Feminists at NSWATM defend male circumcision due to religious freedoms. Somehow I doubt they would be the champions of religious freedom on other issues. Like abortion or contraceptives?

thetrollking · 2012-06-28T09:08:40+00:00

Here's my comment incase those hypocrites delete it:

Did you even read the article?

Ozy Claims: "A German court has declared that penile circumcision for religious reasons is bodily harm and conflicts with the interests of the child later on to decide what religion they would like to participate in. This ruling is not binding, which means it has no effect on actual circumcisions performed on men, but may be used as precedent in the future."

While the article claims:

"The court weighed up three articles from the basic law: the rights of parents, the freedom of religious practice and the right of the child to physical integrity, before coming to the conclusion that the procedure was not in the interests of the child.

It rejected the defence that circumcision is considered hygienic in many cultures, one of the main reasons it is carried out in the US, Britain and in Germany.

After much deliberation, it concluded that a circumcision, "even when done properly by a doctor with the permission of the parents, should be considered as bodily harm if it is carried out on a boy unable to give his own consent".

It ruled the child's body would be "permanently and irreparably changed", and that this alteration went "against the interests of a child to decide for himself later on to what religion he wishes to belong"."

Religious freedom was just a small aspect of the case and the court bypassed it because they felt the harm to the BOY and the BOYs lack of consent superceded the religious issues.

Ozy state:

""In Germany, almost all circumcisions performed are performed for religious reasons, not for the cultural reasons that most circumcisions are performed in America. Therefore, reducing the rate of circumcision in Germany would involve the religion factor a lot more than it does in the United States, and actually forbidding it would be very concerning."

The article states:

"[The court] rejected the defence that circumcision is considered hygienic in many cultures, one of the main reasons it is carried out in the US, Britain and in Germany."

Wonder why Ozy doesn't outright condemn such a practice, even going out of her way to claim that it isn't even close to FGM? The circumcision was performed on a 4 yr old boy who had to be taken to a trauma center due to complications. Hmmm.... Oh wait, the article states:

"Women's rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were "in no way comparable", said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Female circumcision she said, was a far more drastic act. It is already outlawed in Germany."

How fuckin nice...err, sociopathic that is. No, feminists can't allow boys not to be cut and mutilated because...errr, what? Females might not be the center of attention or the primary victims for five minutes??? You tell me?

Again, from the article:

"In Austria, the lay initiative Religion is a Private Matter, welcomed the Cologne decision, calling it "an important and long overdue change of direction". Its chairman, Heinz Oberhummer, said: "Bodily harm is bodily harm and children cannot be excluded from benefitting from basic rights, and certainly not for religious reasons," he said.

The World Health Organisation estimates that every third man is circumcised. Around 70% of them are Muslims, around 1% Jews."

I could post a shit ton of info on both male and female genital modification from anthropological, sociological, and philisophical studies and medical journals and studies showing how they are more similiar than different but somehow I doubt the feminists here would give a shit.

This year alone, in America alone, more than two hundred baby boys will die from complications due to circumcision and over one thousand will lose their penis or part of their penile, many of wich will be forced into gender re-assignment against their potential consent (this is counting those re-assigned due to ambiguous genitalia) and for some fucking reason this feminist cares more about religious freedom than the lives of boys?

I suspect that Ozy might change her attitudes on religious freedom if we change the subject matter. Maybe change it to contraceptives or abortion or something that a female can relate to on a political basis.

thegreatmisanthrope · 2012-06-28T13:20:44+00:00

Feminists defending any circumcision is a GLARING hypocrisy when they flip shit like crazy at even the idea of FGM.

People this fucked in the head don't deserve to have opinions that matter. Just disgusting.

lorenz · 2012-06-28T09:40:40+00:00

Shes also pushing misinformation and wild exaggerations about FGM

http://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2010/female-circumcision

EDIT - If anyone would like to post that link to the thread please do, there is bunch of them there parroting the feminist WHO line on FGM as if its fact.

babno · 2012-06-28T11:27:54+00:00

I saw on some stories of it that they openly said they are against it because it means male circumcision would be comparable to female circumcision.

a_weed_wizard · 2012-06-28T10:50:31+00:00

Or, you know, female mutilation as a direct analogy. I highly doubt these feminists would say that's A-Ok due to religions freedom.

