Feminism - Your thoughts on it.

Lockstep

While I am aware of the problems facing an aging population in a mushroom shaped age graph, I'm still trying to figure out how the hell the world can avoid overpopulation while having a vibrant population demograph.

Macha

kickoutthejams wrote: »

While I am aware of the problems facing an aging population in a mushroom shaped age graph, I'm still trying to figure out how the hell the world can avoid overpopulation while having a vibrant population demograph.

The problem is balance between regions. A country needs a birth rate of 2.1 to replace the population (2 children replacing 2 parents + .1 for early deaths).

'Developed' nations (don't really like that word) generally have low birth rates.
Fortunately for us, our low birth rate is being supplemented by immigration - but what happens if a large portion of those people decide to go home?

The surge in population is happening in 'developing' nations, such as many African states.

So the irony is that some countries' ecomies will suffer from too low a population while others are suffering from the opposite problem - over population, which can put a strain on natural resources as the region's natural carrying capacity is exceeded - hmm fodder for my essay methinks!

pinklady2

I personaly think it so important to remember the women who brought change to Ireland and stood up for women and in turn helped women gain the respect & choices in life we deserve.
The likes of Countess Markievicz (what a women!!) and the Feminsit Movements in the 19th and 20th Century that paved the way for womens rights.
I do think that the women who made these serious changes should never ever be forgotton.
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Feminism

Midna

taconnol wrote: »

Eh..how do you manage to separate feminism and culture so effectively? The two are inextricably linked. A patriarchal society tends to result in practices that are disciminitory against women - FGM is one of them.
Do you know what the logic is behind FGM? One of the main ones is that it reduces promiscuity in women by removing the woman's enjoyment of sex. This logic assumes that women do not have the right to:
a) enjoy sex
b) choose who they have sex with
It also suggests that she is incapable of pracising self control.
Im my mind, all of these ideas are incredibly misogynistic - hence their interest for feminists.
Sorry but if I were to get worked up over something it would be forced FDM and NOT the context in which people are talking about how terrible it is.

and are we in that patriarchal society?

As far as I'm aware, FGM is illegal in most western countries - Ireland included. If it goes on, it is a criminal act. Thats not a case for feminism, that is a case for the law to deal with.

Regarding its practice elsewhere, well by and large, feminism is a western invention, you can be abhorred by someone elses traditions, but it neither your place nor your right to interfere. that is for the men and women of that culture to deal with.

Feminism does not give anyone the right to be world police.

For the record, I'm disgusted by FGM, but I'm also disgusted by alot of feminism. I think they have done more damage for us in society than men.

tallaght01

Midna wrote: »

and are we in that patriarchal society?

As far as I'm aware, FGM is illegal in most western countries - Ireland included. If it goes on, it is a criminal act. Thats not a case for feminism, that is a case for the law to deal with.

Regarding its practice elsewhere, well by and large, feminism is a western invention, you can be abhorred by someone elses traditions, but it neither your place nor your right to interfere. that is for the men and women of that culture to deal with.

Feminism does not give anyone the right to be world police.

For the record, I'm disgusted by FGM, but I'm also disgusted by alot of feminism. I think they have done more damage for us in society than men.

When a subgroup of our population actively treats women as second class citizens, and subservient to men, then it breeds this type of criminal behaviour.

We may think that we're ok because FGM is illegal in Ireland. But the fact that it's happening is a testament to the wider issue of gender inequality facing some women in this country.

Macha

Midna wrote: »

and are we in that patriarchal society?

As far as I'm aware, FGM is illegal in most western countries - Ireland included. If it goes on, it is a criminal act. Thats not a case for feminism, that is a case for the law to deal with.

Regarding its practice elsewhere, well by and large, feminism is a western invention, you can be abhorred by someone elses traditions, but it neither your place nor your right to interfere. that is for the men and women of that culture to deal with.

Feminism does not give anyone the right to be world police.

For the record, I'm disgusted by FGM, but I'm also disgusted by alot of feminism. I think they have done more damage for us in society than men.

Why should I turn my head because it isn't happening in my country? Actually I used to live in a country that does practise FGM - does that mean I had more of a right to talk about it when I lived there than now?

The fact that feminism flourished first in Western countries does not mean it has no relevance in other countries. Feminism has very similar principles to those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are feminist movements all around the world, giving women a voice against horrific injustice.

