What do you all think about male circumcision?(138 Posts)
Please hear me out instead of dismissing this post as a "whiny MRA post"
To be more specific male circumcision done on baby boys and young boys for non-medical reasons?
I am personally against it for these reasons:
-The foreskin is a part of the body and everyone should have the right to an intact body
-Babies cannot give consent
-The foreskin is full of nerves. Removal means less pleasure from sex/masturbation. The glans of the penis eventually becomes desensitized after rubbing against clothing instead of being kept lubricated by the foreskin.
-Last Nov a baby boy in Manchester bled to death after being circumcised (for medical reasons)
If it is to be done, I believe it is best for the boy to make the decision for himself when he becomes old enough
I agree with you.
It's a stupid patriarchal practice that should stop.
I think its barbaric, unnecessary practice and belongs in the dark ages when it was initiated.
The only justification given seems to be that it's cleaner and prevents infection. But so does washing, so why not just teach the child to do that?
I hate it. It's genital mutilation and should not be allowed to happen regardless of the excuses given. If adult men choose it for themselves, then fine. They are adults. But it should not be practised on under eighteen year olds.
I agree with you, op. stupid and barbaric.
On pretty much every circumcision thread I've seen, Zippy, the majority of MNers are against.
Never, not once, have I seen any post on circumcision be dismissed as a whiny MRA post.
What made you think yours would be?
And I hate the argument that it helps stop HIV and stds.
Absolutely wrong unless medically necessary. Just as wrong as FGM.
I said that in a post about 3 or 4 months ago and got absolutely flamed for it!
OP, I don't know why you think you'd be shouted down as an MRA for your post.
I disagree with circumcision for non-medical reasons, and I remember the case you cited. I think circumcision is barbaric.
FWIW, I have seen MRAs mocked for complaining about male circumcision, although not on this site.
I agree with you, OP, as I expect will most people who haven't been raised with it as normal (e.g. Jewish/Muslim, American).
The problem is that a comparison is eventually made with FGM, and then the bickering begins. Well, chopping an arm off at the elbow is 'worse' than chopping it off at the wrist - both scenarios are still horrible and should be prevented.
I think that if you are an observant member of a religious community, then the questions of what constitutes being a 'good' parent are rather different than the ones which secular parents face. Perhaps the important thing to remember is that - rather than characterising religious parents as in some way less caring - observant parents are also asking themselves about how best to balance tradition with a more modern/'enlightened' approach, when bringing up their children.
I think it is a horrid, vile practice.
Where I think the whole MRA debate can get a bit messy is when MRAs start responding to discussions on FGM with 'what about the menz. Male circumcision is accepted'. I think that's an issue because they are fundamentally different things and, you know what, it's ok to talk about a women's issue as just a women's issue. You don't have to talk about prostate cancer every time you talk about breast cancer. You certainly don't need to talk about male circumcision every time you talk about FGM.
Ah, thanks Amanda and Eccles.
I agree with your posts.
I think that most British people are horrified by it because it isn't the norm here - if you asked this same question on a feminist (or non-feminist) site with a wide base of US users then you'd get a totally different response.
Routine infant circumcision sickens me. I'd never consent to it for my son. (Or daughter, but that's a given, surely)
In reply to just the question:
I think that you shouldn't chop bits off people without their informed consent, unless there is a strong medical need.
I also think that if there is a God or higher power, he/she/it should judge people based on their own thoughts and actions, not the actions of their parents. If there is a God that will treat one child differently to another based on what their parents did, without the knowledge or understanding of that child, that's not a God that I would want to follow. Being circumcised or baptised as a child means nothing because you did not knowingly and willingly choose it.
I was really surprised to find that my DP was circumcised. His family are an average, white, British, non-Jewish family yet he was circumcised as a child. He doesn't know why, has never asked! He also doesn't know if his older brothers are, or if his nephews are, or if it was done for medical reasons. I find it very odd that he has never questioned it!
If we had sons, I would certainly not let it happen to them .
This OP being in FWR implies antifeminism What other reasons are there for defensively posting about male circumcision in a women's rights section?