AryoBarzan · 2012-06-28T09:34:15+00:00

You know what's funny? One of the main arguments I get from feminists when I bring up MEN'S ISSUES, is that they're not the ones 'circumcising men' so I should go put the blame on the people who are for it. Well, looks like our 'egalitarian, gender-neutral' moronic friends prove once again how paradoxical their movement is. Yay for feminists promoting male genital mutilation! How some people in this subreddit claim we should 'work with feminists' after this sort of nonsense baffles me.

2012-06-28T12:42:04+00:00

This is direct proof that feminists are at war with gender equality.

AnthonyZarat · 2012-06-28T12:54:35+00:00

Ozy is an ass, but not a circumcision supporter. Here is a powerful, influential feminist who genuinely supports male circumcision, and puts the full weight of her "feministe" blog in support of mutilation of men and boys (speaking about the San Francisco infant circumcision ban, she states "For the record, I'm not in favor of this law:"

http://i.imgur.com/q16tx.jpg

Here is Jill explaining why mutilation of male infants is OK, but even a symbolic pin-prick to a female infant would be a violation of human rights:

http://i.imgur.com/QEy3c.jpg

johnmarkley · 2012-06-28T21:21:27+00:00

People take their religions very seriously; many people will be willing to have circumcisions performed on their babies, perhaps in unsafe conditions, in order to satisfy their religious demands.

This an equally good argument for legalizing female circumcision, including the more extreme forms of it. Hell, especially the more extreme forms of it; the more cutting and damage being done, the better it is to have it done by medical professionals in a sanitary hospital rather than by god-knows-who in a back alley or somewhere in the Third World.

BrSy · 2012-06-28T12:49:14+00:00

So... Ozy is being idiotic, hypocritical, narcissistic and cruel. What else is new?

Irrel_M · 2012-06-28T10:33:19+00:00

Yeah, now I'm just going to vote against anything they approve of just to spite them.

thetrollking · 2012-06-29T01:41:30+00:00

[permanently deleted]

enkidusfriend · 2012-06-28T15:44:19+00:00

People take their religions very seriously; many people will be willing to have circumcisions performed on their babies, perhaps in unsafe conditions, in order to satisfy their religious demands.

This is not a good reason to cut a baby's penis.

thetrollking · 2012-06-28T19:12:26+00:00

The mag seems to be stuck in a loop.

They cannot really start talking about men or mens issues from a male perspective because of the constant derailing and Oppression Olympics by those that are more interested in promoting feminism.

The context is men, but the conversation is mainly about women and feminism.

Gingor · 2012-06-28T12:33:50+00:00

In light of this, I may be persuaded to change my stance on female circumcision.

Deutschbury · 2012-06-28T16:14:21+00:00

Or even Female Circumcision

Celda · 2012-06-28T20:31:41+00:00

[permanently deleted]

thrway_1000 · 2012-06-29T02:27:10+00:00

They censored my comment on their censorship. Isn't that ironic?

2012-06-29T08:04:25+00:00

I wonder if one could compare MGM to some other forced bodily invasion on girls. Let's say my religion requires infant girls' ears to be pierced. Would that be also be acceptable under religious protection? If not, then this feminist stance is pure BS.

Grapeban · 2012-06-28T20:53:19+00:00

Ozy appears to have heard you guys, direct quote:

ETA: For the commenters/Men’s Rights Redditors who are unable to read! I DO NOT LIKE CIRCUMCISION. I WISH IT WOULD GO AWAY FOREVER. I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MAKING RELIGIOUS CIRCUMCISION ILLEGAL AS A HARM REDUCTION THING BECAUSE IF IT IS ILLEGAL PEOPLE WILL PERFORM ILLEGAL CIRCUMCISIONS ON THEIR BABIES, PERHAPS IN UNSAFE CONDITIONS.

Title	Feminists at NSWATM defend male circumcision due to religious freedoms. Somehow I doubt they would be the champions of religious freedom on other issues. Like abortion or contraceptives?
Author	thetrollking
Upvotes	70
Comments	63
Date	June 28, 2012 9:00 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vqefo/feminists_at_nswatm_defend_male_circumcision_due/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminists-at-nswatm-defend-male-circumcision-due.1018963 https://theredarchive.com/post/1018963

Comments