I certainly do think that I have the right to condemn and speak out about 'tradition's that discriminate against 50% of a society's population and do not give them an equal standing in society. We are not talking about the hijab or abaya here. We're talking about women not being allowed to drive. We're talking about women who are limited in their activities outside the home. We're talking about societies where a woman is gang raped and then SHE is sentenced to jail and lashes.

IMO these countries don't get to wave their 'tradition' flag over injustices like these and expect everyone else to say "Oh tradition! You should have said earlier. Carry on". You say that it is up to the men and women in that country to deal with - part of the problem is that these women are not given a say in the matter! In many cases they don't even have the right to vote.

Imagine if I had a similar attitude towards apartheid in South Africa - sure its a tradition, yeah there are thousands of black people living in poverty but sure it's their own problem. Recent history has shown us that international attention by other governments and media can have a positive effect on human rights cases.

I can't believe you think that feminism has done more harm to women than men. That comment makes me very sad. But just remember while you sit there typing those words, not forced into an early, unwanted marriage, not forced to have 5, 6, 7, 8 children, with the right to drive, vote, use contraceptive, travel, work, appear in public without a male member, with your face uncovered that other women are not so lucky and we would do well not to abandon them to the perils of 'tradition'.

It is sad that we forget even our recent history - I think you would have a different opinion if you were born even 30 years earlier.

Lockstep

I am no friend of Cultural Relativism.

The whole notion of "Ah sure it's their culture" holds no water IMHO.

Ok, I agree there should be a line (I don't want some fundamentalist from Saudi Arabia comiong over here and campaigning against alcohol being legal)

Then again, neither do I think something completely against UN Human Rights and so on should be allowed.

Midna

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I am no friend of Cultural Relativism.
The whole notion of "Ah sure it's their culture" holds no water IMHO.
Ok, I agree there should be a line (I don't want some fundamentalist from Saudi Arabia comiong over here and campaigning against alcohol being legal)
Then again, neither do I think something completely against UN Human Rights and so on should be allowed.

well that is not really my point. But yeah, lets have a look at our own society and see what we have. Alcohol ruins so many lives, how many families and children have had their lives ruined? Capitalist greed, pollution, obesity, promiscuity, alcoholism - these are traits of irish society that other cultures find repulsive. I find some of them repulsive.

What my point is, is that FGM isn't something for feminism to deal with (but feminists portray it as a feminist issue), it is something we need to deal with in terms of human rights. It is their culture, so it is difficult to intervene. If a nation came over here and told us we are ruining our bodies with alcohol, we'd tell them where to go. you're not going to suddenly go to the middle east and empower the women there either. What NEEDS to be done, is for someone to establish a set of human rights and get these cultures, because it is not countries we're talking about here, to agree to them... you know, as a world full of PEOPLE (that includes men too).

The fact that feminism flourished first in Western countries does not mean it has no relevance in other countries. Feminism has very similar principles to those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are feminist movements all around the world, giving women a voice against horrific injustice.

I certainly do think that I have the right to condemn and speak out about 'tradition's that discriminate against 50% of a society's population and do not give them an equal standing in society. We are not talking about the hijab or abaya here. We're talking about women not being allowed to drive. We're talking about women who are limited in their activities outside the home. We're talking about societies where a woman is gang raped and then SHE is sentenced to jail and lashes.

See this is why I hate feminism. You have every right to condemn it. I've already said I condemn it. You shouldn't feel you have the right to condemn it because you are a feminist. You should feel obliged to condemn it because you are a HUMAN BEING and what they are doing is wrong!!!!

I can't believe you think that feminism has done more harm to women than men. That comment makes me very sad. But just remember while you sit there typing those words, not forced into an early, unwanted marriage, not forced to have 5, 6, 7, 8 children, with the right to drive, vote, use contraceptive, travel, work, appear in public without a male member, with your face uncovered that other women are not so lucky and we would do well not to abandon them to the perils of 'tradition'.

Feminism today is very different to what it was back then and to compare it is to really sully the history of those women.

today, feminism polarises and corrupts most of what it touches. It claims to ask for a level playing field but really it doesn't. What it asks for is a special role for women. It wants equality with a special respect to our sensitive needs. At least the modern feminism that is thrown in our faces which is no different to the other selfish vested interest groups.

The more feminism paints us as different and separate as genders the more it does us damage. Look at the workplace - see how it is going, we'll never be equals while some women look for rules to set us apart. I know places where they have to hire a "quota" of women. I want to know I got a job because I work hard and I'm the best, I don't want a job to make up a number.