I think it's unnecessary. It's pretty common in the US and a lot of people there believe that foreskins are dirty.
If they didn't serve a purpose, they wouldn't be there.
It's a bizarre, incomprehensible practice IMO. Why is such a tiny piece of skin targeted? What on earth is the point in removing it? I have never in all my life heard of anyone getting an infection due to a dirty foreskin - in fact I can't imagine how it would happen unless you really are a filthy fecker and, I don't know, dip your penis in manure on a regular basis. How much dirt actually builds up around the area, realistically? I know urine might collect there but surely it's easy to just give it a bit of a wash in the shower? It just doesn't make sense to me that a religion would decree that a tiny little bit of a person has to be cut off near to birth. Where TF did that come from??
I didn't have very strong feelings about it until I saw a baby who was healing from his circumcision a couple of days earlier. It looked so sore and raw. Now I'm totally against.
A barbaric ritual that serves no purpose other than control.
Bubbles I'd also question why it's in this section specifically, and not AIBU, where there is much more traffic.
Why here? Whiny MRA post from someone who wants to get feminists talking about cocks, that's why.
I think TeiTetua has probably hit the nail on the head.
Maybe OP wants to gauge opinion amongst feminists. I'm keeping an open mind, but would be interested in hearing from OP about the choice of FWR for this thread.
Personally, I'm against circumcision for non-medical reasons, due to the issue of informed consent.
Feminism doesn't mean 'male issues as well as female' actually. The clue is in the name. However, from that post I am also suspicious of why you've posted in Feminism and prefaced with a 'not a whiny MRA' disclaimer so, as the Dragons say, I'm out.
I question your motives far starting this thread op. if you've been on mumsnet long enough you know the views of the majority. I don't know what you were expecting. Especially posting it in feminism.
Zippy, I'm genuinely curious about what it is that you want to talk about that you feel hasn't been addressed by the answers given in response to your question.
Perhaps you are looking for a space to discuss this issue because harm has been done to you. That being the case, I can see it might be difficult to begin and while, on the face of it, this mightn't be the most obvious place for a chap to go, I'm sure the posters here will be able to offer some support if you're willing to engage. I will certainly try.
I didn't say it wasn't an important issue. I said it wasn't a feminist issue. Which it isn't.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe that coming on spouting initials like MRA and then mouthing off is, on the balance of probabilities, someone worth engaging with. And this being the internet, I get to choose not to.
That's lovely, Zippy. Do you always react so angrily?
Without exception, we've all said we oppose male circumcision, but question your motives in posting it in this section. Which is fair.
"With that attitude you shouldn't expect men to give a shit about women's issues."
Especially whiny MRA's.
IME very few men actually give a shit about women's issues. There are a few honourable exceptions and I love and fancy all of them (oh OK, maybe I don't fancy all of them, but I honour all of them), but they're few and far between and if you decided to go looking for them you'd have a long and tiring journey.
Women OTOH, care very much about men's issues and work tirelessly for men for no reward. Men take this as only their proper due and are so accustomed to it, that when a tiny number of women work for women's issues, some of them are utterly outraged by it and see it as an attack on men as a class - after all, women are supposed to focus all their energy and labour on men, not on themselves and each other.
I strongly suspect that Zippy is utterly livid that he's come on here to complain about male circumcision expecting to be told that no-one cares about it and is taken aback and pissed off that these evil feminists agree with him, that male circumcision is crap and should stop.
It has contradicted his script of us, which is that we're awful man-haters and if only we could, we would cut the whole penis off the baby, never mind the foreskin. Afterwards, we would probably kill the baby and then eat it. Because we hate all males you see, including the babies we carried, gave birth to and nurtured with our milk.
We haven't conformed to his narrative. So now he's throwing his toys out of the pram.
This is men's rights activisim laydeez. This is how seriously we should take it. This is how much respect we should have for it.
