Gender and violence issues

[Cavernio]

Female genital mutilation involves completely cutting off her clitoris (because god forbid she gets pleasure) or some crazy crap like sewing her shut except to have sex with her.
Male genital mutilation, AFAIK, involves getting rid of foreskin.

Keep in mind that the only reason there IS a push towards feminine issues is because feminism is being successful.
Also, yes, you should be able to EASILY say that women have a harder time in society if you just don't look at the past 10 years in your specific area. All throughout history, women have been the primary caregivers for children which, even if not outright treated as second-class citizens, (which is just not the case) end up not having the opportunities to do things besides raise kids and look after the home.
In most of the world women are still treated far worse than men.

Sympathy is a good thing that comes from a good place, and I usually don't perceive that I'm being coddled like a 5 year old because someone is nice to me because I'm a woman. (Of course I'm also lucky enough to live in a place where I am not treated like a second class citizen.) I perceive that men, when not given the same consideration as I might be, are getting treated poorly.

[Zaevod]

I'm not going to make another lengthy post about the whole oppression thing (you can watch that last video I posted if you want and read the few posts above), it's not meant to be a competition of suffering. Still, it's good to remember that things are not as simple as the mainstream believes.

But, anyway, just a few details:

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Female genital mutilation involves completely cutting off her clitoris (because god forbid she gets pleasure) or some crazy crap like sewing her shut except to have sex with her.
Male genital mutilation, AFAIK, involves getting rid of foreskin.

Then you should know better. Some babies actually die because of complications from the surgery. It's often done with no anesthetics and is an extremely painful procedure that rids the area of a big portion of its sensitivity.

I never said it's "worse", since that's irrelevant, but it sure as hell shouldn't be considered as acceptable as it is today. It's mutilation on someone's body without consent. Period. If there really is a medical requirement for it, then fine, but it's completely unnecessary in the majority of cases.

There's a lot of material on it, but here's a quick video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXbl83m0tQ0

Sure, it helps to prevent some diseases. Like taking out your lungs prevents lung cancer.

Edit: Better video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc70D2ApFg
And part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPxjhLq3eUQ

The prison rape discussion fails to point out the obvious that it clearly shows that it's men who were doing the raping of other men.

And that somehow makes it... Acceptable?

You missed the point that rape is not a gendered issue that specifically targets women, as a lot of influential feminists seem to believe.

[j-rodd123]

I for one am very happy my parents got my nasty ass foreskin cut off so I wouldn't have to look at a gross ass dick everyday so speak for yourself

[Zaevod]

Originally Posted by j-rodd123

I for one am very happy my parents got my nasty ass foreskin cut off so I wouldn't have to look at a gross ass dick everyday so speak for yourself

It's not gross if you have basic notions of hygiene. Also, if you don't mind the reduced sensitivity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102), I guess that's up to you, as long as you don't condone genital mutilation on others.

Edit: Interesting link: http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/...-masturbation/

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by j-rodd123

I for one am very happy my parents got my nasty ass foreskin cut off so I wouldn't have to look at a gross ass dick everyday so speak for yourself

ok if you mean gross as in the hygiene kind of cleanliness then I would question your cleaning habits because you [somehow] don't understand what makes a dick unclean

if you mean gross as in aesthetically it looks unappealing, then I would call this a problem with society's influence. the same way we criticize models for being too skinny and making girls feel self-conscious by creating unrealistic standards of beauty, society should also try to avoid making guys feel self-conscious about their dick, whether it's being cut or not, a size issue, endurance, etc. there also isn't that much of a difference when the penis is erect, as the foreskin pulls back anyways

unfortunately, we cannot realistically control whether our dick is circumcised or not (cutting is a scary thought and "uncutting" isn't exactly straightforward either), and there is no significant positive reason for circumcision (people may disagree here), so it shouldn't be something that is encouraged

[devonin]

It's still definitely the case that comparing circumcision to the kind of female genital mutilation which is still practised in some parts of the world is absolutely asinine in about the same way as comparing putting handcuffs on a thief when they are arrested versus chopping off the hand of a thief under Shari-ah law would be.