I understand there are some cases where women do need special cases to be made. Parental leave is one - but I also know that men don't get as much parental leave as women. Why not? Why not look to equalise that, let couples decide between them who takes the paternity leave and then you remove the perceived bias, because if women still lose out, it is by choice.

When I see feminists deal with this issue, I don't see that kind of talk, I see talk of wanting jobs held and certain assurances etc etc.

And that is my gripe, because from where I'm sitting, the feminist movement that I've been exposed to, is a fake. Seeking equality doesn't equal feminism.

fly_agaric

Lurking with interest after I found this thread but I just have to ask this...

tallaght01 wrote: »

the fact that it's happening is a testament to the wider issue of gender inequality facing some women in this country.

How so? HTF does FGM have anything to do with "gender inequality facing some women in this country"???:rolleyes:

I know - FGM happens because the dail isn't 90% women, because women don't run Ireland...
If they did we'd mobilise all men over 18 for war in Africa and the middle east, maybe develop the "green" Atom Bomb, make some ludicrous threats put a stop to it!

That'd learn em.

Macha

Midna wrote: »

well that is not really my point. But yeah, lets have a look at our own society and see what we have. Alcohol ruins so many lives, how many families and children have had their lives ruined? Capitalist greed, pollution, obesity, promiscuity, alcoholism - these are traits of irish society that other cultures find repulsive. I find some of them repulsive.

I don't think anyone is saying that these things are particularly good. But no one is using tradition as a defense. Although on second thoughts - debate about drink driving & loss of social life in rural Ireland?? Could be an example...

Midna wrote: »

What my point is, is that FGM isn't something for feminism to deal with (but feminists portray it as a feminist issue), it is something we need to deal with in terms of human rights. It is their culture, so it is difficult to intervene. If a nation came over here and told us we are ruining our bodies with alcohol, we'd tell them where to go. you're not going to suddenly go to the middle east and empower the women there either. What NEEDS to be done, is for someone to establish a set of human rights and get these cultures, because it is not countries we're talking about here, to agree to them... you know, as a world full of PEOPLE (that includes men too).

I understand what you're saying but why do you have a problem with an issue being identified as one that affects women in particular? FGM is one of these and so it is of interest to feminists. That doesn't mean that feminists don't care about other people, including men, but just that they want to focus their efforts on issues that affect women. Do you rage against other movements that focus on one issue, eg the anti-racism movement, in the same manner?

Unfortunately, it often takes specialised NGOs to highlight a particular problem eg environmental pollution, low rape case convictions or the lack of fathers' rights. Is there something wrong with this sort of specialisation?

Midna wrote: »

See this is why I hate feminism. You have every right to condemn it. I've already said I condemn it. You shouldn't feel you have the right to condemn it because you are a feminist. You should feel obliged to condemn it because you are a HUMAN BEING and what they are doing is wrong!!!!

I take your point.

Midna wrote: »

Feminism today is very different to what it was back then and to compare it is to really sully the history of those women.

I think that's unfair as you're painting feminism as one, unified movement, which is far from the truth. No one person has a monopoly on feminism and it means different things to different people. To use an extreme example, it's like condemning the Palestinian stuggle because a few become suicide-bombers.

Midna wrote: »

today, feminism polarises and corrupts most of what it touches. It claims to ask for a level playing field but really it doesn't. What it asks for is a special role for women. It wants equality with a special respect to our sensitive needs. At least the modern feminism that is thrown in our faces which is no different to the other selfish vested interest groups.

The more feminism paints us as different and separate as genders the more it does us damage. Look at the workplace - see how it is going, we'll never be equals while some women look for rules to set us apart. I know places where they have to hire a "quota" of women. I want to know I got a job because I work hard and I'm the best, I don't want a job to make up a number.

What do you mean 'sensitive needs'? What is wrong with asking to be different but equal? We are different - but have more in common than we think.

I don't agree with quotas either but they have these for ethinic minorities in the US - will you condemn the anti-racism movement as well?

Midna wrote: »

I understand there are some cases where women do need special cases to be made. Parental leave is one - but I also know that men don't get as much parental leave as women. Why not? Why not look to equalise that, let couples decide between them who takes the paternity leave and then you remove the perceived bias, because if women still lose out, it is by choice.

When I see feminists deal with this issue, I don't see that kind of talk, I see talk of wanting jobs held and certain assurances etc etc.

