Untitled

Male Circumcision:

Is not necessary, except in rare cases where it may be medically necessary

Is not the same as, and should never be compared to, female circumcision. Just because they have the same word doesn’t mean they are anything alike

Considering it has 277 notes as of this writing (since August, 2014), the OP isn’t the only person who agrees with that statement.

That's IT? I can as easily find posts with 277+ people who believe in chemtrails, but I rather doubt it's a mainstream claim one has to defend against when talking about aviation.

So if an action is performed on an infants genitals, without the consent of that infant, it is automatically to be categorized as rape, correct? etc

Wow. False equivalency, straw man, AND appeal to ridicule all in one sentence.

You know full well that cleanliness does NOT count as "unnecessary". What I am implying is that having detrmiental and permanently scarring effects involving sexual organs can be seen as deviant. Besides, I said they "COULD" argue that, not that I would agree.

The lack of consent of what happens with one's genitals, with lasting detrimental effects on the mind and body, is the very reason rape is demonized, is it not? (Need I remind of learned helplessness?) This is what I was referring to with the adjective "rapey".

DO try to avoid the logical fallacies.

As you mention fingers in another section, let’s say you lose an entire arm in a war, and you attend a rehab group.  Someone else in your rehab group lost a finger.  The person who lost a finger goes on and on about how his loss is comparable to yours because he lost a body part too.  Would you agree that his loss can be compared to yours directly?

If the arm was extremely rare and finger was extremely common, and they were done for the same sick reasons, and the rare one was saying "it's not a problem" that compares to the arm, then YES, it's a comparable problem. Is that hard to comprehend? One big wrong doesn't overshadow a hundred thousand little ones, especially if the big problem is well outside our ability to deal with it and the little ones are right here in our own back yard.

Watch your fallacy of relative privation.

I don’t think I’ve seen any studies that suggest sex drive is decreased in circumcised men, can you provide sources for this claim?  Sexual pleasure I have seen, never actual sexual drive.  Actually, one would assume that because sexual pleasure is decreased, drive would be increased as sexual satisfaction would be harder to come by?  I don’t know, I haven’t researched it.  Personally if I don’t have any adequately pleasurable ‘sexual release’ for a while, my sex drive tends to go up.

If you didn't get any pleasure from sexual release, you would have a markedly lower drive to do so. This is basic psychological conditioning 101: positive things are sought, negative ones are avoided. If you enjoyed sex more, you would pursue it more often. If you didn't, you would pursue it less often, and your sex drive would be reduced as a result. It's not rocket science

Correct!

Then you're defending it because...?

As this is your argument to compare it to female circumcision though, can you show me a sources which show “sexual supression” as a reason for male circumcision?  I mean it’s pretty easy to find that reasoning for female circumcision, so it should be pretty easy for you to show me a bunch of pages where that justification is used for male circumcision.

You may wish to look up what Kellog (yes, THAT Kellog) was doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng

Lots of things are done without the child’s consent.  I addressed this in another section.

False equivalency. Not many do irreparable harm to the body that will be there for life.

Skateboarding is known to cause deaths

And is irrelevant to the "basic logic" comparison to female genital mutilation, but I must add that skateboarding cannot be forced upon someone without their consent. The most you can do is put an infant ON a skateboard, but that's not skateboarding. That's being ON a skateboard. You have to push yourself.

Cosmetic plastic surgery has been known to cause deaths.

And is nearly if not just as abhorrent as circumcision if it is done on one without consent.

As I stated, circumcision is a relatively safe procedure, (because the keyword “relatively” means “in comparison/relation”), even if it is entirely unnecessary.

As I stated before, that's also a weasel word: overdosing on sleeping pills is also relatively safe compared to jumping out of a plane without a parachute, but I wouldn't recommend either. It do anything for your argument other than allow you to back out, as you are doing now. Again, sorry for the appeal to emotion, but you should be ashamed of yourself.

"The highest maternal and infant mortality rates are in FGM-practicing regions."

A: that source is 22 years old, you might want to get that updated. Medicine advances.

