TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Mom Tearfully Agrees in Court to Son's Circumcision

funnyfaceking

May 22, 2015
248 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.newser.com/story/207256/mom-tearfully-agrees-in-court-to-sons-circumcision.html?utm_campaign=trueAnthem&utm_content=555f9c9a04d3016599000001&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Mom Tearfully Agrees in Court to Son's Circumcision
Author

funnyfaceking

Upvotes 248
Comments 136
Date May 22, 2015 11:39 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/36xne5/mom_tearfully_agrees_in_court_to_sons_circumcision/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mom-tearfully-agrees-in-court-to-sons-circumcision.979521
https://theredarchive.com/post/979521
Top posts by funnyfaceking

Somebody should send this comic to my mother (I'm too scared).

815 upvotes
May 7, 2012
/r/MensRights

Rape Crisis England listens to /r/mensrights, removes offending paragraph from their "male rape" web page (context in comments)

621 upvotes
June 28, 2012
/r/MensRights

Update on Mark Byron - March 19, 2012 - He declined to post the groveling public apology to his wife on Facebook as ordered by the Judge. Today he goes before the Court to face the consequences.

556 upvotes
March 19, 2012
/r/MensRights

Hats off to this guy...

545 upvotes
December 6, 2015
/r/PussyPassDenied

Woman Snatches Foul Ball Away From Fan Who Caught It, White Sox Leadership Rectifies The Situation

279 upvotes
August 23, 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied

Dublin is a paradise for whom?

276 upvotes
June 25, 2012
/r/MensRights

Shrink brands dad 'wholly' incapable of caring for 4-year-old son because he refused to take kid to McDonald's [x-post /r/nottheonion]

265 upvotes
November 8, 2013
/r/MensRights

Mark Byron FREE! "Judge Seive decided that violating my civil rights for 26 days was enough to purge the order!"

247 upvotes
March 19, 2012
/r/MensRights

Comments

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]dungone 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Straight out of 1984.

[–]TheHonPhilipBanks 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's called civil contempt of court. They can hold you until you comply with any order of the court. It's not considered undue punishment because the person in custody holds the keys to their own jail cell and can end their incarceration at any time.

[–]MistrCreazil 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure anywhere outside of court that's called Blackmail.

[–]Vandechoz 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Generally judges give up eventually, but they've been known to continue a contempt hold for longer than a decade in some cases.

[–]ki11joyace 94 points95 points96 points 11 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't signing a contract under duress invalidate it?

[–]k_kat 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wish.

[–]Numericaly7 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It actually does, doesn't mean her lawyer will raise that defense thoigh.

[–]SilencingNarrative 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a good one! My turn: Didn't we get rid of debtors prison in the 19th century?

[–]Francois_Rapiste 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–]nc863id 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unless it's the government, who is incapable of applying duress.

Haven't you ever heard of black rainbows-and-sunshine sites?

[–]Giorria_Dubh 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Doesn't count as duress if the government does it.

[–]PassifloraCaerulea 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well isn't that handy.

[–]deadalnix 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unless it is the governement doing it.

[–]unklestinky 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

only if you're a man

[+]Diesel-66 -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

She willingly signed the contract years ago

[–]Lawtonfogle 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She said she would have sex with me years ago. It wasn't rape.

She agreed to have sex, it shouldn't matter what the threat was if she didn't. It wasn't rape.

If the conception of legal consent was applied to sex, it would show just how stupid our system is.

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

I don't see why the contract matters. This isn't painting your house. It's cutting off a piece of a human being, one that isn't actually signing the contract. And who obviously doesn't require it be done for any medical reasons.

[+]Diesel-66 -30 points-29 points-28 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Parents have the right to decide medical decisions for their children.

The contract matters because they divorced and agreed to do x, y, and z. One of those was get the kid circumcised. If she had a major issue with it, she should have brought it up then.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points40 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

This is cosmetic, it's not a medical need.

The contract shouldn't matter, and I've already said why. I won't repeat it when you simply ignore it.

[–]Elukka 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's curious this could ever be seen as a contractual issue. At least in some Civil law countries, any contract that contradicts the child's rights and best interest are automatically null and void. You cannot for example sign away your child's right to their physical integrity.

“You are going to have to learn to deal with each other in a civil and amicable manner,” the judge told the couple, who never married. “You will always be this little guy’s parents.”

