. But...
Genital mutilation (male of female) can stand on it's own without using it as evidence that feminists don't care (which you've demonstrated is not the case) or that the World Health Organization is anti-male or promotes the oppression of men. I think most feminists would agree that mutilation (male and female) has roots in the patriarchy.
But if I recall, YOU were the 1st person months ago to make the comparisons about circumcision as a means to make a point. I understood BillyBobSue's comment to refer to that. Do you remember when you were saying that feminism has gone too far and that we need humanism?
This is what I mean by making superficial comparisons. Because in reality you and I are on the same page with regard to this issue. You can go back and re-read what I have said on the issue if you have any doubt.
You did bring up a really interesting point. And that is that the WHO does not consider male cutting a human rights violation.
So with all of your resources, why do you think this is the case?
Is it because feminist don't care about enough about the issue? Do you have any information to back that up? Can you think of any other reason? You mentioned that America seems less "radical" than Europe, yet we are one of the countries that still widely practice the procedure on boys.
I've alluded to what I think the issues might be in earlier posts. One is the effect on infant mortality. I have also noted that Muslims are the single largest group to practice it on boys. I'm guessing that by declaring the procedure a human rights violation across the board it would be seen as an attack on Islam. I don't know though. This is just a guess.
What do you think?
Ciao,
Spikey
Spikey
Genital mutilation (male of female) can stand on it's own without using it as evidence that feminists don't care (which you've demonstrated is not the case) or that the World Health Organization is anti-male or promotes the oppression of men.
- A lot of people don´t care. Men and women alike. Most of the time it is because people are not aware. I listed one prominent feminist in the quotes and I don´t really think she stands for all feminists and to be honest I have never seen that male circumcission was much talked about among feminists. Or am I wrong here? Now a studie has found out that female circumcism as well reduces the risk of transmitting HIV, which brings us back to the WHO. You can´t deny that this organisation has an anti-male stance when it comes to genital multilation. Or do you?
- I think most feminists would agree that mutilation (male and female) has roots in the patriarchy.
Of course they do. I see this a lot feminist blame the patriarchy, mras blame feminism. Fact is especially in Africa FGM has it roots in old matriarchies. Also note that FGM is a crime done by mothers and grandmothers. There is not much patriarchy in FGM
But if I recall, YOU were the 1st person months ago to make the comparisons about circumcision as a means to make a point. I understood BillyBobSue's comment to refer to that. Do you remember when you were saying that feminism has gone too far and that we need humanism?
- Now I feel slightly cited wrong. I said if we have feminism we should have the other view as well (the mens right the original article was about). As feminism states they are for everyone I asked why it isn´t called humanism then. Then I brought up points I feel men need a hand up, someone to support their rights as an answer to a feminist saying men don´t need a hand up. I guess we both agree after arguing for a month that there are a lot of mens issues to be taken care of. We will probably agree as well that those issues are issues that feminist don´t do much against compared to issues females have.
This is what I mean by making superficial comparisons. Because in reality you and I are on the same page with regard to this issue. You can go back and re-read what I have said on the issue if you have any doubt.
- We are on the same side when it comes to these issues without a doubt. But if you look at the beginning of this discussion what do you think about feminists saying men don´t need a hand up? Now to comparisons, maybe a slight misunderstanding. You can compare female with male genital multilation (heck even a circumcised female filmmaker from Somalia says that circumcism in the USA is horrible and compares herself with male victims) but you are right that females have additional problems with giving birth plus have more horrible forms of multilation done to them (although the Aboriginal practice of cutting the uretha is really sickening). Now keep one important similarity in mind, females in Africa are pro FGM and argue the same way pro circumcisers argue in the USA. If you don´t see the similarities and say there is no bias in the western world, I can just shake my head in disbelief. You are not that blind or are you?
You did bring up a really interesting point. And that is that the WHO does not consider male cutting a human rights violation. So with all of your resources, why do you think this is the case? Is it because feminist don't care about enough about the issue? Do you have any information to back that up? Can you think of any other reason?
