Feminism - Your thoughts on it.

tallaght01

Zulu wrote: »

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.

It sure as hell makes sense in developing countries where penile cancer rates are high. Also, in some African countries, 20% of people are HIV positive.

Makes less sense in Ireland where we have access to soap, condoms and antiretrovirals to treat HIV.

But, the americans argue that the benefits outweight the risks over there. It's probably a fair enough point, as there are very few complications with circumcision when done properly. However, the issue is should we be doing it from an ethical point of view.

But it's simply not comparable to FGM in terms of the associated problems.

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

@ Thaedydal, how many boys get circumcised every year.

I don't know the stats on that, I don't agree with circumcision unless is is medically needed.

I understand the religious reasons but there is a big differenece between male circumsicion and Female genital mutilation in terms of the damage done and the number of deaths due to it.

Zulu

tallaght01 wrote: »

It sure as hell makes sense in developing countries where penile cancer rates are high. Also, in some African countries, 20% of people are HIV positive.

I'm sorry but I just can't accept that logic. It's not a cure for HIV. Removing the penis would be far more effective.

...as there are very few complications with circumcision when done properly.

I'm sure the same could be same of female circumcision.

However, the issue is should we be doing it from an ethical point of view.

You're right it is.

But it's simply not comparable to FGM in terms of the associated problems.

Indeed it's not but perhaps thats because it's preformed by surgeons in hospitals, and it's wide spread and well practised.
I still fail to see any valid reason that warrants it.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I don't know the stats on that, I don't agree with circumcision unless is is medically needed.

Good to hear (although I gathered that was your position)

I understand the religious reasons but there is a big differenece between male circumsicion and Female genital mutilation in terms of the damage done and the number of deaths due to it.

Is that not just because female circumcision isn't carried out by professional surgeons though?

Anyway, I've made my point, and I'm kinda taking this OT - apologies.

tallaght01

Zulu wrote: »

I'm sorry but I just can't accept that logic. It's not a cure for HIV. Removing the penis would be far more effective.

I'm sure the same could be same of female circumcision.
You're right it is.

Indeed it's not but perhaps thats because it's preformed by surgeons in hospitals, and it's wide spread and well practised.
I still fail to see any valid reason that warrants it.

Good to hear (although I gathered that was your position)

Is that not just because female circumcision isn't carried out by professional surgeons though?

Anyway, I've made my point, and I'm kinda taking this OT - apologies.

I'm not getting into those arguments where everyone quotes every line the other person said.

But, you can't argue against something because it's not a "cure" for HIV. Condoms don't sure HIV. You have to realise just how prevalent HIV and penile cancer are in developing countries. $% millioin Africans are positive. If I had a son in a developing country, I would definitely have him circumcised. I would not subject my daughter to FGM! There are enormous differences.

Whether you accept that fact is superfluous to the argument I guess. The point is that there are benefits to male circumcision, which outweigh the problems.

The same can not be said for female genital mutilation.

FGM isn't carried out by surgeons as there's no benefit to it!

You can argue the ethics of both. I'm not saying you're wrong to be against circumcision. I'm saying it's not in the same league as FGM.

Nevyn

It is not female circumsiction it is female gential mutilation.

If the head of the penis was cut off or shredded so prevent enjoyment of sex then male circumsion may come close to female gential mutilation.

Zulu

tallaght01 wrote: »

If I had a son in a developing country, I would definitely have him circumcised. I would not subject my daughter to FGM! There are enormous differences.

Ok you're not really getting me I think. A circumcision in africa (male or female) is (chances are) not going to be preformed by a surgeon in a hospital. So it's going to be dodgy. It's not going to be preformed for "hygiene" reasons or to prevent the spread of HIV.
In this situation, it is EQUALLY as appalling.

In western cultures, surgeons preform a surgery (on boys) that is tried and tested as it were and there are minimal complications. It stems from religious/superstitious roots, but has become generally accepted. Due to western culture this hasn't been inflicted on females. (If it did, they'd probably have the procedure as safe)
That doesn't make it ok though, does it?