So the courts basically decided to cut the boy's penis and then tell the mother to deal with it and carry on with her life. Wonderful people, if a little patronizing and not very up to date with modern medicine. /s

[–]PassifloraCaerulea 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At least in some Civil law countries, any contract that contradicts the child's rights and best interest are automatically null and void.

It seemed like the judge waved away the best interest thing when a doctor said that it was possible to safely circumcise a 4 year old. That and our cultural ignorance about the value of foreskin and that argument is toast. Something like that is what he used to reject a request to appoint a guardian ad litem (third party to speak on behalf of the child). It was an attempt to make the court actually ask the boy what his thoughts were on the matter, but nope! And that little speech at the end...the judge is a real piece of work.

[–]PyroSpark -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is cosmetic, it's not a medical need.

It's not a medical need but it's definitely not just cosmetic either. That's willful ignorance.

[+]Majikster -18 points-17 points-16 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, it was medical. The kid was pissing all over himself, hence why a doctor reccommended it and they agreed to do it in the first place. Check the other 6 articles that have been posted about this.

[–]gRod805 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That is what babies do

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, literally only uncircumcised babies require diapers.

That's why doctors recommend cutting off that useless flap of skin of your sons (applause) and daughters (OMG YOU SICK FUCKING MONSTER!!!!!!!!!).

[–]Giorria_Dubh 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm unsure if you're actually trolling here. Did you just claim that circumcision cures incontinence?

[–]Majikster -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not? A medical doctor examined the kid, and due to that fact that his phimosis prevented him from being able to go to the bathroom normally, suggested circumsicion. Both parents agreed. Lady later kidnapped the kid when she changed her mind and lost the dispute to stop the procedure.

[–]Giorria_Dubh -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm unsure if you're actually trolling here. Did you just claim that circumcision cures incontinence?

[+]Nulono -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

*;

[–]SilencingNarrative 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you understand why, if the contract had stipulated that her son's pinky be removed, and she changed her mind, the courts would not hold her to it absent medical cause, like cancer or an infection like gangrene, in which case the courts would probably force the issue even without a contract?

[–]poloppoyop 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a huge fan of Voldemort. I think having a nose is not normal so I'd have it surgically removed from any children I would have.

[–]Giorria_Dubh 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This isn't a medical decision.

[–]Diesel-66 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Except it is in America. Like it or not, it's a very Common medical decision

[–]Giorria_Dubh 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I guess it's a medical decision in the same sense that trepanning to let the bad spirits out is, but it's not in the sense of being backed up with any credible evidence.

[+]Diesel-66 -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Come back to reality.

You can think it's a horrible idea but that doesn't change the rest of society and acting like this doesn't help the cause.

[–]ruffykunn 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a gross human rights violation no matter what bullshit you post in this thread.

[–]PyroSpark -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

what bullshit you post in this thread.

Same could be said for the other side though. Not many people give a shit about foreskin so it looks totally loony when one side worships it.

[–]Giorria_Dubh 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't see how foreskin cutting is any better than trepanning. It's the same mythical bullshit dressed up as medicine.

If by "reality" you mean "popular opinion in some parts of the US" then should we be supporting the fight against rape culture too?

[–]Insula92 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a common decision. It's not a medical decision.

[–]PassifloraCaerulea 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only reason it's a medical decision is US doctors are too ignorant to realize that 'possession of a foreskin' isn't a diagnosis.

[–]Lawtonfogle 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Consent can be revoked.

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not sure why this is downvoted so much, but thanks for giving a bit of accurate background information to this issue that seems on the surface to be injust and inhumane.

As it stands it's just inhumane, but just, according to the law.

[–]Giorria_Dubh 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

but thanks for giving a bit of accurate background information to this issue that seems on the surface to be injust and inhumane.

And under the surface turns out to be... unjust and inhumane.

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree mate, but we have to focus on changing the law first.

There are people who think it should be universally illegal to smoke or grow marijuana, but if you've signed a contract to sell a certain amount, you've created a legal obligation.

If such a contract is legal in said state, then the justice system exists to make sure that contract is held up.

But it's a different situation to forcing someone to sell their goods when they've never agreed to such in the first place, which is the impression created by both the article and the reddit link.

[–]Giorria_Dubh 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you're making an appeal to legality, then there's no problem with someone being forced to sell their goods when they never agreed to such either, someone just has to wave a pen to make the contract on their behalf.