He has not once acknowledged all the agreement he's had. He has not once acknowledged the analysis of why male circumcision exists - male violence, patriarchy FGS - it wasn't invented in a matriarchal society was it - he's ignored all that in favour of whining about the fact that TWO posters (one of them me, I hold my hand up to it) used the term whiney to describe MRA's (because using a negative adjective is OUTRAGEOUS) and quipped that it should stand for Misogynist Rapey Arseholes.
Two posts that he can take issue with in the midst of all this agreement.
If he's not here for a fight with feminists, then I'm a fucking banana. Or Ian Hislop, take yer pick.
Those would be patriarchal religions, yes.
Well, my two pennorth - my late husband was circumcised as a newborn in 1948; upper class, family (them, not me) Christian (though not strongly). The reason was because his father (RAF) was due to be stationed in the Middle East and was told it was advisable because of the climate and sand. Which, perhaps, is why the whole idea started in the first place. Unfortunately, they were not aware he was a haemophiliac.
"Pleasantly surprised?" So you haven't been on this site before? One of the issues that mumsnet is almost unanimous on is the unacceptability of non medically required infant circumcision. Or were you surprised that women were able to comment on an exclusively male issue without howling "but what about the womenz"? Well that's how intelligent thoughtful people behave.
Oh and of course men are welcome to post and comment. However, the record of MRA doing so is not good, and anyone posting with that particular agend must expect to be met with at the very least, wariness.
Feminism means gender equality so that would mean male issues as well as female? Please correct me if I am wrong.
You're wrong. As AmandaPayne says, the clue is in the name.
In any event, male infant circumcision is not a "male issue" in the way that FGM is a women's issue. It's not women or matriarchal society or religion that are imposing circumcision on infant males. It is not carried out to curtail male sexuality nor to reinforce the oppressed position of men in society.
You may think that on an individual level it is just as bad for a man to be circumcised as for a woman to suffer FGM but that does not make it a "male issue" like FGM is a women's issue.
Oh, and feminism does not mean gender equality. Gender equality means gender equality.
Male circumcision = wrong on all levels
Female circumcision = wrong on all levels
MRAs = wrong on all levels
Feminism = freedom of women from oppression
Sorry, OP. Not what you wanted to hear? Maybe you should go back to your planet, do a bit more research and try again?
Male circumcision doesn't exist because of Judaism and other patriarchal religions, it exists because of patriarchy. They are part of patriarchy so they bought into it. There are loads of patriarchal cultures all over the world where boys are mutilated as part of their entry into manhood but they're not Jewish or Islamic or whatever, they're just patriarchal.
I don't believe for one moment that you were pleasantly surprised by our discussion, you probably thought we'd be just like whiney MRA's and whinge about "Wotaboutthewimminz?" I'm not surprised you find "Misogynist Rapey Arseholes" very provoking and uncalled for because of course men who buy into MRA shit would call it provoking to be called on their vile attitudes.
I use the word rapey about men who espouse attitudes and values which make them look as if they buy into rape culture. If men don't want me to use that term about them, they shouldn't say rapey things. MRA's say rapey things all the time. I can understand that rapey sexist men are unhappy about the existence of the word, because it names their attitudes and what their attitudes buy into, in a really raw, straightforward way.
As for misognyist and arseholes - well yeah, I believe MRA's to be both.
And so far, Mumsnet allows us to call groups we disagree with arseholes.
Although I'm sure the MRA's who frequent here are working on changing that...
Oh, I tell a lie, Mumsnet has deleted a post of mine, presumably because I called MRA's Misogynist Rapey Arseholes.
So we're not allowed to say that about MRA's anymore.
If that's not the reason my post was deleted Mumsnet, please refresh my memory as to what it said and why it was deleted.
Because I can't remember breaking any talk guidelines.
All circumcision is wrong (except for medical reasons which are rare). It's one of the many reasons why I despise religion and don't tiptoe round the sensibilities of the superstitious. IF you think your imaginary friend has given you permission to mutilate your children's bodies, you are a primitive fucking barbarian and an idiot. Fuck your culture and your traditions, why should they be 'respected' any more than if they involved slave owning or human sacrifice?