- Mindsets. It are stupid bloody mindsets, normally men are having. This all boils down imho to the point that we want to protect women and think that men don´t need a lobby. Suck it up like a man this is only a little cut. This mindset is so prevalent I wonder if this is hardwired (protective instict). Another point is obviously the strong lobby females are having compared with the not really strong lobby males are having and of course us believing that females can only be victims while males are mostly perpetrators. We can see this mindset in funny laws arround the world. In England it is an offence to be naked in public if you are male while females can´t via law not comit this crime. I guess a naked male is seen as offending while a naked women is seen as beautiful. Imho a weird mexican law takes the cake. A husband in Mexico is not allowed to refuse sex if his wife wants him to. This is not a joke. It can be punished by up to 5 years in prison. Now what is going on there?
You mentioned that America seems less "radical" than Europe, yet we are one of the countries that still widely practice the procedure on boys.
- Sorry I don´t remember that one. When it comes to circumcisions Europeans are definately not radical.
I've alluded to what I think the issues might be in earlier posts. One is the effect on infant mortality. I have also noted that Muslims are the single largest group to practice it on boys. I'm guessing that by declaring the procedure a human rights violation across the board it would be seen as an attack on Islam. I don't know though. This is just a guess.
- Good points. This might be one of the reasons as well, that both don´t apply to the situation in the USA where most of the circumcision are not because of religions. And there are really no reasons to harm baby boys in the USA anymore.
mfg
Feck
Feck,
A couple of clarifications:
I understood that you meant that the feminism in Germany was more "radical" than in America. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Ok so basically we pretty much agree. Your point is well taken about many feminists not being as outspoken on some men's issues and the antagonism that exists. We should talk about that because it's complex though.
And I do see the similarities with both types of circ, but I have a problem in how it's usually presented. But I think we were able to get passed that here.
I just have 1 more question about this statement:
KF:"Fact is especially in Africa FGM has it roots in old matriarchies. Also note that FGM is a crime done by mothers and grandmothers. There is not much patriarchy in FGM"
Do you have sources to cite this? Here is what I know. Allow me to put on my evolutionary psychology hat for just a moment.
First of all there is considerable debate as to what a matriarchy is.
Secondly most resources I've seen trace FGM roots back to Pharaonic Egypt (not exactly a matriarchal but women probably had more rights then than they do today in that part of the world).
Thirdly, my understanding is that in many cultures mothers and grandmothers continue the tradition because without the procedure girls are un-marriageable. Often the only option for uncut girls is prostitution.
So what definition of matriarchy are we using here? I mean women in Asia abort female fetuses by choice. And it is often the grandmothers and female in-laws encouraging the practice; but this doesn't mean that it is a choice rooted in matriarchy.
A big clue is that most communities FMG is linked to marriage, which in many cultures is akin to ownership. Presumably in a matriarchy there is no ownership, symbolic or otherwise, of husbands over wives. Here is what awaits the bride on her wedding night for example:
"At marriage, the infibulation must be torn, stretched or cut open by the bridegroom, and then prevented from healing shut. This agonizingly painful procedure may take weeks or even months to complete."
When I use patriarchy here I don't use it lightly. The whole point of cutting and sewing up a woman would be to ensure that she remains a virgin before marriage. The only reason for that is so that the husband has sole reproductive access to the wife. And the only way that makes sense is that it gives the husband a better likelihood that he is the true genetic father of the offspring, especially the 1st born child. Note how 1st born sons have held a privileged position in many patriarchies. That is because property was often passed from the father to the 1st born son.
Now contrast all of this with the several cultural systems that are considered matrilineal. In these societies children, regardless of who the father is, stay with the mother and the uncle (the mother's brother) acts as a father figure. Both men and women are allowed considerable sexual freedom.
These cultures tend to have very low fertility rates, so you can imagine why they didn't spread. In fact the theory is that this type of community is an adaptation to high maternal mortality (such as in the Himalayas due to low oxygen) or severe environmental stress, in which having too many babies was simply not supported by the environment.
One the other hand, hallmarks of a patriarchy are high birth rates and polygyny, as is the case in many of the areas in Africa that perform FGM. So I'm quite skeptical that FGM is rooted in "matriarchy", from an evolutionary psychology and matrilineal perspective.
peace out,
spikey
Spikey,
I understood that you meant that the feminism in Germany was more "radical" than in America. Sorry if I misunderstood.