It's actually a pretty apt analogy in the sense that the owner of the goods (the kid) never agreed to sell them, someone else did.

[–]SilencingNarrative 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can't sign a contract to sell your kids into slavery, or to wound them, or to otherwise give up your responsibility as a parent to act in their best interests except in one case: when you put a child up for adoption. And that's only allowed because it's in the interest of children to allow both parents to agree to surrender their responsibilities to another couple that the state has to agree are equally fit.

A parent can likewise not sign a contract in which they give up the right to child support, because it's not their right but their child's that's being bargained away.

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm surprised people downvote this. I much appreciate you bringing some background information. Do you have a source for this?

[–]Diesel-66 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hironimus and the boy’s father, Dennis Nebus of Boca Raton, had the child in October 2010 and more than a year later entered into a legally-binding parenting agreement; Hironimus and Nebus never married.

A provision included in that contract referenced in recent court proceedings affirmed that Nebus was responsible for scheduling and taking their son to be circumcised, and would pay for any and all costs associated with the procedure. Hironimus, the contract continued, agreed to “timely execute any and all documents reasonably necessary to effectuate the circumcision” of the child.

http://rt.com/usa/159488-florida-circumcision-halted-court/

[–]Insula92 42 points43 points44 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How does it make sense for a court to force you to agree to something instead of ordering it directly?

[–]chocoboat 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They did order it directly. For some fucked up reason it was decided she would stay in jail until she agreed to it as well.

Since it was already ordered, she saw no point in continuing to sit in jail and signed the agreement under duress.

[–]funnyfaceking[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Didn't she already agree to it, tho?

[–]Cysioland 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To humiliate her, and to show her, in what country she lives in.

[–]caius_iulius_caesar 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It might look draconian for a court to order circumcision of a boy against his will.

[–]ROUS_Do_Exist 24 points25 points26 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Can I get an ELI5 on this? Why is the gov forcing a circumcision? Are they claiming a medical reason or something else? Plenty of people don't get circumcised, why does she have to have her son do it?

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SocietalDisgrace 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Could have sworn they never married each other.

[–]Diesel-66 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Mom and Dad agreed to do it in divorce hearing. She was now refusing to do it.

[–]SocietalDisgrace 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They never married each other

[–]I_divided_by_0- 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then it was probably a separation agreement.

[–]mARINATEDpENIS 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All this commotion, lawyers and legal fees, just to get a small boy's penis mutilated.

[–]BaronVonWasteland 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's preposterous at best

[–]jostler57 76 points77 points78 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I only know what is written in this article, regarding this situation, but from that, I'd say this woman is a saint for her attempts.

[–]k_kat 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you're absolutely correct.

[–]iongantas 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

She would be a saint if she agreed to remain in jail indefinitely. As it is, she is merely heroic.

[–]BaronVonWasteland 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This article left some key points out. The father was granted the ability to single handedly control the boys medical decisions yesterday. She was staying in jail indefinitely to stand up for what she believes in, and the judge made her consent worthless to stop the procedure. It was only then that she "consented" because her lack of consent was only serving to keep her in jail...

The woman's a saint

[–]soalone34 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not really. A kid needs a mother in his life more than foreskin, especially since his father will likely be a shitty parent in many regards from how he's acting here.

[–]iongantas -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Please die.

[–]soalone34 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...you think a child needs more penis feeling instead having a parent who cares about him rather than his father who is willing to jail his mom to get him mutilated? What kind of person would she be to leave her son with that man?

[–]I_divided_by_0- 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this fucking Saudi Arabia, What the Fuck?

[–]aawillma 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's horror stories like this that makes circumcision a must-have conversation before having a kid with someone. It seems petty to some but I would not get pregnant until it was completely off the table. Sad that it comes to that, I wish it was illegal.

[–]PassifloraCaerulea 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The reason it's come to this is that the mom signed a parenting agreement first, then found out how horrible circumcision is later on. I blame the culture here where we mostly stick our collective head in the sand. It's incredibly sad, but if anything good comes of the case, it'll be to wake some more people up to start questioning the routine practice themselves.