And that is my gripe, because from where I'm sitting, the feminist movement that I've been exposed to, is a fake. Seeking equality doesn't equal feminism.

Sure and fathers' rights movements have their own organisations. Do you think that there should be one big anti-discrimination movement? I think issues are too complex to roll into one.

Fair enough - your experiences of feminism are not the same as mine and so you have a different viewpoint. All I can say is that having lived in countries like Saudi Arabia, I strongly believe that feminism still has a role around the world, and to a lesser degree in Ireland.

Mikel

Midna wrote: »

today, feminism polarises and corrupts most of what it touches. It claims to ask for a level playing field but really it doesn't. What it asks for is a special role for women. It wants equality with a special respect to our sensitive needs. At least the modern feminism that is thrown in our faces which is no different to the other selfish vested interest groups.

The more feminism paints us as different and separate as genders the more it does us damage. Look at the workplace - see how it is going, we'll never be equals while some women look for rules to set us apart. I know places where they have to hire a "quota" of women. I want to know I got a job because I work hard and I'm the best, I don't want a job to make up a number.

I understand there are some cases where women do need special cases to be made. Parental leave is one - but I also know that men don't get as much parental leave as women. Why not? Why not look to equalise that, let couples decide between them who takes the paternity leave and then you remove the perceived bias, because if women still lose out, it is by choice.

When I see feminists deal with this issue, I don't see that kind of talk, I see talk of wanting jobs held and certain assurances etc etc.

And that is my gripe, because from where I'm sitting, the feminist movement that I've been exposed to, is a fake. Seeking equality doesn't equal feminism.

Spot on

JC 2K3

Midna wrote: »

See this is why I hate feminism. You have every right to condemn it. I've already said I condemn it. You shouldn't feel you have the right to condemn it because you are a feminist. You should feel obliged to condemn it because you are a HUMAN BEING and what they are doing is wrong!!!!

+10000000000000000000000000

Nail. Head. On. Hit.

tallaght01

fly_agaric wrote: »

Lurking with interest after I found this thread but I just have to ask this...



How so? HTF does FGM have anything to do with "gender inequality facing some women in this country"???:rolleyes:

I know - FGM happens because the dail isn't 90% women, because women don't run Ireland...
If they did we'd mobilise all men over 18 for war in Africa and the middle east, maybe develop the "green" Atom Bomb, make some ludicrous threats put a stop to it!

That'd learn em.

In the communities (incuding those within Ireand) where there is FGM, there is huge gender inequality. I thought that woud be one of the most uncontroversial points made in this debate

I'm lost on the atom bomb thing.

tallaght01

JC 2K3 wrote: »

+10000000000000000000000000

Nail. Head. On. Hit.

On the contrary. No-one gives a hoot about human rights in this world, by and large. So, if feminists are willing to shout a bit about them then it's all good. Human beings haven't done such a good job in the field of human rights, sadly.

Midna

taconnol wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but why do you have a problem with an issue being identified as one that affects women in particular? FGM is one of these and so it is of interest to feminists. That doesn't mean that feminists don't care about other people, including men, but just that they want to focus their efforts on issues that affect women.

Because the culture in question does many things beside FGM that are dubious.

Do you rage against other movements that focus on one issue, eg the anti-racism movement, in the same manner?

No, because the anti racism movement doesn't take broad spectrum issues as examples to try and get PR for their plight. I've yet to see an anti-racism movement try that. I might liken them to PETA though.

I think that's unfair as you're painting feminism as one, unified movement, which is far from the truth. No one person has a monopoly on feminism and it means different things to different people.

Well isn't that a problem? You have a movement that is a branch of movements that are using the overall movement to push forward agendas? Don't you see something inherently wrong with that? Look at the attitudes of feminism? Look at the approaches?

What do you mean 'sensitive needs'? What is wrong with asking to be different but equal? We are different - but have more in common than we think.

I don't know what sensitive needs are, but apparently I have them.

I'm quite happy to fight it out with the rest of the world, I don't need any help and I shouldn't be looking for it. What I find now, is that the things I want to be involved in, office camradery or whatever, I can't because companies and men are all sh*t scared. It is OK in Ireland, but when I deal with overseas its depressing.

I don't agree with quotas either but they have these for ethinic minorities in the US - will you condemn the anti-racism movement as well?