- I feel we have more radical feminists here. Especially the number one feminist Alice Schwarzer said some pretty radical things. Among them is a campaign to completely ban porn, attacking female masochists (they are collaborating with the enemy), explaining the need to make school harder for boys and fighting to give women lower sentences for infanticide. Oh one of her statements was that most men are wifebeaters.
And I do see the similarities with both types of circ, but I have a problem in how it's usually presented. But I think we were able to get passed that here.
- What are you problems with the presentation?
I just have 1 more question about this statement: Do you have sources to cite this?
- I have two German sources:
1) The political arm of the mens right movement in Germany has a factsheet of genital multilation:
http://www.manndat.de/index.php?id=55
"So wie die weibliche Variante der Genitalverstümmelung (Entfernung von Schamlippen und teilweise auch der Klitoris) von den weiblichen Mitgliedern der Gesellschaft - gerade in matriarchalisch geprägten Kulturen - aus Gründen der Traditionsbewahrung aufrechterhalten und auch ausgeführt wird, so nehmen Männer die Beschneidung der Vorhaut bei den Jungen vor. Oft benutzen sie dabei primitive Werkzeuge wie Scherben, Messer oder Rasierklingen, die naturgemäß ein beträchtliches Infektionsrisiko beinhalten."
Feel free to translate via google translation. It says especially in cultures that have matriarchal roots FGM is done to keep traditions alive.
The second article is written by Germanys most favorite mens activist Arne Hoffmann:
http://www.maennerrat.de/beschneidung.htm
"Gerade in den alten, mächtigen Matriarchaten wurde die Operation von Frauen an Frauen ausgeführt und ist heute noch gerade bei Mutterrechtsvölkern typisch."
Especially in the old powerful matriarchys this operation was done on women by women and is typical today in (hard to translate) societies lead by women.
Arne Hoffmann and Manndat are both known to be reliable sources.
Thirdly, my understanding is that in many cultures mothers and grandmothers continue the tradition because without the procedure girls are un-marriageable. Often the only option for uncut girls is prostitution.
- Don´t forget that in those societys uncut boys have similar problems. This is btw an argument for circumcism in the USA as well (females prefering circumcised men)
So what definition of matriarchy are we using here? I mean women in Asia abort female fetuses by choice. And it is often the grandmothers and female in-laws encouraging the practice; but this doesn't mean that it is a choice rooted in matriarchy.
- We all play our part in society. I hope we will as humans sometime in the future be able to abandon those gruesome and idiotic traditions.
In these societies children, regardless of who the father is, stay with the mother and the uncle (the mother's brother) acts as a father figure. Both men and women are allowed considerable sexual freedom.
- A society where the father is even less worth than in the western world today...interesting. Are there people still living that way?
Feck out....
cu
Hello again,
A short addition on Arne Hoffmanns article:
- He cited the book "Gyn/Ecology" by Feminist Mary Daly
- He wrote more about this, in his book "Are women better humans?" (this book contains 554 scientific sources)
- He recieved a price for his work on gender equality
According to my information Mr Hoffmann is a reliable source who does a lot of researching before he writes an article.
Now note that FGM wasn´t based on one culture. It was common in islamic countrys as well (or not?). Those are a patriarchic society.
mfg
Feck
"What are you problems with the presentation?"
Don't worry about it. I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. We're cool here.
"A society where the father is even less worth than in the western world today...interesting. Are there people still living that way?"
A little Eurocentric are we? It is not universal that genetic paternity determines fatherhood. Some recent evidence points to the invention of agriculture marking the big shift to genetic paternity. Even today there are some hunter tribes left where groups of men act as communal father figures while genetic paternity isn't as valued.
There is no evidence that these different family structures come from a devaluation of fathers, actually to the contrary.
Let's back track to the other cultures I mentioned. From a genetic perspective, the choice of helping to raise your sister's child (with whom you share genes) is better than not being able to raise or have a child at all (as I said, some of these communities had fewer women than men due to high maternal mortality).
Furthermore in some communities women marry brothers. Again the idea is that raising your kid along with a niece/nephew is better than not getting the chance to have a kid at all.
There are a few pockets of these people left, in remote China (ethnic minorities) and other parts of Asia, maybe in Africa and South America. Some Native North Americans also had similar traditions.