As for all the "benefits", it's just not going to wash. I can give you benefits of most any action, but that doesn't make it ok.

So I think the same can be said of female circumcision. It's equally as appalling as male genital mutilation.

FGM isn't carried out by surgeons as there's no benefit to it!

There is a religious and cultural aspect to this which supersedes the "hygienic" rational in my opinion. I believe that came later.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is not female circumsiction it is female gential mutilation.

If the head of the penis was cut off or shredded so prevent enjoyment of sex then male circumsion may come close to female gential mutilation.

Well the removal of the foreskin dulls the sensitivity. Getting back to sleepy point:
Why isn't it Male genital mutilation?
Why is FGM more accurate than female circumcision?

tallaght01

Zulu wrote: »

Ok you're not really getting me I think. A circumcision in africa (male or female) is (chances are) not going to be preformed by a surgeon in a hospital. So it's going to be dodgy. It's not going to be preformed for "hygiene" reasons or to prevent the spread of HIV.
In this situation, it is EQUALLY as appalling.

In western cultures, surgeons preform a surgery (on boys) that is tried and tested as it were and there are minimal complications. It stems from religious/superstitious roots, but has become generally accepted. Due to western culture this hasn't been inflicted on females. (If it did, they'd probably have the procedure as safe)
That doesn't make it ok though, does it?

As for all the "benefits", it's just not going to wash. I can give you benefits of most any action, but that doesn't make it ok.

So I think the same can be said of female circumcision. It's equally as appalling as male genital mutilation.

There is a religious and cultural aspect to this which supersedes the "hygienic" rational in my opinion. I believe that came later.

A lot of circumcisions are performed in developed countries by Rabbis. A lot of circumcisions are performed in developing coutries by docs, too.

They're both pretty safe if the person is trained properly. If you're aksing do I agree with untrained people performing circumcisions, then I'd agree that it makes me uneasy.

But it's difficult to argue with the logic that it saves more lives than it costs. You are trying to argue with that logic by saying it "won't wash" because "lots of things have benefits, but that doesn't make them right". But when the benefits outweigh the risks, then that point is moot.

For the record, I abhor the religious circumcisions performed in ireland and the UK. But, as much as I would like to, I can't say safety is compromised.

Even when they are performed by some backstreet quack, the problems ecountered are simply not in the same league.

I think you're right about me not getting your fundamental point. I still don't think I do.

But you are, of course, entitled to campaign against both types of "circumcision". I think it would weaken your standpoint considerably, but do what you like.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is not female circumsiction it is female gential mutilation.

If the head of the penis was cut off or shredded so prevent enjoyment of sex then male circumsion may come close to female gential mutilation.

The dictionary would disagree. It seems either are appropriate, only society seems to think otherwise.

mu·ti·late
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


cir·cum·cise
–verb (used with object), -cised, -cis·ing.
1. to remove the prepuce of (a male), esp. as a religious rite.
2. to remove the clitoris, prepuce, or labia of (a female).
3. to purify spiritually.

tallaght01

Zulu wrote: »

Well the removal of the foreskin dulls the sensitivity. Getting back to sleepy point:
Why isn't it Male genital mutilation?
Why is FGM more accurate than female circumcision?

If you've ever seen a FGM, and compared ot to a male circumcision, you'll see how one is "mutilation" and the other isn't.

You see it every so often now, with all the immigrant kids. It still turns my stomach.

EDIT: removal of the clitoris is circumcision. But FGM usually involves a whole lot else. there's sowing together of the labia, aswell as removal of parts of the labia

Zulu

tallaght01 wrote: »

You are trying to argue with that logic by saying it "won't wash" because "lots of things have benefits, but that doesn't make them right". But when the benefits outweigh the risks, then that point is moot.

well no, it's just a benefit - but that doesn't make it right. But it's ok, we're not going to agree here.

For the record, I abhor the religious circumcisions performed in ireland and the UK. But, as much as I would like to, I can't say safety is compromised.