B: You're COMPLETELY ignoring the lurking variable that women in those regions happen to be in said regions, which are generally far below the modern medical standard. Seriously, that's week 1 of high school statistics. You claim to be a statistician. You should know this crap.

Sources?  I would love to see a hospital that performs a several hundred dollar surgical procedure on a newborn without consulting the parents first.  The ONLY circumstance I could think of is if the parents, by religion or tradition, were planning on circumcision, and had someone of their faith or beliefs birth the child - in which case it was planned anyway.  No hospital would do this without talking to the child first, that is a guarenteed way to land a lawsuit ESPECIALLY if there is a complication.

*sigh* You're speaking of hospitals and female genital mutilation in the same breath. In the regions where they're both done, they wouldn't even bother getting consent first. In the regions only male is done: why are you bothering to mention a form of mutilation that doesn't happen?

You're showing a disturbing amount of double-think there.

Hell, I'd hazard a guess that hospitals in Israel would presume circumcision due to their strongly religious culture, and THEY'RE "relatively" civilized.

The doctor would ask the parents if they wish to have a circumcision.  If the parents planned to get a circumcision anyway, for their personal religious beliefs or traditions, they wouldn’t ask the doctor for the additional benefits as the parents have already made up their minds.  If the parents had not thought about circumcision before, they would ask the doctor why they should consider getting one, and then the doctor would explain the perceived benefits and the risks associated with the procedure.

The hypocrisy is palpable since, if FGM was practiced here, it'd be in the very same boat. The doctors do not warn of the complications, and they DO ask because, hey, it's an easy extra $200. They SHOULDN'T ask about any unnecessary procedure. If the parents want to do the asking, fine, but even then the doctor should describe exactly what the repercussions are.

They do not.

I've said before, it's worse than if they asked "Do you want to give your daughter her first set of breast implants?" At least those aren't inherently detrimental.

Irrelevant to the initial statement, why is this included in my stating that it is not mandatory?

Because your stating it wasn't mandatory is ignoring that, fort that infant, it was MANDATED for them. As in, yes, it was MANDATORY.

This isn't addressing your arguments, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess (or at least hope) you're a woman. Being a woman of course wouldn't be something that would invalidate your arguments, that'd be an ad hominem to say so, but this utter lack of empathy would be downright unusual from a man.

Male Circumcision:

Is not necessary, except in rare cases where it may be medically necessary

Is not the same as, and should never be compared to, female circumcision. Just because they have the same word doesn’t mean they are anything alike

Let's go down the list.

Is not necessary, except in rare cases where it may be medically necessary Correct, but we're talking EXTREMELY rare. As in it's just as likely to kill you as you are to need it.

Is not the same as, and should never be compared to, female circumcision.  Just because they have the same word doesn’t mean they are anything alike

They aren't anything alike, huh? Blatant hyperbole at its finest. Let's see, just for the common sense ones, there are

1: Permanent damage to genitalia 2: Decrease in sexual drive and increase in complications

3: Unnecessary surgery

4: Sexual suppression of the individual

5: Done primarily without consent

6: Marked decrease in sexual pleasure

7: Had been known to cause deaths.

Is not a way to ‘oppress men’. (what mother says “this will show that little fucker who’s in charge!”)

Sure, and by that logic female genital mutilation and Sharia law do not oppress women. Just because something is innocuous in intent does NOT mean it is not oppressive.

Is NOT ‘infant rape’

You're doing something unwanted to another person's genitals, you could quite easily define it as such, but for the most part this is a straw man argument. The lack of consent, however, does make it rather rapey regardless.

Foreskin is NOT a ‘natural anti-rape mechanism’

This one is a BLATANT straw man. I don't think I've ever seen this claim.

Is not mandatory, it’s not likely a doctor would perform one without consent of parents (lawsuits are expensive.)

1: Depends on where you live, sometimes permission is assumed.

2: The doctors ask specifically if they'd like to have it done, without consulting about the detriments and almost total lack of benefits, knowing that it's the most common surgery on earth. It's practically malpractice but that little permission slip gives them all the legal safe ground they could want.

3: You're still ignoring the most important piece of consent for unnecessary surgery: THE PATIENT'S!