You can imagine how these communities could be easily assimilated when compared with the alternative family structures where genetic paternity is extremely important.
*************************************************
If you consider that marriage is a social contract for raising kids, you can see why I find it highly controversial that FGM is rooted in matriarchy.
I'll try to find the book you mentioned though (there is a lot of information in German; but I only read Italian and Spanish and English). Most of my information can be found in introductory behavioral biology/ evolutionary psychology text books. Red Queen by Matt Ridley is pretty good also.
As far as the WHO. I haven't seen the new data regarding HIV and FGM, but I do know that the data for males has been challenged and is considered controversial and flawed.
Remember. One of the consequences of FGM is infant mortality. I can't really imagine that the HIV benefit would be so large as to outweigh the risk of infant mortality, especially when there are safer ways to prevent HIV transmission such as condom use and promoting monogamous relationships.
Hey Feck,
I looked up Hoffmann on Amazon.com, all the books were in German with very provocative book covers, I might add! I saw Daly's book too. Now you got me curious about her. I actually haven't read any feminist authors. GASP! I know!
My interest in feminism actually started when my husband got me interested in behavioral psychology and human reproduction. I started seeing parallels with culture, gender and the environment. Of course there are flaws, racist and cultural bias, etc, like with everything; but some of the stuff as it relates to parenting, gender roles, etc is pretty compelling. Anyway, just so you understand where I'm coming from.
buona notte
spikey
Hi Spikey,
> A little Eurocentric are we?
- Guilty. But to be fair, being against genital multilation is Eurocentric as well.
> As far as the WHO. I haven't seen the new data regarding HIV and FGM, but I do know that the data for males has been challenged and is considered controversial and flawed.
- You are right, they are controversial as both males and females have a higher risk of receiving HIV through getting cut (often one knife is used for a lot of boys/girls) If you are interested in that study read this:
“A Tanzanian study had found that female circumcision reduced HIV transmission. Biologically, the explanation for this was probably the same as for male circumcision. … “If female circumcision was medicalised in a similar way to male circumcision, it could be made safer and less damaging.”
They said: "The downplaying of these facts in the media is a powerful reflection of Western cultural attitudes.
"We have already decided that female circumcision is an appalling human rights violation and so do not even flirt with the idea of using it as an HIV prevention tool.
"Similar arguments apply to mastectomy in teenage girls, even though this would be effective to prevent breast cancer in later life.
"The difference with male circumcision is that it is still tolerated in Western and other parts of the world, rendering it politically acceptable."
This tended to lower ethical barriers to recommending male circumcision as an HIV/Aids prevention measure.
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2115519,00.html
http://www.nocirc-sa.co.za/documents/Myers_Alex_South_African_medical_Journal_Circumcision_andHIV_Article.pdf
- I forgot to mention one thing about Hoffmann. He is a writer of erotic literature especially about BDSM as well. I am always reminded when I try to search for his out of sale book I mentioned earlier on ebay and just find tons of erotic material making my eyes drop out.
- One thing I like to add as well. I have the feeling you try to gently push my motives behind this discussion to a point where men in the western world are opressed / feminism is the reason for this (has gone to far). I never said this. My point in this discussion is, that women in the western world are not oppressed and that a mens movement is needed to resolve problems men are having, the same way a womens movement is handling female problems. Actually I am tired of playing the blame game but let me use a lame anology from my job as a programmer
We have a customer who is willing to pay lots of money for a function that lets him find out who changed what, because once or twice a year someone accidently deletes an entry and nobody admits doing so. So the reason to spend massive funding was simply to say "Look it says here you deleted it Karl. Be more careful next time"
Same is true for playing the blame game instead of wasting energy on finding the one at fault we should concentrate on informing men and women and improving society.
- Can I ask you a personal question? Are you living with your husband in Italy? Or are your returning to the USA soon? Would you call your husband a feminist? (lol I asked anyway...tsk)
Greets
Feck
Morgen, Feck,
(I'm up late)
"One thing I like to add as well. I have the feeling you try to gently push my motives behind this discussion to a point where men in the western world are opressed / feminism is the reason for this (has gone to far). I never said this."