[MracY]

Do you think there can exist a case in which you would not consider it asinine to remove part of a human's genitalia for ideological reasons, if it were done in a surgically precise manner?
If yes/no, why?
As an exercise, try not to use axiomatic values without explaining why they may be used.

(This is just a teacher-esque question to provoke discussion)

[Zaevod]

Originally Posted by devonin

It's still definitely the case that comparing circumcision to the kind of female genital mutilation which is still practised in some parts of the world is absolutely asinine in about the same way as comparing putting handcuffs on a thief when they are arrested versus chopping off the hand of a thief under Shari-ah law would be.

You completely failed to get the point. Did you watch any of the videos I posted on the subject?

Try to think of it this way: What level of female genital cutting (as minimal as it can be) without the girl's consent would be considered acceptable in our society?

Also, your analogy is atrocious. You are completely ignoring the damage done by circumcision.

[choof]

Why should we have to watch videos in order to understand your point?

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by MracY

Do you think there can exist a case in which you would not consider it asinine to remove part of a human's genitalia for ideological reasons, if it were done in a surgically precise manner?
If yes/no, why?
As an exercise, try not to use axiomatic values without explaining why they may be used.

How are we supposed to answer this question? You say that we have to explain without axiomatic values, but what humans consider to be stupid is relative. I think it's stupid to believe a certain kind of god, but clearly there exist many people who disagree, and while I may even possibly claim that my opinion is more logical and practical, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I think the best answer you can really say is as long as you're not forcing something significantly harmful on someone. If someone who is qualified to make that kind of decision on their own and chooses to do themselves harm, so be it. While there aren't any real benefits to circumcision, it technically does not strongly impact the general health of an individual, so it's not totally unjustified under simply ideological reasons.

And that's exactly why it's not the same as the female genital cutting. Relatively speaking, there is far more damage done from the cutting of the female genitalia than the male.

[Snowcrafta]

Women are abusive in the emotional sense far more often than men ever are physically abusive. They get away with it because no actual physical harm is done, but they can easily lead to psychotic episodes due to how they manipulate their psyche.

2 cents

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

I think the best answer you can really say is as long as you're not forcing something significantly harmful on someone. If someone who is qualified to make that kind of decision on their own and chooses to do themselves harm, so be it.

Of course, circumcising a kid IS forcing something on an infant that is painful, traumatic, totally unnecessary, slight chance of serious complications, etc.
It's also not unheard of for mothers to get their female infant's ears pierced, although I suspect that that's probably quite a bit less painful than getting circumcised. Yet you don't get many people finding that abhorrent. Given that comparison, circumcision becomes a cultural problem that, because of what it is, only affects men. So to then say something like the idea that we think circumcision is OK because it happens to men and it's not OK for a woman because she's a woman, and that's the reason we aren't up in arms about circumcision, is just wrong.

I mean, the feeling that I'm getting from what zaevod is saying about inequalities and poor treatment of men, is partially why I'm uncomfortable with calling myself a feminist too. Like, sexism does happen when people erroneously think of men or women as having quality x and they shouldn't have quality y, and I'm totally against that. But when someone then takes something that's ultimately not an issue with the sex of someone per se, but seems to affect more women than men, I guess that's when I have a hard time calling myself a feminist. Because I don't view it as a gendered issue necessarily? And I have that same sort of 'this isn't a gender issue ultimately' with some things that zaevod is saying.

I dunno, maybe that's wrong. Maybe it's just that I know I just disagree with some feminist views and don't like labels in general and I don't want people to think one way of me if I identify as a feminist because I feel there's often, sadly, a negative connotation to the word.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

While there aren't any real benefits to circumcision, it technically does not strongly impact the general health of an individual, so it's not totally unjustified under simply ideological reasons.
And that's exactly why it's not the same as the female genital cutting. Relatively speaking, there is far more damage done from the cutting of the female genitalia than the male.

