http://www.gnosticmedia.com/karen-of-girlwriteswhat-interview-the-femanist-fallacy-146/
*
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Interview With GirlWritesWhat
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/karen-of-girlwriteswhat-interview-the-femanist-fallacy-146/
*
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
You Want to Cut Off What???
Nice little piece on circumcision I came across by the writer Vincent Bach, whose other posts on the subject can be found here.
Think about it. What if when your mother was pregnant with you she was openly contemplating the "pros and cons" of cutting off part of your genitals? Doesn't the thought of that sound sort of weird, if not down right scary?
The only reason that you think you have a decision to make regarding whether to have someone cut off part of your son's penis is because you have been raised in a culture that does this. Bizarre, huh? Just why in the heck do we Americans send our newborn babies down to another room right after they are born, strap them down, lyse their prepuce from their glans, put a clamp on it and crush it before finally cutting it away? What possible reason would parents agree to allow some stranger in a white coat to take a scalpel to our perfectly healthy children?
The answer? Sexual oppression followed by years of cultural habit. Throw in a little selfish greed by the professionals profiting from this multi-million dollar cottage industry and you have the makings for a culture that feels they ought to cut off part of your precious newborn's penis. You see, no one in this Country was circumcised except for the Jews before the late 19th century. George Washington and Abe Lincoln were not circumcised and none of their non-Jewish peers were either. Why that changed is a pretty remarkable story actually. Some doctors just after the time of the Civil War actually convinced a Puritanical American population that if you cut most of the skin off a penis (i.e. circumcision), little boys will no longer be able to masturbate. Masturbation at the time was thought to be a dreadful sin and was even thought by many to cause a host of other illnesses. So if masturbation could be discouraged, the theory went, it MUST be. Of course, now we know that circumcision doesn't actually prevent masturbation, it only makes men have to work harder at it.
Unfortunately, by the time we figured out that masturbation wasn't all that harmful and even if it was it still isn't prevented by slicing the foreskin off a penis, circumcision had already become a cultural habit associated with class distinction. Now fathers wanted their sons to be circumcised because they were. Only the lower class heathens were left uncut. Eventually, not wanting to be left out, the lower socio-economic classes began demanding it for their sons as well. And so it continues...
Eventually by the 1960s, some ethicists began to question the practice and as a result EVERY professional medical organization in the world has finally come to publicly admit that circumcision of newborn boys is NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY and many of the more ethical ones have come to publicly condemn the practice. Cultures don't change overnight. There are vested interests at stake and those vested interests are also working hard to fool you into thinking that circumcision has medical benefits. Rest assured, the only medical benefit of circumcision is to fatten the pockets of those medical professionals who gleefully encourage and participate in the practice.
Do your son a favor and think about his rights as a human being. You know, those inalienable ones that you and I take for granted. If he someday wants to tattoo his heiny, pierce his nipples or God forbid cut off part of his penis, that will be his right. But maybe he won't be concerned with the masturbation hysteria of the 19th century. Maybe if you could ask him he would say, "YOU WANT TO CUT OFF WHAT?!?!?!!?"
I know that's what I'd say.
Think about it. What if when your mother was pregnant with you she was openly contemplating the "pros and cons" of cutting off part of your genitals? Doesn't the thought of that sound sort of weird, if not down right scary?
The only reason that you think you have a decision to make regarding whether to have someone cut off part of your son's penis is because you have been raised in a culture that does this. Bizarre, huh? Just why in the heck do we Americans send our newborn babies down to another room right after they are born, strap them down, lyse their prepuce from their glans, put a clamp on it and crush it before finally cutting it away? What possible reason would parents agree to allow some stranger in a white coat to take a scalpel to our perfectly healthy children?