I might be guilty! I think I was wrong to make that assumption. But in my defense I may have gotten that idea from some of your earlier links!? Das tut mir leid :)
I agree that Men need a movement. I'm trying to listen. But you are right, the blame game is tiring.
"Can I ask you a personal question? Are you living with your husband in Italy?"
Yes. He is Italian, born and raised.
"Or are your returning to the USA soon?" Well, we sort of lead a double life due to our job situation. So we spend time in both countries but our primary residence is Italy...for now.
"Would you call your husband a feminist?" He's definitely a feminist ally/supporter/sympathizer. The only subject in which we politely disagree is the military (specifically direct combat). I know very little about military strategy, history, psychology, etc, and it's one of his favorite subjects. So for now, I keep that subject off limits :)
On a side note, you might be wondering how I find it here...
Italy is both comforting but also kind of disturbing. There is still a very strong traditional and Catholic influence yet it's still quite liberal compared to the USA. The gender dynamic here is different from what I'm used to in many ways.
My appearance and my horrible sense of style easily gives me away as being a foreigner, but I can say that Italians in some ways are less racist (at least toward me) than my fellow Americans...but it's complex...
bist Du in den USA gewesen?
Wie Du werden interessiert an den Rechten der Männer?
Das ist alles für jetz
tschüs!
(Ok I know the german is horrible..it's a mess I know. Italian is much easier!)
Hi Spikey,
> Italy is both comforting but also kind of disturbing. There is still a very strong traditional and Catholic influence yet it's still quite liberal compared to the USA. The gender dynamic here is different from what I'm used to in many ways.
-I´ve been to Italy (when I was about 3 years old). So what my opinion about Italy shaped can only described as being stereotypes. Could you give examples on how it is more liberal/disturbing than the USA? I would say the people in Italy are a bit more easy going, but with a lot of temperament. When I try to imagine an Italian woman, I must think of a female in a red dress with long black hair slapping her boyfriend. I don´t know where that mental image came from.
> My appearance and my horrible sense of style easily gives me away as being a foreigner, but I can say that Italians in some ways are less racist (at least toward me) than my fellow Americans...but it's complex...
- I think Italians are very friendly, open minded people (unlike Germans we have a really grumpy nature, sometimes, well it is at least our stereotype).
> bist Du in den USA gewesen?
Wie Du werden interessiert an den Rechten der Männer?
- Sadly not. I have only been on this continent and I leave Germany rarely. Traveling will be harder at the moment because of my little daughter (3 months old) and my small car and there is always the money problem. I´d like to visit the USA though. Sadly I would need to convince my wife first.
Well I am not long into the movement but from my daily live in Germany I noticed unfairness towards males in our society. For example men had to work longer than women before going to pension. Or military: A German man at the age of 18 is forced to join the army for 9 months or to do social work for a year. A German woman on the other hand has the right to join the army or the right to do a social year. This always bothered me. I am influenced by my family as well. Especially my mother really dislikes feminists because she was attacked by them at a time she wanted to be a SAHM. None of my close female relatives feel oppressed, but they are seeing that men seem to get the short end of the stick in divorce court (my sister in law has to pay for her husbands kids as well which he isn´t even allowed to see). And there is always mainstream media portraying men as idiots, or making fun of violence against men (I can´t stand seeing kicks in the genitals. This is not funny and hurts like hell). I somehow found the wikipedia page on mens right and found them to be very interesting and got involved with some american boards. When I have more time I will probably start some real political activism (keyboard warrior at the moment ;-)) and write a few letters to German politicans. Manndat.de has done some impressive work in Germany, for example they achieved that men get a medical cancer checkup at the same age women got (men had to wait 5 years longer). Probably join them someday.
> (Ok I know the german is horrible..it's a mess I know. Italian is much easier!)
- It wasn´t that horrible. It is just a hard to speak / write language (even to me). I wonder how my English is understood (I will never understood when to use "then" or "than". I use them more or less randomly).
Greets
Feck
Hi,
"Could you give examples on how it is more liberal/disturbing than the USA?"
Well, Italy has some of the more stringent laws in Europe regarding reproductive rights. For example, most countries women can get the RU486 (abortion pill) but in Italy it's essentially unavailable.