[–]aawillma 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh I know but the jacked up part is that parenting agreements are the easiest contracts in the world to nullify. If the court decides any part of it is not in the best interest of the child, they can throw the whole thing out. (Sperm donors can be sued for child support even if they sign a donor agreement, same principal). Prenuptial agreements can't contain anything about children either. The only entity that can decide what's best for the child in the event of a disagreement is the court. If you follow this train of logic, it means that at some point the court conclusively decided that circumcision was in this child's best interest.

[–]Ultramegasaurus 48 points49 points50 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It's really fucking maddening to see fathers' rights trampled at every corner except when he wants to have his son mutilated. There are mothers who receive less legal trouble for systematically alienating fathers from their children than this one receives for trying to protect her son's bodily integrity. It's absolutely fucked up.

[–]wanked_in_space 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The only time the man's rights are not trampled is when another man's rights are trampled.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Preach

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hironimus has been jailed for a week over her opposition to the circumcision, and she relented only when a judge informed her that she wouldn't get out until she changed her mind

Switch the genders of the kid being cut.

Sounds like something out of rural Pakistan/Saudi Arabia that would receive a condemnation from the first lady and the UN.

Oh well. The officially sanctioned sky spirits will now accept the child, since his sinful extra bit of skin has now been forcibly removed without his consent.

/the patriarchy benefits men in weird ways.

[–]wisty 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

According to ballotpedia, his term won't expire until 2021.

[–]Your_Bacon_Counselor 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a human rights issue pure and simple. Bodily integrity is a recognised and codified basic human right.

The judge and the legal system have engaged in oppressive and "terroristic" activities as well as well as denying this parent autonomy over her child.(You feminists hear that?)

[–]Giorria_Dubh 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One (quasi) solution: Find out what doctor is going to perform the procedure and blacken their name. Make sure every mailbox within their state, and surrounding states is filled with information about what they've done. Ditto for the judge. Loud protests outside their practice during opening hours, same for the courthouse, the works. Maybe get in touch with those guys who protest with the bloodstained trousers. Let's make circumcising an unconsenting minor what it should be: A career ending move.

[–]CptFizz 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

“It is not called the 'Partial Declaration of Human Rights'. It is not the 'Sometimes Declaration of Human Rights'. It is the Universal Declaration, guaranteeing all human beings their basic human rights – without exception.”

--Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Secretary General, December 2010

[–]clerk1o1 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Can't we all take a moment and think about how much pain this kid is gonna be in. I don't have a strong belief either way, at least not like these two clearly do, but at four couldn't the dad just chalk it up to a loss and not put his kid through that. Mom shouldn't have taken kid but I can't figure out why she had to get it done or why the dad trumps the mom in this case

[–]Black_caped_man 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

From what I have read even the kid doesn't want it done.

The incredible thing here is that first of all a contract about the forced bodymod surgery of an underage child is even considered valid. Second of all the state is actually enforcing this against the wishes of one of the parents. The fact that there was a contract shouldn't even factor in the equation. Could you just sign a contract about anything when the child is born and then have to abide by that 5-10 years afterwards? Maybe even longer?

Part of me actually hopes that the surgery will be botched or that there will be some sort of problems with it so the kid could actually sue the father or the judge or whatever. Another part of be doesn't wish anything ill on this boy at all, he does not deserve any of this.

[–]clerk1o1 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes just feel bad for the kid. I'd rather them not be able to do it because of some complication than botch it. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.. Well maybe hitler

[–]SilencingNarrative 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the mom did a great thing to put up such a fight for her sons right to an intact body. Why shouldnt she have, in your opinion?

[–]clerk1o1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just feel bad for kid it seems pike more what parents want than what he wants. Also you can't hide your kid from authorities over something like this. The whole thing just seems lose lose for everyone

[–]shadowguyver 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She is still looking at jail time. They decided to charge her with custody interference or something like yhat. It comes with a possible 5 year sentence.

[–]SilencingNarrative 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Heather:

Thank you for fighting this as hard as you did. When we finally outlaw circumcision for the human rights violation that it is, the judge who jailed you will be remebered as one of the last authorities to hold human rights back before americans lost this barbaric custom. You will be remembered as one of the few people who forced the issue, and great personal risk, hastenening the dawn.

Well done and god bless.

[–]BaronVonWasteland 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fight's not over yet. There's a letter writing campaign I spoke about here that truly is this boy's last chance at bodily integrity and the mothers at accomplishing what she set out to do

[–]Tmomp 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Child abuse by the state.