The answer? Sexual oppression followed by years of cultural habit. Throw in a little selfish greed by the professionals profiting from this multi-million dollar cottage industry and you have the makings for a culture that feels they ought to cut off part of your precious newborn's penis. You see, no one in this Country was circumcised except for the Jews before the late 19th century. George Washington and Abe Lincoln were not circumcised and none of their non-Jewish peers were either. Why that changed is a pretty remarkable story actually. Some doctors just after the time of the Civil War actually convinced a Puritanical American population that if you cut most of the skin off a penis (i.e. circumcision), little boys will no longer be able to masturbate. Masturbation at the time was thought to be a dreadful sin and was even thought by many to cause a host of other illnesses. So if masturbation could be discouraged, the theory went, it MUST be. Of course, now we know that circumcision doesn't actually prevent masturbation, it only makes men have to work harder at it.
Unfortunately, by the time we figured out that masturbation wasn't all that harmful and even if it was it still isn't prevented by slicing the foreskin off a penis, circumcision had already become a cultural habit associated with class distinction. Now fathers wanted their sons to be circumcised because they were. Only the lower class heathens were left uncut. Eventually, not wanting to be left out, the lower socio-economic classes began demanding it for their sons as well. And so it continues...
Eventually by the 1960s, some ethicists began to question the practice and as a result EVERY professional medical organization in the world has finally come to publicly admit that circumcision of newborn boys is NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY and many of the more ethical ones have come to publicly condemn the practice. Cultures don't change overnight. There are vested interests at stake and those vested interests are also working hard to fool you into thinking that circumcision has medical benefits. Rest assured, the only medical benefit of circumcision is to fatten the pockets of those medical professionals who gleefully encourage and participate in the practice.
Do your son a favor and think about his rights as a human being. You know, those inalienable ones that you and I take for granted. If he someday wants to tattoo his heiny, pierce his nipples or God forbid cut off part of his penis, that will be his right. But maybe he won't be concerned with the masturbation hysteria of the 19th century. Maybe if you could ask him he would say, "YOU WANT TO CUT OFF WHAT?!?!?!!?"
I know that's what I'd say.
Monday, 23 July 2012
Men In Black III
It's a little strange that's newsworthy, I'll grant you, but it's unusual enough in this day & age to make me want to pass on as a recommendation. It sure would be nice to see more films follow in this vein.
Monday, 25 June 2012
The History Of The Word 'Misandry'
Well, I've been meaning to write this for awhile - every day I am reminded by spellcheck that 'misandry' is not a proper word I should be using & wouldn't I like to pick another? Or, as the feminists would have it, "There’s No Such Thing as Misandry; its a modern, made-up word that makes you look stupid. and its as misogynist as fuck, so stop using it." (That's an actual, genuine quote, by the way, from the feminist website Femonade, Aug. 30, 2009).
Putting aside the curious logic displayed there - ALL words are made-up after all, they don't just come into being by themselves - the excellent research done by St Estephe over at The Unknown History Of Misandry shows that this is simply not the case: there are examples he provides in English as far back as the 1880s, & one in German from 1803. Here's one from a book review in 1871:
“We cannot, indeed, term her an absolute misandrist, as she fully admits the possibility, in most cases at least, of the reclamation of men from their naturally vicious and selfish state, though at the cost of so much trouble and vexation of spirit to women, that it is not quite clear whether she does not regard their existence as at best a mitigated evil.” [From review of novel “Blanche Seymour” (anonymous), The Spectator, London, Apr. 1, 1871, p. 359]It's a long, exhaustive but fascinating read, much like the site itself, & I recommend you go over there & give them both a deeper look. In the meantime I will just post a few of the clippings he has on display:
".... She was, however, a voracious reader and wealthy enough to satisfy her cravings in this direction. On her death her library was found to contain nearly 18,000 volumes — all written by women. This was said at the time to be the most extensive collection of this kind ever formed." - [“Man Hater's Library.” The Oelwein Daily Register (Io.), May 8, 1912, p. 3]
Saturday, 2 June 2012
"Feminists Against Violence Against Men"
So while debating some pond life on youtube the other day, I was instructed to google "feminists against violence against men" to see how many of the sisterhood are working tirelessly in pursuit of true equality & looking out for us men & boys with the concern they loudly devote to women.