Italy also has some of the most restrictive assisted fertility (in-vitro fertilization) laws. The result is that compared with other countries, Italian women have lower chances of conception and higher risk of complications (some of which can be quite serious). Some of these laws clearly put the health of the woman secondary to the embryo. The result is that many rich Italian couples go to Switzerland or Spain (yes, Spain has a better program!) for assisted fertility.
I've also heard some anecdotal stories about how women are treated with regards to childbirth here. It sounds a bit backwards, I'm afraid--for example anesthesia doesn't seem to be considered a medical necessity but more like an "extra". I've been told that part of this is rooted in "religious ideology"...I've heard horror stories about women being steered away from having an abortion--one story about a woman carrying a baby that was severely deformed (lacking part of the brain). These people would rather see the woman suffer through the trauma of delivering a dead baby than to allow her a medical procedure that would be safer and less traumatic. In Italy so many hospitals have a Catholic affiliation so you have to be very careful about this, or at least I've been told by several of my Italian friends.
I'm sure that you are aware that Italy has one of the lowest birthrates. Those who study populations and culture, put Italy in a similar category with Japan--in the sense that both countries have a modern economy but a traditional society, where women are still expected to take care of the home.
For example, in surveys Italian men rank pretty low for sharing domestic (in the home) labor---such as house work and childcare. Yet like most industrialized countries many Italian women also work outside the house as necessity. And compared to other European countries, Italy doesn't have the generous childcare support that other countries provide.
Also I think I read that new parents are among the oldest in Europe (meaning a higher portion of new moms and dads that are in their late 30's or even early 40's).
Where the United States gets credit is for maintaining a flexible job market where women can take time off and return after having a baby, or have flexible job hours, such as working on weekends or nights (for some professions), or working from home (of course many claim that this flexibility is unfair to men or childless people). The Italian labor market seems pretty rigid in contrast. A lot of my female friends who are younger than me don't even have job security so they are more likely to feel like they need to postpone starting a family.
Areas in which Italy seems more liberal:
Pre-marital sex, co-habitation or couples not getting married at all seem to be pretty excepted. The US, these things are still a bit taboo--even though everybody is doing it! We are weird like that.
Sex and nudity don't seem to be as big of issue here in Italy as in the US. For example it's common to see semi-nude women and men (ala Dolce and Gabbana) in public advertisements around the city. And at least kids get some kind of comprehensice sex-ed in the schools---whereas in the US we are constantly battling about this (along with teaching creationism in the public school system).
Being a "mixed couple" is easier in Italy. In the US my husband and I get a lot of stares and weird reactions. Italy seems pretty tolerant in this respect. Although we do notice that other European tourists seem to stare at us for example when we go to touristic places...maybe people are simply curious. In the US it seems more like shock or disgust.
Anyway, that's all for now.
Your English is great! Really, it's better than a lot of native speakers!
I am interested to see how the Men's movement evolves over the next decades and if the two movements can find some common ground.
Ciao,
spikey
Hi Spikey,
thanks for the information on Italy (and the USA). It is kind of weird. I know the church has a lot of influences in Italy (abortion) but I always thought that especially sex before marriage or couples not marrying was shunned as well. The nudity part is sth that I expected, too. At least it is the cliche here that Americans are a bit prude when it comes to this. There is still no sex-ed in the US? So usually parents tell their kids about sex?
I would say the reaction on a mixed couple depends on where people are comming from. I come from a little city and here we rarely see non-white people, so people are maybe just curios. On the other hand, especially in eastern Germany there is a lot of racism as well. So it is hard to say.
I can´t imagine the mens movement working together with feminism. Maybe a new movement will evolve a new "humanism" if you will. A lot of MRAs see feminists as "the enemy". Now I am usually not the one pointing fingers (as I said before I am tired of the blame game) but I must admit, every famous feminist I heard of said some pretty harsh things about men and sometimes I have the feeling that for every feminist I can have a good talk with there are at least two "radicals" / still living in the seventies.
Greets
Feck
Hi,
Me again. Sorry... I've been away in Copenhagen (went to the Keane concert) and then I was gripped by the election! I still can't believe it!
Anyway, I'm going to try to wean myself off these blogs for a while. Good luck to you in Germany and everything.
Ciao
Spikey