Is a relatively safe procedure

So is amputation, care to needlessly lose a finger? You can function without one, it's just harder to do so. Cram the weasel wording.

Yes, foreskin makes masturbation and sexual intercourse more pleasurable -  however circumcised men still seem to enjoy both. Circumcised women do not. Stop comparing male and female Circumcision.

Let's see, this is several points in one, and most of them terrible.

1: Correct, it does.

2: A: SEEM TO? Oh great, more weasel wording. B: Not nearly as much. A freakin' HUGE proportion of the nerves are in that.

3: A: Oh, they don't "seem to". Charming. And intellectually dishonest. B: I don't know where you took anatomy, but the clitoris does NOT contain 100% of the nerves in a woman's genitalia, this is patently ridiculous.

4: No.

Both female and male circumcision are abhorrent, but only ONE of those is rampant in western society. By complaining about attempts to get otherwise utterly uncaring women to sympathize, since the feminists currently hold a bloody monopoly on gender issues in congress and parliament across the civilized world, all you're accomplishing is making things worse.

I have an honest question, is it ever someone’s fault if something they don’t want to happen, happens to them? I swear I’m not asking this antagonistically, I’m just curious where on the very grey spectrum from say, someone being killed to someone being fired for telling a racist joke, does it becomes okay to blame the victim.

Let's say for instance I were to leave my car unlocked on the street with my laptop inside, and someone steals said laptop. While the moral blame rests solely on the thief for stealing my possessions, I can't help but blame myself for being so foolish as to leave them vulnerable. Both parties involved are at fault.

Now let's say I build my house in a peat swamp, and the house begins to sink. I'm the victim in this scenario, but there's no one to blame but me. I was the one so dense as to build a structure on land that wasn't so dense. In this case it is perfectly acceptable to "victim blame", as I am the only one at fault.

Now let's say some guy snaps and decides to go to a random place and pick off one person at random with a sniper rifle. Let's say I happen to be the one unfortunate S.O.B. to take that bullet in the skull. Well, in this scenario, I am not at fault, as I could have no way of realistically knowing this would happen, and this is such an unlikely scenario that I couldn't be expected to anticipate this arising in the first place without outright agoraphobic paranoia.

The sniper is the ONLY one to blame here, and the fault lies entirely with this person from a standpoint of this incident. However, there may have been third parties involved to partially blame as well; did this guy get his gun legally? If not, the dealer is also to blame. If so, was there a reasonable background check placed? If not, the salesman is partially to blame. Was he abused as a child? If so, his abusers are partially to blame. And so on and so forth.

all of their arguments are so weak and so easy to dispel, usually in only a few words

"i’m not oppressed" cool but globally, many women are

"male disposability!!" …is based on women being perceived as weak & dependent

"i’m not oppressed" cool but globally, many women are

Irrelevant since they aren't in the first world and that's the only place feminism has any power. Men too are hurt if you're talking about an individual basis in the first world. Need we bring up suicide, murder, assault, and homelessness statistics?

"male disposability!!" …is based on women being perceived as weak & dependent

Or the idea that women are valuable while men are worthless. Evolution itself disagrees with you. Occam's Razor does too. Let's not play the unverifiable claim game, shall we? Patriarchy theory just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. "Women are treated poorly? Men did it. Men are treated badly? Men did it." What a load of androphobic victim-complex tripe.

"misandry is WRONG" institutionally and systemically, it isn’t real

That around 95% of Afghan child laborers are girls, as Professor Hosseini found, is no surprise if you have lived in Iran and have seen Iranian as well as Afghan girls doing physical labor. I just went to a rural area where I saw girls with shovels.

Women are victims of sexual assault more so than men. At the same time, sexual assault that happens towards men isn’t really considered a problem by society. Which is why feminism should be adopted, because gender does not as a solitary factor determine strength, intelligence, or any other attribute. Feminism doesn’t want to take down men, we want to take down the idea that men are stronger and better than women, because they’re not. Men are just as susceptible to rape and sexual assault as women, but it doesn’t happen nearly as often due to privileged empowerment-inflated men feeling entitled to the bodies of those they seem as inferiors being a more widespread issue than the opposite.