Yes and No. Racism is a real living issue in America. Some people abuse the system and I condemn them. What the feminist movement, in whichever branch you want, has done to women in the workforce is a crime because they've exploited a real issue for their own needs. Look at Ireland now, most of the college going population are female. Why do we need quotas?

Sure and fathers' rights movements have their own organisations. Do you think that there should be one big anti-discrimination movement? I think issues are too complex to roll into one.

I think there should be common sense applied. Give a couple a certain amount of paternal leave and let the couple choose who takes time off.

Fair enough - your experiences of feminism are not the same as mine and so you have a different viewpoint. All I can say is that having lived in countries like Saudi Arabia, I strongly believe that feminism still has a role around the world, and to a lesser degree in Ireland.

It depends what feminism is defined as and how ethical the feminist group is. In my experience, they aren't very ethical and are more about power than equality.

JC 2K3

tallaght01 wrote: »

On the contrary. No-one gives a hoot about human rights in this world, by and large. So, if feminists are willing to shout a bit about them then it's all good. Human beings haven't done such a good job in the field of human rights, sadly.

You didn't really read what I quoted, did you?

Sleepy

Two points:

1. Why is the superstitious mutilation of one sex's genitalia referred to as circumcision and the act itself performed in hospitals around the world while the mutilation of the other's is (rightly imho) condemned?

2. If we want to take the issue of maternity leave out of the equation when it comes to hiring practices isn't the simplest way to do this to legislate for equal paternity leave rights? (perhaps even to enforce the taking of this leave on both sexes if children are considered to be so vital to our economy?)

tallaght01

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You didn't really read what I quoted, did you?

Yes I did. You're missing the point somewhat, though.

Sleepy wrote: »

Two points:

1. Why is the superstitious mutilation of one sex's genitalia referred to as circumcision and the act itself performed in hospitals around the world while the mutilation of the other's is (rightly imho) condemned?

2. If we want to take the issue of maternity leave out of the equation when it comes to hiring practices isn't the simplest way to do this to legislate for equal paternity leave rights? (perhaps even to enforce the taking of this leave on both sexes if children are considered to be so vital to our economy?)

Good question.

I disagree with "backstreet" circumcision as much as i disagree with female genital mutilation.

BUT, there are many benefits to male circumcision. For eg, 90% of american boys get circumcised at birth.

There are no benefits to FGM. And remember, It's not just the clitoris that's "operated" on. In many cases, the vagina is sown shut aswell.

I think the above debates about whether feminism is composed of nutcases is a red herring. There's a load of nutcases involved in environmental lobbying, and animal rights group. It doesn't make the fundamental principles, or the issues that are being campaigned about, wrong. It means some people are nutcases.

In a world where gender inequality is one of the biggest factors leading to ill heath, it's very difficult to argue that lobbying for equality is not a worthy pursuit.

I would add that we shoudn't need feminists/human rights groups/equality lobbyists. If the rest of humanity did it's job, this wouldn't be an issue. This should not be an issue in 2008.

But to this day, the UN and world govt still turn a blind eye to horrific practises around the world.

Systematic rape and sexual abuse in Sierra Leon, Dharfur, the congo, Burma, Rwanda? Blah, let them fight it out amongst themselves.

The use of child soldiers (including girls) to fight and as a source of "wives" in Sierra Leon, Dharfur, Burma, Congo, Uganda? Not our problem really. Send in a few punters to run a residential home for them after the conflict is over.?

A change of heart? Let's send in some Africa Union or pakistani troops to help out? Human rights groups document african union troops abusing the kids they're there to protect. Pakistani troops selling weapons to these guys.

The international community and the UN and their troops are a joke.

But more worrysome, they don't seem to give a hoot.

I mean, seriously,what kind of world is it? How do these people seep at night?

Zulu

tallaght01 wrote: »

BUT, there are many benefits to male circumcision. For eg, 90% of american boys get circumcised at birth.

...what like identifying Americans?

Nevyn

Two million girls under go FGM every year.

Macha

Midna wrote: »

No, because the anti racism movement doesn't take broad spectrum issues as examples to try and get PR for their plight. I've yet to see an anti-racism movement try that. I might liken them to PETA though.

Due to the fact that women make up 50% of any given society, it will inherently involve 'broad spectrum issues'. To give another example, when slavery was prevalent in the US, the entire economy was based on racism. A total paradigm shift was needed in order to change attitudes and behaviour.