While fully expecting a single blank page with the sound of crickets chirping & tumbleweeds scraping lazily by in the wind, I dutifully did as I was told, curious to see how many pairs of open arms & eyes of love were out there waiting for me in the womyn's space.
Try it yourself, see what happens. Here's what I got:
One website article, & a single puff piece by The Guardian. Everything else was either a men's rights site or feminist criticism of the idea of defending men at all, saying why violence against men was a non-issue.
Still, I went to the solitary site in question (desifeminists.wordpress.com), looking to see if this was some new ifeminist-type branch of the feminazi party but sure enough, all it said was while violence against men was not nice, & we should all say so, it is nowhere near as big a deal as violence against women, & probably the result of the patriarchy or something.
Elsewhere on the very same site, which I had flown to in hopes of the sweet balm of compassion, I found this:
SCUM is the Society for Cutting up Men.
Is it any surprise that of all the feminist thoughts and writings out there, SCUM is all that makes it into pop culture? This is once of the few topics I actually heard of while browsing TV channels, rather than in my Women’s Studies classes.
I had dismissed SCUM as some weird and obviously unsupported, obscure writing dreamt up by a crazy woman. But luckily, I got to have a new perspective as a fellow feminist on Feministing.com posted the link to the whole document. Now after actually reading it, I see it as a brilliant satire. It just reverses all the utter bullshit and hatred that patriarchy has spewed about women. If any readers find the claims made in the SCUM manifesto absurd, then consider how equally absurd the hateful claims about women are? Such claims are made by idiotic, sexist religious leaders, politicians, husbands, scientists, fathers, and any Joe Schmo alike (and even sexist women, I should add).
Recently I’d been thinking about the ridiculous makes-me-want-to-vomit kind of women-hating pseudo-spirituality that many ISKCON leaders spread. I was also think about stupid male chauvinistic scientists whose aim in life is to “prove” that women are less intelligent than men, because, you know, their interpretation of research data is “objective” while the rest of us get to “personal.” The SCUM Manifesto would be my response to all those douchebags. I hope you like the satire as much as I did
There was one comment there before me, left by someone whose tenuous grasp on the concepts of satire, reason, & indeed reality itself had led her to remark:
"It’s funny because anti-feminists actually take it seriously, not realizing that it’s satire."
So I added:
"I think the punchline where the psychotic woman who started a movement called ‘The Society For Cutting Up Men’ went out the very next year & shot two men, killing one & then attempting to kill a third, that was particularly funny. I can’t believe some people still don’t get it."
Never got through moderation.
Monday, 28 May 2012
The Woman Racket
An extract from chapter one of The Woman Racket by Steve Moxon (2008). I hope to post further samples from this excellent book in the next few weeks.
We're told that men and women are the same. Or, rather, some of the time we're told this. At other times we're told that men and women are essentially and irrevocably different. We're further told that although men and women are different, this is really just something to do with the way we are at the moment, albeit that we have been that way for a long time, living in the sort of society we do. In time, we keep being reminded, all will revert to how supposedly it should be and how it used to be in times of yore: i.e. men and women are the same after all. Even so, it's then insisted that actually, in the end, no matter what we do, men will never get to be truly the same as women: men and women are forever and totally different (except when it's more convenient to regard them as exactly the same).
We're also told that women are disadvantaged, and that they've got this way because of oppression by men. We're never told how or why this could be. We're not told why—especially if men and women are supposedly the same — there would be any point in one sex oppressing the other. We're not told how it can be—if indeed men are different to women and oppress them— that by most measures it is not women who are disadvantaged but men (or, at least, a large sub-group or even the majority of men). Nobody tells us why men are maligned as if they're at one with the very few at the top of the pile, whereas all women are championed irrespective of who they are, what they have done, or how they have lived their lives.
Confused? You certainly should be. The notion that males and females —or some essence of what is male or female —are the same or different, oppressed or actually advantaged, is like a juggler with two balls up in_ the air. He never gets hold of either of them but is constantly palming each upwards and across the path of the other. Eventually the whole spectacle has to come crashing to the ground. That's what is about to happen to what we currently think about men and women.