Of course, that would be speaking from a gender-binary norm, which simply isn’t true. There are more genders than just Man and Woman. Sure, biological sex may only come in two flavors (excluding hermaphrodites), but gender doesn’t. Feminism aims to support feminine traits to the same level of praise that society gives masculine traits. It’s not about making girls better than boys, it’s about stopping half-baked ideals that some people are better than others simply because of gender or biological sex.

Antifeminism seems to be more focused on attacking feminism than finding solutions. Not that any solution to any problem affecting society can ever truly happen, but we can at least spread education and knowledge to stop the seeds of ignorance that eventually can grow into social apathy or hate.

"I’d like to remind people of the difference between a Chippewa Indian and a New Delhi Indian, of the difference between Muslims and the Al Quaeda, of the difference between the Westboro Baptist Church and Christianity, and of the difference between true Feminism and anything even remotely anti-male that masquerades as “feminist”."

Well you're off to a poor start. At least the majority of this paragraph is a Fallacy of Division. It's is essentially saying "Remember the difference between Hydrogen Cyanide and Liquid". True, not all liquids are Hydrogen Cyanide, but saying "Hydrogen Cyanide isn't REAL liquid, like Dihydrogen Monoxide is!" is patently wrong. Also included in your paragraph is the feminist favorite fallacy, the No True Scotsman. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but those misandrists ARE feminists just as the WBC ARE Christians. They might not be the majority, they might disagree with some or many things you believe strongly, but that doesn't mean they aren't "real feminists." Please don't use faulty logic to try to pass yourself off as ideologically pure, particularly for feminism which has ideologies ranging from the perfectly reasonable (right to vote), to the misleading ("wage" gap rather than "earnings" gap, falsely implying that it's due to discrimination), to the nigh-religiously dogmatic (patriarchy hypothesis (it's NOT a theory, please don't bastardize the term)), to the downright evil (SCUM manifesto, International Castration Day). Men are also far more likely to be physically assaulted, but again, that's not something your ideology or any other is equipped to deal with.

Women are victims of sexual assault more so than men. Probably true, though the definitions are frequently biased against men and all over the map, to put it mildly. I assume you're referring to inappropriate groping or something of that nature and not "stare rape" or something equally ludicrous? Still, neither feminism nor any ideology can stop criminal behavior or mental illness, so it's rather a moot point.

At the same time, sexual assault that happens towards men isn’t really considered a problem by society.

Now this one is absolutely true. Still, all we can do is force (probably much) harsher punishment for the perpetrators of on-male sexual crimes, and crack down on cops and employers that don't take it seriously. Even then, the burden of proof is on the victim, sad to say, otherwise we'd just accuse someone we don't like and ruin their lives. Feminism doesn’t want to take down men, we want to take down the idea that men are stronger and better than women, because they’re not.

Better? Certainly not, at least not as people, as strengths and weaknesses do occur since we're a sexually dimorphic species. For example, stronger? If you're talking physically, yes, the par of strength for men is significantly higher than that of women (women are more flexible, though). Emotionally? Well, we're lacking strong evidence one way or the other, but socially men are indeed encouraged not to show their feelings while women are encouraged to express them. Mentally? Again with the sexual dimorphism, as the Corpus Callosum is larger in females, leading to men being better at concentrating and women being better at multitasking. Not sure if this has a physical reason as the last one, but men tend to be better at specializing in one area of expertise while women tend to be jacks of all trade.

Men are just as susceptible to rape and sexual assault as women, but it doesn’t happen nearly as often due to privileged empowerment-inflated men feeling entitled to the bodies of those they seem as inferiors being a more widespread issue than the opposite.

Aww, and you were off to such a good start with this paragraph. Men, if you include prison rape, are raped more frequently than women, though it's true that men rape more often than women, which I'll touch on in the next paragraph (and female rapists are far more common than you seem to be giving credit.) You're also demonizing men in general by stating they're "privileged" and "empowerment-inflated". This is a Poisoning the Well fallacy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was never a "Boy Power!" fad going about in the 90s, but I'm pretty sure I remember a "Girl Power!" one. Women are the majority of college entrants and graduates. They have quotas that help them get jobs. They get lowered requirements for military service (sure, we can apparently forget that requirement to lift 300 pounds of soldier and gear out of a burning tank because you're a woman). There are women's studies courses in every major college in the western world despite the abysmal lack of solid findings. Men are the majority of workplace deaths and 99.99% of combat deaths in US history. Men are the considerable majority of the impoverished and the homeless. They die younger and kill themselves four times as often. I'm sorry, but if relative disposibility is "privilege", women enjoy "super privilege." 