Oh SGB you do realise you'll probably get deleted for that don't you.
Not tiptoe-ing round people's religious sensibilities.
"Is it really necessary for everyone to choose between being a "feminist" or an "MRA"? Isn't it possible to be both?"
Nope. Because being an MRA means you have to believe profoundly anti feminist things.
Are you for real zippy?
LOL at the suggestion that you can be a MRA and a feminist.
Feminism came out of the genuine, systematic injustice that patriarchy has inflicted on women for thousands of years.
Men's rights activism came out of some men seeing women clawing back a tiny bit of their basic human status from patriarchy and feeling that to be an attack on their basic human right to oppress women.
There is no comparison.
TBH I don't think you need to be a feminist or a MRA to be for or against male circumcision or FGM. Lots of people are against them for completely unrelated reasons.
And yes by the nature of things, no-one is wrong on everything. MRA's are right about male circumcision, it should stop. But they aren't right on the reasons it exists. Just as they are right about men being forced into gender roles they don't want to have - MRA's never take their analysis beyond a very superficial level, they whinge about the gender roles, without wanting to tackle the source of those gender roles - patriarchy.
What do MRAs believe that is profoundly anti feminist?
I've never met one or spoken to one.
I see no difference whatever between male and female circumcision.
No child should be forced to undergo any operation unless its required for medical reasons.
I agree Sallyingforth that no child should have to undergo either but to say there is no difference is really minimising millions of women's experiences.
Cailin uncircumcised boys can and do get infections underneath the foreskin. It's most common in under 5s and is called balanitis.
DS had it when he was 1. It's not usually too serious but his infection was bad and he needed iv antibiotics for a few days. It was most likely caused by a bit of poo getting underneath his foreskin when he had diarrhoea.
We were told that if it didn't clear up, or it happened again, the Doctors would recommend circumcision.
But I agree that it's wrong if its not medically necessary.
There is a difference between male and female circumcision. It is silly to say there isn't.
Yes they are different operations and I agree that the female one is more serious.
But I'm talking about the principle. Both are inflicted unnecessarily on an innocent child for the satisfaction of misguided adults.
The principle is not the same. FGM is done to reinforce the oppression of women as a class in certain cultures by removing their sexuality and has life-long impact on the health of the women affected. The vast majority of men who were circumcised at birth are unhindered in their enjoyment of male privilege as a result of circumcision
and frankly couldn't give a fuck about it
I must admit, I wouldn't have thought the feminist board would be first port of call to discuss male circumcision and/or campaigning against it. Any more than the feminist board should be the first place to start a discussion or crusade in favour of veganism or anti-globalisation. There are lots of issues that lots of people care about, whether or not they are feminists, but the feminist board is specifically about issues which affect women.
A lot of men actually do give a very big fuck about it Flora, where did you get that idea from? Both FGM & MGM are unacceptable.
From the many men I know who were circumcised as babies. From the lack of any significant campaigning against circumcision by men who were circumcised as babies.
Zippy I'm interested in male and female issues, and I'm a feminist.
"he WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual bloodthe fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth. Around 85 percent of women who undergo FGM experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III, though Type III is the most common procedure in several countries, including Sudan, Somalia, and Djibouti. Several miscellaneous acts are categorized as Type IV. These range from a symbolic pricking or piercing of the clitoris or labia, to cauterization of the clitoris, cutting into the vagina to widen it (gishiri cutting), and introducing corrosive substances to tighten it."
Most, if not all, of these procedures are carried out with anaesthesia in insanitary conditions. Type III in particular can lead to infections, and infuries during sex and childbirth.
I am interested in men's issues. In men's health, for example.But MRA have views which I find unacceptable. So as a feminist, I believe it to be impossible to be both a feminist and a MRA.
And Dr Kellogg was a notorious fruit cake, so not a particularly useful ally for you., Zippy.
The current sexist world is bad for men and for women, in different ways and to different degrees, and also in different ways and to different degrees for each individual man and woman.