Most people who have a negative attitude towards feminism don't realise that they are also trying to better things for the men in society. For example, when women are more educated they can normally bring more money into the household, etc.

Liken who to PETA? Feminist movements? Correct me if I'm wrong but if you are saying that it is grossly unfair. I, and most people who know anything about them, can't stand PETA as they don't care who they trample on to get what they want. Naked female protesters? The more the merrier.. They are the extreme of the extreme. Again, I think you're making the mistake of rolling all feminists into homogenous unit. You can't compare an entire movement to one extreme organisation. That's like condemning the whole animal rights movement because of PETA. That means orgs like WWF are also condemned according to your logic.

Midna wrote: »

Well isn't that a problem? You have a movement that is a branch of movements that are using the overall movement to push forward agendas? Don't you see something inherently wrong with that? Look at the attitudes of feminism? Look at the approaches?

Look that happens all the time - in all movements, as Tallaght01 points out. Like I said, no one has a monopoly on the word feminism. It is just important for everyone to realise this and accept that we live in a liberal society and we can't ban organisations from using a particular word unless it is under copyright. Generalisation is human nature and its one of the most commonly used flawed-logics. I don't like specimen A, therefore I don't like all specimens of A. A Polish guy broke into my car, ergo all Polish are thieves.

Midna wrote: »

I don't know what sensitive needs are, but apparently I have them.

Hah I know what you mean. TBH I've never heard a feminist do anything but rage against ideas of 'sensitive needs'. IMO feminism is about choice and its about breaking us out of our fixed gender pidgeon-holes, not creating new ones like women have 'sensitive needs'.

Midna wrote: »

I'm quite happy to fight it out with the rest of the world, I don't need any help and I shouldn't be looking for it. What I find now, is that the things I want to be involved in, office camradery or whatever, I can't because companies and men are all sh*t scared. It is OK in Ireland, but when I deal with overseas its depressing.

Well that is sad, I'm guessing you mean the US? This is the only country where feminism has gone overboard, IMO. Believe me - the rest of Europe (except Scandinavia) could do with a good dose of gender equality.

I have to say I don't have that issue and I have worked in a LOT of places. If anything, of all the countries i have lived and worked, Ireland is the one place I feel people see me as a person, before they see me as a female.

Midna wrote: »

Yes and No. Racism is a real living issue in America. Some people abuse the system and I condemn them. What the feminist movement, in whichever branch you want, has done to women in the workforce is a crime because they've exploited a real issue for their own needs. Look at Ireland now, most of the college going population are female. Why do we need quotas?

See with racism you manage to separate out the individuals and organisation from the movement as a whole? Why can't you do the same with feminism? You can't seriously think that every single branch of feminism is the same.

Midna wrote: »

I think there should be common sense applied. Give a couple a certain amount of paternal leave and let the couple choose who takes time off.

You're not really answering my question. Do you think there should be one, big human rights organisation (eg HRW or AI) only? No specialist orgs allowed? Will we get rid of the ISPCC? WWF? Barnardos? etc. The reason these organsations exist is because there are characteristics of discrimination against certain sections of society that are specific to that form of discrimination. The 'one-size-fits-all' approach isn't always the best.

Funnily enough, this is exactly the system they have in Norway, where feminism is alive and well and the country in which I would say gender equality has been achieved (although, again, I don't agree with their quota system)

Midna wrote: »

It depends what feminism is defined as and how ethical the feminist group is. In my experience, they aren't very ethical and are more about power than equality.

Can I ask what feminist organisations you have experiences with?

Sleepy wrote: »

1. Why is the superstitious mutilation of one sex's genitalia referred to as circumcision and the act itself performed in hospitals around the world while the mutilation of the other's is (rightly imho) condemned?

I would be against any such forced procedure on both sexes but there is a major difference between male circumcision and FGM. There are controversies over the negative effects that male circumcision may have-emotionally, sexually and physically. However, there is nothing to show these effects, if they do occur, are in any way extreme. There are no studies that conclued there is any reduction is sexual sensation or satisfaction. Moreover there is no one fundamental reason why male circumcision takes place - and none that I find are inherently misandrisitic.

On the other hand, FGM tends to remove the entire clitoris of the girl, thus seriously affecting her sexual sensation and satisfaction. Moreover, more often than not, the reasons for FGM are inherently misogynistic, as I quoted earlier in this thread. Another important disctinction is that women often have a lesser status in societies where this practice prevails, thus reducing their ability to bring about its discontinuation.