Rape is a criminal issue, not a gendered one, though it does tend to be male due to the simple logic behind evolution. Rape is about as direct a way to force your genes to propogate as possible. The male, unlike the female, doesn't have to devote extra calories and therefore more resources to the act of reproduction, and what relatively few calories he does give up in the act would quite frankly be used less (re)productively anyway. Though I'm certain primitive cultures discouraged this practice, likely through exile, beatings, or outright murder, there's no getting around the fact that, without some kind of female off-switch (which we don't really have naturally) or the practice of infanticide (which the female generally disagrees with, since SHE still reproduced which is again an evolutionary success (sorry, evolutionary biology is NOT politically correct)), the rapist would succeeds on an evolutionary basis. This means it is not something that any ideology can ever eliminate; I'm afraid the sex-drive of those who don't care about others will be creating rapists for thousands and thousands of years to come (assuming we haven't wiped ourselves off the map by then).

Of course, that would be speaking from a gender-binary norm, which simply isn’t true. 

Uh, no. Biology disagrees, it doesn't care at ALL about how you feel about it. There are people that identify as Jesus Christ, that doesn't mean they're gods. It all comes down to "Y chromosome? YES/NO"

There are more genders than just Man and Woman. Sure, biological sex may only come in two flavors (excluding hermaphrodites), but gender doesn’t.  Again, biology doesn't care, and hermaphrodites are WOmen with a vestigial growth of the clitoris. You can call yourself whatever you want, I agree, but that doesn't mean that you are. Also I have a hypothesis when it comes to (genetic) sexual preferences (which unlike gender can be relatively fluid), but that's a story for another time. Feminism aims to support feminine traits to the same level of praise that society gives masculine traits. Unless you're talking about manual labor or infantry, feminine traits seem to be generally more desired. Our educational system in particular is almost completely geared towards girls, while it treats the boys as defective girls. Boys tend to need physical, hands-on lessons while girls do better with auditory and visual learning. This isn't a cultural tendency either, male infants will look at objects for longer than females, while females will look at faces for longer than males. I'm pretty sure we aren't training our infants. It’s not about making girls better than boys, it’s about stopping half-baked ideals that some people are better than others simply because of gender or biological sex.

*AHEM*. Now please link a greater number of actions that benefit men in particular, rather than vicariously by benefiting women foremost. I judge things by their actions, not by what they purport to be about. In short: citation needed. If feminists ever visibly counter-protested some of the SUPER nutters, that'd score some points in my book. I've seen Christians of other denominations counter-protesting the WBC, surely the alleged majority of coffeehouse feminists can counter-protest the misandric assholes.

Antifeminism seems to be more focused on attacking feminism than finding solutions. Duh. You're talking about antifeminism, not Men's Rights Activism, which feminists seem to like to straw man, though the actions linked above do tend to make MRAs antifeminists. Still, they're not mutually exclusive. Not that any solution to any problem affecting society can ever truly happen, but we can at least spread education and knowledge to stop the seeds of ignorance that eventually can grow into social apathy or hate. Good gracious, we actually agree on this. I agree, complaining on the internet doesn't do anything to stop crime, and no ideology on earth can stop it. At the very best we can stymie some of the borderlines. At the worst, though, we'd just make nuicences of ourselves. Again, antifeminists do not understand feminism, at all. And you finish up on a Poisoning the Well. *sigh* So much for closing on a strong note.

That around 95% of Afghan child laborers are girls, as Professor Hosseini found, is no surprise if you have lived in Iran and have seen Iranian as well as Afghan girls doing physical labor. I just went to a rural area where I saw girls with shovels.