Men's health issues are interesting - being "manly" in the way that society expects generally involves "not making a fuss" and I've read that a large number of male health problems are exacerbated by male reluctance to go see a doctor (because it's not many to admit that you are not strong and well).
I wonder if Zippy is American. Circumcision is so rare in Britain that most people don't think about it, and certainly there's no group except for the obvious religious ones where you could start an argument about whether it's a good thing--as shown by responses here. Whereas among Americans, it's good for a fight any day of the week.
What's more interesting is why he brought his question here, when Mumsnet has dozens of parenting-related groups to choose from, and one or two on sexual issues as well. So I'll say it again, I think he wants to get feminists talking about cocks. Other women wouldn't be as much fun for him.
zippy Kellogg invented cereal to stop men masturbating. Is cereal a men's rights issue? There is no meaningful comparison between cicumcision and FGM. If it affects men's sexuality in any material way it would have been outlawed centuries ago.
I definitely think that male circumcision is wrong. Not as wrong and disabling as FGM but still wrong.
Why is everyone being so snippy at Zippy (geddit?!). Do we have evidence to suggest that he/she has form?
FWIW IMHO Feminism is definitely about Mens Rights too. Feminism is a lovely happy thing where everyone gets a look in and is treated without prejudice. So if there's an area where men are neglected of course they should shout for their rights and I'll support them, as long as they shout for mine in return.
Although I'm not quite sure of the areas in which men have less rights than women. Probably in child custody, but that's a bit more complicated... hmm
Sorry I'm completely derailing this thread.....
I disagree with male circumcision. Full stop.
Lessthan, I think it was the opening line of the OP.
I would disagree with male circumcision in all cases, except medical necessity. Someone once posted a link on here, and I just couldn't watch it - it was horrific.
Sunnywithshowers post made me wonder though. Are there any cases of male circumcision carried out in the conditions described in her post? When the boy is on the brink of puberty, in unsanitary conditions and without anaesthesia?
Are young boys spirited away from UK schools in the summer holidays by there families and transported to countries to have this horrific procedure done to them, as in the cases of a small but significant group of UK girls?
Perhaps it's time to make this about the wimminz.
I think that the word circumcision should not be used for girls. It was adopted as a way of trying to put the practices on a par. Female Genital Mutilation is the term I would use. They are by no means the same thing.
Yes, I use FGM for girls as well - the procedures are not remotely on a par.
I would ban male circumcision in a heartbeat, except for medical reasons. However, in the UK at least, the reasons for males being circumcised are predominantly religious - and as has already been said on the thread already, practised by the patriarchal religions.
*Should really say I use the term FGM....
Are you actively campaigning for a change of law in the UK? If you have a petition to sign or anything, I'm sure many here will sign it but you may get more traffic in another area of the board.
It's assault. If you removed any other part of a baby because you thought it looked nicer, you would be locked up.
It's barbaric and as wrong as FGM.
I just hope beyond hope that people start to see that, views are changing slowly, the rates in places like the USA are going down.
i don't agree with circumcision. And i don't understand what the problem is with it being posted here? That is why i don't post alot as i cannot fathom mumsnet rules?
I am totally opposed to it. Fiercely opposed to it.
My husband comes from a culture where it is done ritually at age 14 to mark transition to adulthood.
I refused point blank to allow it. We argued it out for a very long time. But he knew my view on it when we married and married me with that in mind. He had no right to try to change the agreement (that if we had sons they would not be circumcised) afterwards! I think he thought he could wear me down.
He tried to offer me a compromise of them having it done at birth. I refused. I said if he tried it, I'd have him deported.
I feel that strongly about it. And, like I say, he knew that from the start. From before we had a child. He had the choice to not marry me!
Now our eldest is approaching 14, he has returned to it, with some guff about them not being accepted as males in the tribe. My answer is the same. On your bike. We agreed right at the start.
As it happens, our youngest may need it done for medical reasons. He has a problem and they're monitoring him. If it needs to be done, then ok. But not for any other reason than medical need.
runningforthebusinheels I believe there are still some societies which practice male circumcision as a passage to manhood.
