firedrops Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
1	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. Ha well I know some anthropologists who have pointed out most forms of fgc still allow the woman to orgasm. That is pretty well known in anthro but not a popular thing to say outside the field, as you might imagine. A small tangent but I always wondered why men's rights aren't more vocal about extreme forms of mgc like we see with Australian aborigines? Is it just because of the western focus? Fgc and mgc both have so many variants but fgc activists have really pushed the most extreme version to…	/r/MensRights	17/04/16 01:28 PM
1	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. Did he? I have no idea if he is cut. How did you find that out?	/r/MensRights	17/04/16 01:23 PM
3	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. "intactivist" Do people who aren't involved with the movement know what that is, though? I don't think most readers would understand the term. I understand the concern with anti-circumcision activists but I don't think intactivist is a good solution for general communications with the public. For use of "likely" that is probably because they are in the middle of studying those issues. But also realize that when you're interviewed for a press release you're talking off the cuff. I've been intervi…	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 02:00 AM
2	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. Well there are three kinds of FGC but there are studies about the pain associated with FGC, sex, and childbirth. Chalmers, Beverley, and Kowser Omer Hashi. "432 Somali women's birth experiences in Canada after earlier female genital mutilation." Birth 27.4 (2000): 227-234. Rushwan, H. "Female genital mutilation (FGM) management during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period." International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 70.1 (2000): 99-104. Morison, Linda, et al. "The long‐term repro…	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 01:08 AM
2	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I don't understand what you're asking? It is three people working together to conduct interdisciplinary research. The psychologists study human sexuality and this is a big unresearched area of that?	/r/MensRights	16/04/16 12:54 AM
2	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I just don't think FGC has been defeated due to being a deeply immoral and evil practice. Can you show evidence for that? I do think that if adults choose to cut themselves (male or female) they should be allowed to do so, though. That's where the cultural piece can be preserved but delayed. Adults should be able to modify their bodies as they want even if it isn't a choice I'd personally make. The important thing is that you have bodily autonomy and have the agency to make that choice.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 08:33 PM
5	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. They are studying human sexuality. The first author argues men have been ignored for too long in relation to contemporary sexuality studies and her goal is to bring men back into the discussion. But because they are psychologists that's why they also have a urologist on the research team. A medical doctor specializing in that arena gives them the biological background they need for some of their arguments.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 08:31 PM
2	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I agree - feminism is very messy to define. I wouldn't want to try to do it for a journal. You could write an entire article on defining the term and probably still not get it right. It is also currently in a state of serious internal flux as there are so many debates and fights going on amongst self defined feminists (TERFs vs third world feminists vs intersectionality promoting feminists, etc.) A lot of scholars think a fourth wave is probably developing which will then make it a bit easier to…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 08:29 PM
7	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. FGM was never debated in the mainstream in the west. It was a "foreign" practice, performed by ignorant people in 3rd world countries. It was just obvious it was a gross human rights violation. That isn't true. It used to be medicalized and normative in the West. There are some great pieces about that. See: Scull, Andrew, and Diane Favreau. "The clitoridectomy craze." Social Research (1986): 243-260. Gollaher, David L. "From ritual to science: The medical transformation of circumcision in Americ…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 08:26 PM
2	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. The first author has spoken at length in interviews about how they plan to address the existing gaps in knowledge identified in the survey by studying them piece by piece. This piece is one among many in a larger research plan. This was an attempt to address the issues with measuring pain, heat, and touch sensitivity in unaroused circumcised and uncircumcised penises that previous studies did not address well. They wanted to do a couple things: 1) separate out age at circumcision and look at neo…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 07:54 PM
2	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I hate when that happens! I've lost many a good comment and it is so frustrating. So he had a few comments removed and I'm not sure which one you're referencing. But yes, the anecdotes were a problem that we tried to crack down on because they were derailing discussions of the study. Some of his criticisms of the study didn't make sense such as claiming studies disproved its findings when the studies he linked weren't about this issue (this study wasn't about sexual pleasure but that is what his…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 07:46 PM
3	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I agree you can make claims like "typical" or "generally" as long as you indicate the subset and timeframe you're discussing (i.e. contemporary first world feminists).	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 07:24 PM
7	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I don't disagree about the ethical concerns. I am suggesting that scholars of FGC have argued that the human rights campaign approach to ending FGC has largely failed and is ineffective. Regardless of how morally correct it is to frame it as a human rights issue, framing it as a medical issue seems to be much more effective and getting people to change. If that is true (and studies suggest it is) then we have to talk about MGC as a medical and health issue.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 07:23 PM
5	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I suppose it depends on where you spend your time. In my field of anthropology our approach to FGC is quite different. I'm afraid many pop culture feminist discussions would dislike our approach but we tend to address FGC in an unbiased neutral way that gives a platform to the women who choose to cut their daughters (which in some societies are adults by the time they are cut). Here is a pop culture article with a female anthropologist talking about FGC that got a lot of backlash: http://www.the…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 07:12 PM
3	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. In academia we'd call that reification. It is the same fallacy as saying "Christianity does X". Christians, feminists, environmentalists, etc. is not a thing that is set, static, and exists independently. It is merely a category that people may adopt (or reject) but in a huge variety of ways. The meanings of that category are always somewhat in flux and the borders change over time. Though we can make some broad generalizations such as first wave, second wave, third wave, etc. there are always o…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 06:59 PM
6	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I agree there are methodological limitations to the study. I'm not trying to say it is a perfect study and I think there are some very good critiques in the comment thread at /r/science.	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 06:51 PM
3	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I think characterizing the authors' statements of: the generalizability and reliability of the research that has formed the basis of the AAP decision to support neonatal circumcision is perhaps not as strong as many believe. and The recent public statement by the AAP [1] in favor of neonatal circumcision may be premature, as further research is needed before conclusions can be drawn with respect to North American populations. as pro-circumcision is unfair. I agree it isn't overtly anti-circumcis…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 06:51 PM
3	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. I'm not making an argument that you need to be feminist to be anti-circumcision. I was merely responding to the discussion about whether a subset of people (feminists) are anti-circumcision	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 06:35 PM
7	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. In academia it can be useful to debate medical professionals with evidence rather than rhetoric. And that means discussing the issue the same way they do and providing peer reviewed evidence. If you see my other comment here quoting the author's other piece on this issue (a review of existing circumcision literature) you'll see that they are highly critical of male circumcision and the AAP's endorsement of that practice. In other words, OP is greatly mischaracterizing this research and the autho…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 05:46 PM
6	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. The three authors are purposefully looking at neonatal circumcisions because they see it as a gap in the literature. If you take a look at their review article you'll see their specific points: Bossio, Jennifer A., Caroline F. Pukall, and Stephen Steele. "A review of the current state of the male circumcision literature." The journal of sexual medicine 11.12 (2014): 2847-2864. (Which, btw, got some angry letters to the editor because they criticized male circumcision). Their review makes a lot o…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 05:36 PM
8	That circumcision study just deleted from the front page had some odd circumstances- firstly, the authors were all feminists with no biology backgrounds. Secondly, the going-ons in the reddit post itself. Yes, feminism is an incredibly broad term so you cannot really make claims that it stands for any one thing or another. It has not been a primary focus but some feminists do certainly oppose male genital cutting, of course. And they do so utilizing feminist theory. Here is a great piece about how ignoring the issues with male genital cutting is anti-feminist and how feminists should advocate for bodily autonomy for all peoples: Antinuk, Kira. "Forced genital cutting in North America: Feminist th…	/r/MensRights	15/04/16 05:00 PM