"Antifeminists are so annoying when they say in other places women have it worse." Personal attack, red herring, straw man argument. We're saying feminism is worthless in western society, and that if you want it to have valid complaints, you'd have to look to other societies. Again, you're reversing the roles. "Like yes they do and we talk about things that happen in other places like acid attacks and we try to raise awareness for it." Awareness of it does jack-shit. You have to actually go over there and do something about it. Whinging on the internet doesn't validate feminism and it's more useless for solving the problem than gasoline in a fire extinguisher.

"But what the fuck else do you want us to do? Buy a plane ticket to go to the other side of the world and start a completely new life?" Seeing as that's the only way shit gets done, YES. Don't like it? Tough shit. If ever there was a time to "check your privilege", this is it. "And more importantly what are YOU doing about it? Exactly absolutely nothing." Because antifeminists by definition are just people that think feminism is a poisonous movement that's having ill effects on women and downright malignant effects on men, and has nothing to do with the state of affairs in foreign nation, unlike a movement purportedly devoted to women's rights.

"I want to sit here and bask in my privilege as, probably, a white woman, and benefit off the thousands of other feminists and their success in gaining more rights for me while simultaneously doing nothing to further eliminate oppression"

Or

"I’m ignorant and don’t actually know what feminism is. I don’t know what oppression is or even misogyny. I’m probably 12 and I’m probably myself perpetuating girl on girl misogyny."

and

Poisoning the Well, another Strawman Argument, Personal Attack, and still more Ad Hominim

"Just because I like men and women doesn’t mean I have to call myself gay/straight/bi or pan." Do you mean sexually? True, you don't have to call yourself that, you're free to call yourself a blargle or nothing at all, but most people will still call you bisexual or pansexual in that case, because that's what you are. They'd be dead wrong calling someone who likes men AND women that way "straight" or "gay", though (at least in this context.) "Labeling" is itself a label you're giving to words used to describe certain groups of people to distinguish them. People are not identical grey blobs, we are different from each other.

Pictured: an episode of Fairly Odd Parents, not reality. And even here, we could easily call one of them short, and another one has eyelashes which in this context likely denotes femininity.

People come up with words to describe things because that makes our language more precise. Look at a scientific textbook, there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of specialized words within a scientific field because to describe people or things too wordily gets very awkward. I'm afraid this includes social and historical sciences.

Thousands of women are raped: men are raped more than women if you include prisons, and even if you don't, the ratio is nearly half and half, and nearly half of rapists are female too. Moreover, thousands of people are MURDERED every year. This is a criminal issue, not a gendered one, and complaining about it won't reduce rape any more than complaining about murder will reduce murders.

Abused: Men are the the victims of being assaulted and mugged far more than women are. They're also far more likely to be murdered and commit suicide.

Unfair wages: Bullshit. You get what you work for, male or female. http://anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com/wagegap http://anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com/wagegap2

Sexually harassed: you're going to need to reasonably define this since the definition is all the hell over the place. For example...

cat called: THIS doesn't always count as sexual harassment, it's typically flirting and an acknowledgement that a woman looks attractive. One could even say it's usually compliment. If being cat called itself offends you, you're going to have to grow a thicker skin. Treated as inferior: We're a sexually dimorphic species, lady, differences in performance at various tasks is inevitable. In general, men ARE stronger, women ARE more flexible. Men ARE better at concentrating, women ARE better at multitasking. If this is what you're referring to, all I can say is mother nature's a pain, get over it. Now, if you're referring to individuals, well yeah, everybody gets treated as inferior sometimes. If you're hiring for one position and have two applicants, one individual is going to be inferior to another, and the superior will be hired. That person who isn't as good will be treated as inferior by not getting the job, that type of discrimination is necessary and logical. Now, if that person happens to be a female, that's beside the point. Now if you're talking about "society" viewing women as inferior? Bull. Women get preferential treatment across the board.

As for your last "point"? Yes, I'm saying it's insignificant here, and only mentioning the stuff over there without doing anything about it is pointless. If you want to make a difference, go somewhere where there's a difference to make. All you're doing in the western world is making menaces out of yourselves.

Then again, your whole post was a giant Appeal to Emotion, so really, why did I bother replying? Hm.