...female circumcision? or all circumcision?
Ok look we both agree that "back street" operations are bad. Would I be right in saying your position is that they are far worse for women? If so I can agree with you on that point, but I don't see how that somehow makes it more acceptable to happen to boys? It's wrong either way imo. Thats my fundamental point.

But you are, of course, entitled to campaign against both types of "circumcision". I think it would weaken your standpoint considerably, but do what you like.

Well I'm not going to campaign for either; I think we both know that, I'm just highlighting that we should be working together to make the world better and safer for everyone, not just a particular elite group.


...just read your point on the difference between FGM and female circumcision. Thanks for clearing that up.
I take it you'd still be against female circumcision then (in principle)?

Nevyn

Female genital mutilation comes in several forms, the most common being "type II": excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora. Some countries, including the United Kingdom, outlaw the practice, but anecdotal evidence suggests that these laws are flouted. Few women are prepared to talk about it outside their own close circle. No one has been prosecuted under the United Kingdom's Female Circumcision Act of 1985.

At the Central Middlesex Hospital, London, Mr Gordon runs a weekly NHS walk-in clinic for African women seeking reversals of the mutilation. Those who attend are mostly Somali women. Most of them have undergone the type III procedure: excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching of the vaginal opening in order to narrow or tighten it (infibulation).

http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/somalia/fmgpictures.htm NSFW contains pic

Zulu

in work now. Although something tells me I won't want to see that page afterwards!!

tallaght01

yes, I'm always against FGM.

I'm definitely against male circumcision when performed by people who aren't trained.

I want to be against religious circumcision They are often done with zero anaesthetic, and you just have this baby lying in a bed going mental. It's terrible to watch, but it's a safe procedure.

I guess the point I'm makiing is one of degree. The two procedures we're talking about are like having open heart surgery comapred to having your appendix out.

Lots of males get circumcised voluntarily, whereas no-one gets FGM voluntarily (I'd imagine).

I think campaigning against, or just being against, FGM isn't really the way to go though. I think a fundamental shift in the way women are looked at in these coutries is the issue.

It's only in a country where women are seen as second class citizens where men can think it's fine to mutilate girls, and where women stand back and let it happen.

tallaght01

Zulu wrote: »

in work now. Although something tells me I won't want to see that page afterwards!!

That makes two of us. I won't be looking at it either. Thoughts of it really disgusts me, and I don't have a weak stomach.

ChristOnAStick

Feminism was a good thing up until around the 1970s, when women were genuinely discriminated against, and their rights as human being were certainly held in contempt by men. These days, since they gained their rights to equal wages etc, they have nothing more to do other then pour scorn on men for being 'chauvinistic pigs'. They seem to see some societal imbalance still. Housewives are bitter over 'having' to stay home to maintain the household, while their husbands are out working to provide for them and the family.
Feminists often point out the disgusting breaches of human rights in places like Thailand, Sudan etc, women forced into prostitution etc. By men. But men are oppressed by men also, are they not?

Macha

I prefer to consider FGM as female castration - you are effectively cutting off the female version of the penis. Hence it is totally different and far more devastation a procedure than male circumcision.

ChristOnAStick - maybe I'm alone in this but I don't just look at injustices against women done by men - women can be discriminatory against women as well! The problems with feminism I can see being raised here are:

1) Feminism alienates people, especially men
2) Feminists blame men for everything.

Naturally, I think the 2 are linked.

Just to prove not all feminists subscribe to no. 2 there is a book called 'Female Chauvinist Pigs', about how women buy into the beauty myth and contribute to perpetuating it. It also talks about how women think being sexy = girl power (this view can be why some women are so anti-make up). It also deals with the worrying trend of the sexualisation of girls v early on in life.

I think its important for women to realise they can't have their cake and it eat. They can't gain power and then still blame men for everything. Once they have power, they are part of this thing called 'society' that shapes our lives and therefore are responsible, to a greater or lesser degree than men, for how that society is.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

I prefer to consider FGM as female castration

Fair enough, but it's not the same. Womb removal would be more similar.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

Fair enough, but it's not the same. Womb removal would be more similar.