Lockstep

IMHO everyone always goes on about their race/sex/ethnic group/religion as being oppressed.

As soon as I hear a black person talking about their slavery history, I almost instinctively think about Irish people used as slaves under Cromwell, likewise if they talk about how they had such tough times in the ghettos, I think about Irish experiences there.

Likewise, as soon as I hear a woman bring up feminist issues, a guy usually points out the prejudice men have in certain areas.



I really don'tbegrudge people doing this, I just think it's a human nature to "look out for your own" kind of thing.

Macha

kickoutthejams wrote: »

IMHO everyone always goes on about their race/sex/ethnic group/religion as being oppressed.

As soon as I hear a black person talking about their slavery history, I almost instinctively think about Irish people used as slaves under Cromwell, likewise if they talk about how they had such tough times in the ghettos, I think about Irish experiences there.

Likewise, as soon as I hear a woman bring up feminist issues, a guy usually points out the prejudice men have in certain areas.



I really don'tbegrudge people doing this, I just think it's a human nature to "look out for your own" kind of thing.

Well you have to admit, the WASPS in the US don't really have too much to complain about...

Lockstep

taconnol wrote: »

Well you have to admit, the WASPS in the US don't really have too much to complain about...

In some ways I pity them TBH.

MAny of them lack the cultural solidarity that others in the US have,

call it what you will, Anomie,Alienation, Disenchantment.





Although I still don't see how that relates to my point: that every group will always complain about how their group is the one being oppressed. Doesn't matter if yoo've got everything your heart desires. You'll still view your group as being under attack.

JC 2K3

tallaght01 wrote: »

Yes I did. You're missing the point somewhat, though.

They said that human rights abuses are human rights abuses, regardless of gender, and that we should condemn them because we are humans ourselves, not because the crimes are committed against a particular gender. It was not a question of practicality, though I must point out that there are many human rights organisations out there, and I don't know of any which are strictly feminist organisations.

As for human beings generally not giving a hoot about human rights, that's totally untrue. Unfortunately, ensuring human rights in countries that currently do not embrace them is not a very simple process. So just because countries exist today that do not embrace human rights, doesn't mean that no one cares about them.

Macha

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In some ways I pity them TBH.

MAny of them lack the cultural solidarity that others in the US have,

call it what you will, Anomie,Alienation, Disenchantment.


Although I still don't see how that relates to my point: that every group will always complain about how their group is the one being oppressed. Doesn't matter if yoo've got everything your heart desires. You'll still view your group as being under attack.

Twas a joke...

Every group may consider itself to be 'under attack' but I think some groups are more 'under attack' than others. Perception and reality are two different things

tallaght01

taconnol wrote: »

Twas a joke...

Every group may consider itself to be 'under attack' but I think some groups are more 'under attack' than others. Perception and reality are two different things

'tis very true.

There's no way you can argue that, on a global scale, women have a lot more to complain about.

JC 2k3, you can't possibly be arguing that most people in the countries where womens' rights are ignored are in favour of the rights of women?

Zulu

tallaght01 wrote: »

BUT, there are many benefits to male circumcision.

...honestly though Tallagh01, what are the benefits of male circumcision?
@ Thaedydal, how many boys get circumcised every year.

tallaght01

Zulu wrote: »

...honestly though Tallagh01, what are the benefits of male circumcision?
@ Thaedydal, how many boys get circumcised every year.

Benefits of circumcision:

virtually no penile cancer in males who are circumcised early.

Much more difficult to catch HIV from unprotected sex when you're a circumcised male.

Much easier hygiene practises for circumcised males.

It's no common in Ireland. The yans do it for health reasons. Lots of people would get it done in the UK for the same reasons. When I worked i paediatric surgery, we would often do them at the request of parents. There are no good global figures for male circumcision. Just estimates, because of the high numbers in developing countries.

Zulu

Does it warrant the proceedure though?
I mean, hygiene imo isn't a valid reason. We have soap. We can clean ourselves.
Tbh, if you want to protect from HIV you wear a condom. I wouldn't consider that a valid reason either.
Penile cancer, I don't know about so I won't comment.

The point i'm trying to make is, it's as pointless a surgery for either sex. But because it's so common amonst men, it seems to be ok.

I'll be clear with you, I'd be in the camp that feels we shouldn't be lobbing for a particular sex or race or creed but for fellow humans.