This is in part why female genital mutilation gets the attention as such a horrible thing. I'm sure there are lots of men reading this right now who are circumcised who don't feel violated or negatively affected in any way from being circumcised. Also, if it happens when the person is say, 5 or 10, and they are knowingly, forceably getting their genitals cut, it's going to be a traumatic memory that follows the person around. Even if the trauma of being hurt much as an infant affects the development of that baby permanently in a negative way, it's still unknown to the individual after the experience is over, so is it actually traumatic then?


I did not miss the point where women are often called victims re: the fact that men get raped in prison. I just don't see that women being called out as being the victims of rape and focussing on that, as taking away from this other, separate issue of 'rape in prisons'.
I mean, ultimately, the issue is 'rape of people in a position of subjugation' which, sadly, especially in non European and north American countries, means it's generally rape of women, since women are subjugated and are physically smaller, etc. (How many large, burly men get raped in prison compared to smaller men? And there are questions like, if rapists who rape men in prison had access to women as well, I sincerely doubt the stats would stay the same.)
And I've certainly seen in tv crime shows (regular Law and Order notably, the awesome show that it is), sadly portray a man who they arrested in error of a child molestation crime, only to find that they got killed in prison before learning of his innocence. It was a great show because it showed not only the horror that is our penitentiary system, but also created pathos for a man not treated justly. And pertinently for this discussion, it goes to show that such injustices I think are known to the population at large. Doesn't mean we can't try and do more about them though.

The video posted in the OP did a decent (most of the time) job with keeping the 'feminists are a/the problem' at bay, because they're not the problem. Sexism towards males is a societal problem and if anything, feminism and the push towards gender/sex equality has just paved the way for us to actually perceive that men too are treated poorly and unfairly, largely in different ways.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta

Women are abusive in the emotional sense far more often than men ever are physically abusive. They get away with it because no actual physical harm is done, but they can easily lead to psychotic episodes due to how they manipulate their psyche.

2 cents

I see no reason why women would get away with this particular tactic more often than men would?
In any case, such things are part of the reason why I'd like to read more about spanking as being this horrible, abusive thing to do. Is spanking really a separate bad thing from having a less loving, more controlling parent in general?

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

if you mean gross as in aesthetically it looks unappealing, then I would call this a problem with society's influence. the same way we criticize models for being too skinny and making girls feel self-conscious by creating unrealistic standards of beauty, society should also try to avoid making guys feel self-conscious about their dick, whether it's being cut or not, a size issue, endurance, etc. there also isn't that much of a difference when the penis is erect, as the foreskin pulls back anyways

Do you truly believe that "society's influence" is what makes guys think that uncircumcised penises look better than circumcised ones? Because that sounds ridiculous to me. The comparison to what women go through is an absurdity.

there is no significant positive reason for circumcision

Hey, if the Jews end up being right, I'm just glad I'll be in the right camp.

--Guido

[ScylaX]

Originally Posted by Zaevod

A lot of self-declared feminists claim to fight for equality but have done and said distasteful things. Claiming that they are "not true feminists" is a "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Not necessarily. If you clearly define what feminism is/must be, this is not a "true scotsman" fallacy because this fallacy involves an ad hoc argument, that's a sine qua non condition. What makes the "true scotman" argument a fallacy is not the mere fact of saying "But no true x does that" rather it's all about temporarily distorting reality to serve your opinion.
Moreover "A lot of self-declared feminists claim to fight for equality but have done and said distasteful things" bears the heavy scent of paralogism, you're not proving anything with that claim, rather you imply without any sort of proof that feminism as a whole is a seemingly suspicious entity without ever really explaining why and this is actually problematic. That's a division fallacy.

Originally Posted by pseudo enigma

ehhh I mean, a woman pretty much gets knocked out of commission for ~9 months if they have a child. That in itself is a big reason I don't think men and women can ever be equal and must have roles.

Physiological differences do not hardly prejudge in any way from a necessity of a difference in social treatment. You're drawing a very very long line between two points when you establish that women get pregnant and that they therefore must have a specific role by virtue of their "natural functions", where does it come from? What are the "roles" you're talking about?
That's an open door to very non sequitur claims. "Since you bear children for nine months you must take care of them more (because that's your role)" has the strong scent of fallacy because of how quick the conclusion is drawn from the first premise. There is little things in-between these two postulates and this is usually what reveals a fallacious argument. At most I think this is a very arbitrary idea.