In terms of the source of sexual pleasure, that's exactly what it is. People can have a perfectly good sex life after a hysterectomy - not so with FGM.

Midna

taconnol wrote: »

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.

yeah but there are feminist movements out there just as bad and I think you will agree, when people think of animal rights groups, PETA are the first to spring to mind.

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.
Look that happens all the time - in all movements, as Tallaght01 points out.

but people can and will if the ones that shout loudest and make the most noise are the idiots. I'm sure there are some perfectly reasonable feminist movements out there with people who have sensible agendas and reasonable attitudes. But while you have the other sort freely speaking for us all (as they do), the whole feminist movement is discredited.

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.

Not just the US no. Europe too although it depends, but I find irish and us branches working out of other countries to be as bad.

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.

I think that maybe I am being teeny bit unfair, but honestly, you are right, Ireland is probably one of the better countries in terms of gender equality, unofficially we were almost a matriarchal society at one stage.

the problem is tho, you still have the screaming nutcases and the US-attitude feminist groups here.

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.

no, they're not, but I don't see other feminist groups speaking out against them or disassociating themselves from them, as a movement thats like agreeing with them.

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.

no it isn't, but it does often work. I think the difference between the specialist organisations you are mentioning is that they are all professionally run distinct groups. There are few groups operating in the same premise, or doing the same thing that bring their work into disrepute. WWF and PETA aren't the same in terms of goals and ethos, never mind approach. in fact it took me a second to make the link when I read your post, apart from animals, I couldn't see it.

Can I ask what feminist organisations you have experiences with?

mostly college groups, my experiences with them were bad and one or two co-workers who work for organisations and send me emails and flyers every so often. I really want to go to HR about them and push for harassment or something but it might be over the top.

By the way, you're missing the point from my point of view feminist groups don't just alienate men, they alienate secure, successful women too.

Midna

taconnol wrote: »

I think its important for women to realise they can't have their cake and it eat. They can't gain power and then still blame men for everything. Once they have power, they are part of this thing called 'society' that shapes our lives and therefore are responsible, to a greater or lesser degree than men, for how that society is.

I'll do the plus one thing for this.

I agree completely and thats where the feminist movement shoots itself in the foot. until everyone is rowing in the same direction the movement is a joke.

fly_agaric

tallaght01 wrote: »

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

Apologies, I thought you were saying that FGM within these communities (which is of course a problem specific to the groups involved) was somehow related to a wider issue of gender inequality in Irish society.:o

I'd like to claim I was posting while drunk but, well, that would be a lie...

Macha

I'd be interested to hear the men (and women's) opinions on this:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/yvonne_roberts/2008/02/save_the_male.html

In Norway, "A men's panel, of 30 or so men, has been meeting to consider questions that are relevant here, too: boys' poor academic record, alcohol and violence, fatherhood and domestic responsibilities."

Do you think that women's voices are drowning out men's?

Lockstep

taconnol wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear the men (and women's) opinions on this:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/yvonne_roberts/2008/02/save_the_male.html

In Norway, "A men's panel, of 30 or so men, has been meeting to consider questions that are relevant here, too: boys' poor academic record, alcohol and violence, fatherhood and domestic responsibilities."

Do you think that women's voices are drowning out men's?

I don't think mens voices are being drowned out, it's just women have a rougher deal all round so tend to get more attention. Men are discriminated against too to a lesser degree.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear the men (and women's) opinions on this: ...

I think it's narrow-minded tbh.

I think AllyF if you read down summed it up nicely:

AllyF wrote:

"why is the same potential for change unrecognised in definitions of what it means to be a man?"