I could be wrong though, I don't know whether it's died out altogether.
Oops, cross posted with Hecate, clearly it hasn't died out.
Oh Hecate that must be awful for you, that constant attempt to wear you down.
Beautyfades, nothing wrong with discussing it in FWR. Odd to post that "Feminism means gender equality which means men's issues as well as female issues, please correct me if I'm wrong." and then when the next poster did correct, to respond with, "With that attitude, don't expect men to give a shit about women's issues." Strange red
He's totally brainwashed about it. He truly believes that it will harm them in some way to not have it done. He doesn't see it as cruel. He loves them very much and honestly believes that it is in their best interests. They won't be accepted, it's not clean, etc etc.
But it's not constant as in a weekly row, or anything. He didn't raise it for years after the first couple of years of it being a hot topic. But now, as they are getting to that age, his conditioning is kicking in and it's becoming an issue to him again.
Conversations about it are very short. I assure you.
Hecate for you. You're right to dig your heels in though.
Beautyfades, nothing wrong with discussing it in FWR. Odd to post that "Feminism means gender equality which means men's issues as well as female issues, please correct me if I'm wrong." and then when the next poster did correct, to respond with, "With that attitude, don't expect men to give a shit about women's issues."
Strange response given that every poster on this thread, including the one who corrected the redefinition of feminism by the OP, have condemned the practice he has asked us to condemn.
The fact that it only gained a few signatures is sad, Zippy. I would sign a petition against it.
Have you thought of starting another one?
Is it an MN rule that we're not allowed to bash MRA's now then?
Are we not allowed to bash racists either?
Oh Hecate - I honestly thought cultures practising MC at puberty as a right of passage was a thing of the past. Really pleased you're standing your ground on that one.
Zippy, your last post makes no sense.
The crucial part of the quote which you have cut off relates to views on circumcision...you then imply that that it was a comment about MRAs.
I think that's your whole problem here, we can be (and clearly are) against unnecessary circumcision. That really has nothing to do with MRA. Your decision to post the op here specifically may well be though.
Zippy, MRAs believe that feminism has 'gone too far' and that women can't be allowed full human rights because they are not human, they are 'women'. As I said upthread, there are plenty of good causes for people to get involved with (fighting poverty, racism, etc) but feminism is about women and about putting women's interests first. So when feminists are discussing women's issues, then we don't want to talk about or hear about men because they are not relevant to the discussion.
I think male circumcision is a horrible thing to do but it is in no way comparable to FGM. Given how common male circumcision is in the US I wouldn't mind betting that the majority of the world's most powerful men have been circumcised. It hasn't stopped them from being powerful, neither, as far as I'm aware, has it stopped them enjoying a fuck on the whole.
I'd love to see the end of it, as I think it's barbaric - maybe ask all those powerful men to do something about it. It's not an issue for feminism, we have enough issues that affect women, FGM being only one, with which to concern ourselves.
Please hear me out instead of dismissing this post as a "whiny MRA post"
Heard you out for 4 pages. This is a whiny MRA post.
I think the men suffering the long term damage, mental and physical, of circumcision would disagree that it is less barbaric.
And what about the women that are too frightened to report a rape because of fear of not being believed / accused of lying?
There are more of those women than there are men who have been wrongly accused.
Both are wrong, but you can't say that men need more rights when that is a fear women live in every day.
Oh stop with the bullshit about MRA's, the Southern Law Centre has named them as hate groups and they don't do that lightly.
There's a reason they are recognised for what they are.
I think the millions of men who are highly successful and powerful and quite capable of having sex and reproducing without tearing themselves apart would agree that it is less barbaric.
Zippy those issues are not caused by a matriarchal society and are therefore not equivalent to feminism. Why is it that MRAs can't just campaign for whatever social issues they feel strongly about without jumping all over feminist campaigns or women's issues? It seems like either MRAs want women to do the campaigning for them ("you're a feminist so you must be against [x thing that has fuck all to do with feminism] and you must do something about it") or these things get raised to silence women's campaigns (e.g. rape / false allegations).