The contradictory madness about men and women in which we wallow is not shallow. As I will be explaining in depth, it arises from the most pro-found prejudices we have; prejudices that are currently denied, being invisible to us. We are too close to them, so we can't see the wood for the flees, even though they are the very basis of our politics. They are what the philosopher R.G. Collingwood called ‘absolute’ presuppositions. They come from the hidden heart of what we are, in the fundamental difference—and complementarity—between men and women. These hidden prejudices are against men and in favour of women. It is because of this that astonishing nonsense about men and women can hold sway, hanging unsupported from the political sky. The general consensus about human social behaviour — at least the chattering classes - is the most plainly false in history. In no other culture— and at no other point in the history of our own culture—have people got things so spectacularly wrong.
The real story of men and women, that cuts through all of this, has only fully crystallised the last few years with a deluge of new science. It will be a revelation to almost all, having been merely scratched on the sur-
face in self—help titles like Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. It is not merely that men and women are different. We all knew that. And ordinary people, at least, admit it. It is that they are different in ways far beyond what anyone had thought. Men and women are also unequal, but it is not women at all, but men-not all men, but the majority — who make up the biggest disadvantaged sub-group in every society. Women by contrast are universally and perennially privileged: over-privileged. This unconditional favour has no counterpart for men, who have to meet certain criteria even to be afforded the most basic consideration.
Even so, you won't find me suggesting adding men to the ever-expanding list of "victims'. As it stands there's but a minority of people who aren't already on this list. It really would be the case that ‘we're all victims now’. Instead, the real story of men and women is the key to tearing up the entire list and throwing it away.
The revolution that we are supposedly undergoing towards an androgynous, unisexual world is all but dead. Revolution has always been a case of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’ (as The Who's Roger Daltrey sang back in 1971), and the revolution regarding men and women is very much a case in point. We've merely been chasing our own shadows, perpetuating the same old attitudes in disguise. The benign consequences of wising up to see this can hardly be over-stated. We're set now for what really is a revolution: a science—inspired revolution of understanding. This is a book of popular science, intended to explain the psychology that underlies the prejudice that in turn reveals why politics manifests in the way that it does. Of necessity I tackle political issues, and I'm aware that this is an awkward mix, but such is the nature of the project.
Politics is in the end a matter of conjecture, but its manifestation and the social psychology that underlies it can be informed by science. Never before has there been a time when political debate was more in need of this than today.
We're also told that women are disadvantaged, and that they've got this way because of oppression by men. We're never told how or why this could be. We're not told why—especially if men and women are supposedly the same — there would be any point in one sex oppressing the other. We're not told how it can be—if indeed men are different to women and oppress them— that by most measures it is not women who are disadvantaged but men (or, at least, a large sub-group or even the majority of men). Nobody tells us why men are maligned as if they're at one with the very few at the top of the pile, whereas all women are championed irrespective of who they are, what they have done, or how they have lived their lives.
Confused? You certainly should be. The notion that males and females —or some essence of what is male or female —are the same or different, oppressed or actually advantaged, is like a juggler with two balls up in_ the air. He never gets hold of either of them but is constantly palming each upwards and across the path of the other. Eventually the whole spectacle has to come crashing to the ground. That's what is about to happen to what we currently think about men and women.
The contradictory madness about men and women in which we wallow is not shallow. As I will be explaining in depth, it arises from the most pro-found prejudices we have; prejudices that are currently denied, being invisible to us. We are too close to them, so we can't see the wood for the flees, even though they are the very basis of our politics. They are what the philosopher R.G. Collingwood called ‘absolute’ presuppositions. They come from the hidden heart of what we are, in the fundamental difference—and complementarity—between men and women. These hidden prejudices are against men and in favour of women. It is because of this that astonishing nonsense about men and women can hold sway, hanging unsupported from the political sky. The general consensus about human social behaviour — at least the chattering classes - is the most plainly false in history. In no other culture— and at no other point in the history of our own culture—have people got things so spectacularly wrong.