It has changed enormously. The vast majority of men now play an active role in childcare and housework (if not an 'equal' role); very few men have an issue with working under a female boss; very few men now believe it is their duty to 'discipline' their wives; very few men demand that their wives stay home all day with only 'pin money' to support them etc etc etc. Yes there is still a way to go on these issues, and yes there are still some neanderthals and throwbacks, but it is blatantly untrue to say there has been no change in definitions of 'what it means to be a man.'

---

"Why, for instance, is it almost impossible to work part-time and have a career? Arguably, because men are conditioned to believe that a breadwinner, a "real" man, is a wage slave, working every hour to put money on the table."

You think it is only men who are conditioned to believe this? Women don't expect the same thing of their husbands/partners in large numbers? How many women will date/marry a man who earns less than they do? The answer is an unconmfortably low number.

---

"Of course, many of the worst aspects of misogynistic, destructive male behaviour are with us precisely because masculinity has failed to modernise."

You really believe this Yvonne? Really? Fathers of young children today have exactly the same attitudes and behaviour patterns as they did in the 1970s, 1950s or 1850s? It just cannot be true. I'd argue that many of the worst aspects of misogynistic, destructive male behaviour today are now highlighted precisely because they are the exception rather than the rule. That's not to indulge or excuse them, but it flies in the face of all evidence to baldly say that 'masculinity has failed to modernise.'

pwd

ok I'm after spending about 20 minutes typing this out to find the thread was locked when I tried to post it. Fair enough it's gone off topic so here's a new thread for it.
Not really a "what is feminism" post at all - just a reference to majd's close upon closing the thread.
The original thread is here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055346831&page=5
(the "question for the guys" one)

edit: ok the relevant posts have been moved here:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055348238&page=2

---

The idea that feminism is about sticking with all female viewpoints at any cost is a misinformed one.

i never mentioned feminism.
I put the discussion into my own frame of reference by imagining men saying the things equivalent to what the women were saying, and vice-versa.

if I had a quid for everytime a guy has said to me "We're not all like that"!!!!! if there's a guy saying or doing something out of order, I'd be a rich lady. If a guy acts like an idiot and all his mates agree with him because they share a penis then more fool them.

whooosh. Hear that? It's the sound of the point you just missed.
If a guy is clearly doing something specific out of order then of course they'll be criticised. What I said was:

if a girl said something really negative about men in general,
"they're all the same yadda yadda yadda"... you know - the sh!te women talk,
-guys generally would argue or dismiss her

The original comment by setantal was this:

Well I used to think that woman were irrational emotional train wreckages interested in irrelevent things like soaps, celebrities and shiny things that the magpies wouuldn't take.

After threads about which shoulder you wear your handbag on, the correct way to apply horrible looking tan on beautiful white skin, and two infractions now I know they are.

he's saying pretty nasty sh!t about women in general and some of the female responses are to jump over each other to agree with him - about the other women of course.

Your frame of reference for the equivalent with guys was so off the mark because you probably don't have a correct one.

Here is my imaginary equivalent:

girliechannel: "I thought guys are all emotionally stinted and sexually repressed...after reading the soccer forum I know that is the case"
dude: "oh I don't like soccer but I'll indicate my embarrassment for those that do."
etc

it just doesn't happen. Women are bitchier than men. Show me a male gossip and I'll show you an effeminate man.

The Sweeper

Merged with the existing thread on feminism.

Jules

Can we keep on topic now please.

Gone West

Jules wrote: »

Can we keep on topic now please.

I love feminists, maaan 2 chicks together is HOTT!

I do agree that the definition has changed, with a changing scope of the feminist movement's objectives.
Its worth noting that feminism in non-western culture could be shown to bear a stronger resemblance to its roots than modern western feminism.

Midna

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

I do agree that the definition has changed, with a changing scope of the feminist movement's objectives.
Its worth noting that feminism in non-western culture could be shown to bear a stronger resemblance to its roots than modern western feminism.

are we back talking about this?

still believe feminism means too many different things to too many people.

all I want is for the same rules to apply to men and women, nothing more, nothing less.

most of the problems are our own doing but like so many activists feminists seem to need to blame someone.