The fact men and women will never be absolutely equal do not in any way disqualify the intention of making them more equal on the social ground. It's like saying we do not have to ask for political freedom because an absolute freedom is irrational.

Originally Posted by Zaevod

Saying that feminism is for equality practically implies that equality can be obtained by focusing on female issues (unless that "fem" part is just a coincidence).

That's absolutely right. It's not a coincidence. It totally is what you think it is. And this deserves to be thoroughly understood before attacking this position. It considers that the more you'll solve social concerns about women, the more you'll make the society equal. And this most importantly implies that you'll also solve minor concerns that made men inferior to women in certain condition or just caused to men issues related to sexist circumstances in the process. Not magically, but because (that kind of?) feminism considers that social/axiologic prejudices against women eventually cause emergent prejudices against men on various circumstances.
At least, that's what I personally believe. Saying male people have priviledges doesn't mean they don't suffer from any sort of prejudice and enjoy an absolute superiority universally reproduced everywhere in society (it's easy to make straw men when you first get wind of that "priviledge" concept), this just means that society as a whole essentially oppresses females (because they get as a base the role of the "dominated") and that males get the role of dominants despite their will and interests. Having that dominant role obviously causes a lot of prejudice but also implies that women are in a much less enviable situation generally speaking.

I hope I helped making the position clearer and maybe more rational to your mind. Things are not as black and white you may believe feminists think but they have an understandable pattern.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by ScylaX

Saying male people have priviledges doesn't mean they don't suffer from any sort of prejudice and enjoy an absolute superiority universally reproduced everywhere in society (it's easy to make straw men when you first get wind of that "priviledge" concept), this just means that society as a whole essentially oppresses females (because they get as a base the role of the "dominated") and that males get the role of dominants despite their will and interests. Having that dominant role obviously causes a lot of prejudice but also implies that women are in a much less enviable situation generally speaking.

So you're saying that the prejudices against men are all essentially because of the dominant role they have, and nothing else?

[ScylaX]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

So you're saying that the prejudices against men are all essentially because of the dominant role they have

Well yes, I think that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

and nothing else?

Sociology isn't a hard science, it doesn't deal with absolutes fact of course so you have to discern patterns that make the most sense. You can't just say "this problem is caused by this variable and nothing else", there will always be occurrences where more complex phenomena occur and you have to grasp the bigger picture. That's what I'm trying to do at least. I could consider that sexism as a whole doesn't have any particular direction and that any gender averagely suffer from it as much as the other, but I have the tendency to think female oppression is still a part of societal norms, and thus involves a very wide questioning of maintained values or cultural conventions, to be actually grasped.
So yes, I think sexist prejudices against men are caused by the same variable that give them an averagely superior position to women.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Do you truly believe that "society's influence" is what makes guys think that uncircumcised penises look better than circumcised ones?

Yes. Society actually heavily influences what we generally find to be sexually attractive.

Couple of examples:
- oral sex
- shaving of the pubes
- whether or not we think it's acceptable to have sex before marriage

All of these things, you'll find significant differences in preference between two groups of people. Generally speaking, groups of people that are more liberal about issues of sex, watch pornography, etc, tend to enjoy oral sex more, prefer shaved genitalia, and think it's okay to have sex before marriage.

[Cavernio]

That'd be correlation if true stargroup, not causational.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Zaevod

It's not gross if you have basic notions of hygiene. Also, if you don't mind the reduced sensitivity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102), I guess that's up to you, as long as you don't condone genital mutilation on others.

Edit: Interesting link: http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/...-masturbation/

A review of studies has found that the health benefits of infant male circumcision vastly outweigh the risks involved in the procedure.

But the study, published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, also found that while the prevalence of circumcision among American men ages 14 to 59 increased to 81 percent from 79 percent over the past decade, the rate of newborn circumcision has declined by 6 percentage points, to 77 percent, since the 1960s.

The authors conclude that the benefits — among them reduced risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer — outweigh the risks of local infection or bleeding. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.

So uh...yeah.