Rape destroys many, many more womens' lives, Zippy, than false accusations of rape ruin mens' lives. Do you have any women in your life? 1 in 4 women statistically will be a victim of serious sexual assault in her lifetime.
In fact, the men in our lives are statistically more likely to be raped by another man, than to be falsely accused of rape.
Funny how we've moved sylphlike on to false accusations of rape, now. Any other subjects you want to cover?
So what do you call someone who is interested in both men and women issues? What about an equalist?
When equality is even remotely on the horizon, these issues will be redundant. Until then, only feminists are equalists because feminists are trying to achieve something that does not currently exist (equality). "Men's issues" are not about equality between the sexes.
Would you do it to a baby girl?
Sorry, meant to say...
Would you do it to a baby girl? Would you chop a piece of skin off her genitals for religious resons? I'm guessing no. So why do it to a boy?
Can I just ask - was this ever actually about male circumcision or did I just totally waste my time contributing when the intention was not to actually discuss what was outlined in the OP but to engineer some sort of attack or fight, hence moving on when circumcision didn't do it?
I'll leave that one for the people on this thread who were advocating circumcision
I was talking about the intention of the OP.
I have never understood why it is done for religious purposes. Surely it is an impertinence, a way of saying that God (whichever one) got the human design wrong and left what? A bit of sprue? Like an Airfix model?
If I was a God I would definitely be smiting for implying that I got the build wrong.
I am entirely in favour of male circumcision because there is evidence that it reduces rates of cervical cancer in women.
(I really only said that to try to make smoke come out of some MRA fellow's ears somewhere out there. MRAs are sooooo tedious.)
Hectate - No, I don't think it was ever actually about male circumcision. Though it doesn't mean your post was wasted. I had no idea that the sort of issues coming up in your family still happened these days. A number of people have said that. So we've learned something which is important about a human rights issue. That's more worthwhile than a lot of posts on MN (my own very much included)
Sorry Hecate that was for VisualiseAHorse not you.
Zippy: there are organisations campaigning to help the homeless and and indeed cure prostate cancer. Just like there are organisations campaigning to stop vivisection/save the NHS/promote global peace. People support and work for one or more organisations, depending on their particular priorities, but generally people working on (for instance) saving children in the developing world do not expect to be interrupted and told to divert their energies to fundraising for a donkey sanctuary - or vice versa. Feminism is for and about women, so while most if not all feminists would deplore non-medically-necessary male circumcision (as does anyone who isn't a superstitious idiot), feminists are not going to prioritize it as a campaign or a cause.
I'm afraid we've discovered, rather late in the day, that this OP is a poster who's been banned and re-banned many, many times.
We've deleted most of the OP's posts (other than the first one as then we might as well delete entire thread) but inclined to leave thread standing as a discussion.
Sorry for being slow on the uptake on this one.
These pesky MRA types must just love us so much - they can't keep away
Imagine my surprise...
He'll be back tomorrow.
He's back already, I suspect.....
You have to admire his persistence if nothing else.
Actually maybe not so much admire...
Just acknowledge, perhaps?
He has so much dedication to the cause.
I'm amazed to see the same poster supporting page 3 on another thread.
Who'd have thunk it?
Looks like im a bit late. Sorry to be a bit slow but whats MRA.
I'd better not answer that.
Someone else tell her...
Male Rights' Activist- MRA
Running, colour me surprised
He's on AIBU again now. He's getting a bit SHOUTY and quoting a thread that's 5 years old as evidence that we're all man-hating harpies.
Oh im with you. Sorry to be a bit thick tonight.
OP you havent really helped your "cause" you know.
Ah. So he was just looking for a fight.
He just wasn't happy until he'd engineered an argument, was he?
Why on earth do they do it? I don't understand.
He's convinced that sooner or later the Power of his Mighty Penis will mean he wins an argument. Despite the fact that he always ends up getting laughed at and pwned.
Oh, so his penis is doing the talking?
I thought it was his arse.
Join the discussion
Please login first.