The real story of men and women, that cuts through all of this, has only fully crystallised the last few years with a deluge of new science. It will be a revelation to almost all, having been merely scratched on the sur-
face in self—help titles like Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. It is not merely that men and women are different. We all knew that. And ordinary people, at least, admit it. It is that they are different in ways far beyond what anyone had thought. Men and women are also unequal, but it is not women at all, but men-not all men, but the majority — who make up the biggest disadvantaged sub-group in every society. Women by contrast are universally and perennially privileged: over-privileged. This unconditional favour has no counterpart for men, who have to meet certain criteria even to be afforded the most basic consideration.
Even so, you won't find me suggesting adding men to the ever-expanding list of "victims'. As it stands there's but a minority of people who aren't already on this list. It really would be the case that ‘we're all victims now’. Instead, the real story of men and women is the key to tearing up the entire list and throwing it away.
The revolution that we are supposedly undergoing towards an androgynous, unisexual world is all but dead. Revolution has always been a case of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’ (as The Who's Roger Daltrey sang back in 1971), and the revolution regarding men and women is very much a case in point. We've merely been chasing our own shadows, perpetuating the same old attitudes in disguise. The benign consequences of wising up to see this can hardly be over-stated. We're set now for what really is a revolution: a science—inspired revolution of understanding. This is a book of popular science, intended to explain the psychology that underlies the prejudice that in turn reveals why politics manifests in the way that it does. Of necessity I tackle political issues, and I'm aware that this is an awkward mix, but such is the nature of the project.
Politics is in the end a matter of conjecture, but its manifestation and the social psychology that underlies it can be informed by science. Never before has there been a time when political debate was more in need of this than today.
Monday, 14 May 2012
12 Reasons Men Are Second-Class Citizens
1. SUICIDE: Men’s suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than that of women’s. [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 males vs 5,700 females]
2. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men’s life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women’s [National Center for Health Statistics -- males 72.3 yrs vs females 79 yrs] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and medical costs.
3. WAR: Men are almost exclusively the only victims of war [Dept. Defense -- Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs 74 women]
4. WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Men account for more than 95% of all workplace fatalities.
5. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women. [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 men vs 5,700 women]
6. CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive physical custody of 92% of all children of separation, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]
7. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]
8. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]
9. JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Women are assesessed for Child Support on average at half the rate of men, yet are twice as likely to default on Child Support payments. Ninety Seven (97%) of all child support prosecutions are against fathers. [Census Bureau]
10. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Numerous credible studies from independant researchers report that women are the initiators of domestic violence in 58% of all cases, and cause physical abuse in almost 50% of all cases, yet women only account for 6% of all criminal proceedings in such matters.
11. CHILD VIOLENCE: Mothers commit 55% of all child murders and biological fathers commit 6%. NIS-3 indicates that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households. Despite these compelling figures, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors.
12. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the total wealth in the USA [Fortune Magazine]
Source: www.articlesaboutmen.com/2010/10/12-indisputable-indicators-that-men-are-second-class-citizens-in-the-usa-911/2459/
Friday, 4 May 2012
In Defence Of The Foreskin
You know, I've been trying for awhile to find a simple way to explain to circumcised men – & uncircumcised women – how an intact penis - which of course neither of those groups have first-hand experience of - is actually supposed to feel like & work. And I think the best I’ve come up with so far is this: The Eyelid.
It's something we all have, so is something we all can relate to & easily visualize. If you feel the way the eyelid effortlessly slides over, moistens & protects your eyeball – & also how sensitive that eyeball itself is, not able to be exposed to the air for long without drying out & toughening up, or even be directly touched without at least feeling uncomfortable – well, that’s exactly how an intact penis feels & what the foreskin is for. The foreskin isn’t some extraneous piece of skin like an earlobe, or a part of the body that can be cut away only to grow back, like fingernails or hair: it has a specifically designed purpose, & that purpose is directly analogous to, as I’ve already said, that other intrinsic part of an intact body, the eyelid.
Just thought I'd pass that on, anyway. Here also are a couple of interesting links upon this subject I came across recently:
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17320788
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