Sickening.

[–]nc863id 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

As disgusting as this situation is (and that's pretty hard to quantify, since it's like the universe -- infinite but bounded), I have to admit that I felt this odd sense of refreshment seeing a woman on this sub, who isn't actively fighting for men's rights in the overt sense like Christina Hoff Sommers or girlwriteswhat does, being presented in a positive light.

[–]dungone 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Women are hardly ever presented in a negative light, so I don't see how there was a problem to begin with. This sub is full of people who can tell the difference between a person's gender and their actions. We routinely stress that taking issues with feminism is not the same as taking issues with women, that taking issues with unjust laws is not the same as taking issues with women, etc. So this isn't an exception to the rule, it is the rule. Only problem as I see it is that a lot of outsiders can't tell that difference.

Why does it not count when we portray female men's rights activists in a positive light? Do you believe that we should portray women in a positive light just because they're women and for no other reason? How about if we just support them for doing the right thing and for having good ideas, just like we always have? I really don't get what you're trying to say here. It is just such a loaded compliment, like "really refreshing that you guys stopped beating your wives!" Gee, thanks?

[–]Vandechoz 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There's plenty of negative generalizations of women in this sub, and in the MRM in general. It's not even close to what detractors say it is, but I wouldn't say it's "hardly ever", either.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Should be easy to show some representation examples, then. Something that really typifies the negative generalizations of women.

[–]Vandechoz 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

this and the comment in reply

same commenter and thread as above

this one is a bit ambiguous

another slightly ambiguous one; not the best example

another

and this

These are from a CTRL-F with the search term "women" on the top 50 threads in the sub (I skipped a few with <3 comments) sorted by Hot. As I said, it's nothing near what most critics of the sub say it is, but it's not extremely rare either.

[–]dungone -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Thank you, I thought as much. Your concerns are easily dismissed.

So for example, there is a comment in there that basically says "men and women are not treated equally" and you consider this to be a negative portrayal of women when in fact it's not a statement about women, but about our culture as a whole (everyone - men and women alike). And in response to that, another commenter says that injustices against men will not improve until men and women are treated equally, because people do not care about men's welfare as much as about women's welfare. Again that is not a negative portrayal of women, but our culture as a whole (everyone - men and women alike). Beyond that, this was nothing more than a discussion about a widely understood and accepted phenomenon - the women are wonderful effect - which isn't even a product of the MRM but of mainstream, widely accepted psychological research. It's literally not this sub or the MRM who created this "negative portrayal" that you are criticizing this sub for.

If you are so thin-skinned that you cannot even contemplate a statement such as "men and women are not treated equal", then I suppose that the mere existence of the MRM will by it's very definition be problematic in your mind. There's nothing we can do about that, sorry.

Perhaps there's some ill-conceived comment in that list, but it's clear that there are also cases were you are seeing something there when there's nothing there.

[–]Vandechoz 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

These statements are not just blaming culture, even if they identify the culture as the main culprit; they are blaming women as a group for not giving up their female privilege:

this is that sexism that women will not give up easly

I do not believe women will give up there privileges

The only hope we have of getting these laws changed is to get the women to rally with us. That will only happen when it starts to affect them.

And then this one is blaming women as a group for actively using their female privilege to their advantage:

Women have no agency unless it benefits them in some way.

Now, again, these are generalizations. And even as generalizations go they're pretty tame. But the negative generalizations of women are constant. Therefore I cannot agree that "Women are hardly ever presented in a negative light".

[–]dungone -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not just that they're either not really about women to begin with, or not really there, or just very tame, but in other ways they are actually true as far as generalizations go. You can't really argue that something puts women in a bad light if it's just a simple fact that at the societal level things tend to be one way rather than some other way.

Is it really that appalling to hear someone say that they can't see any sort of incentive for women to give up various ways in which they're privileged over men? I mean, have you seen the general reception that the MRM has had in mainstream communities? When you put this into context it's a little bit like blaming wet roads for making the rain look bad.

[–]nc863id -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ah, a True Believer. Faith before sense, amen.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Projecting much?

[–]Armiel 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I really hope the kid tells the doctors he doesn't want it done. Hopefully, they'd remember their Hippocratic oath and not do the operation.

BTW: Does anyone else notice how suddenly "the best interests of the child" don't matter in this case?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When it comes to circumcision, thebest interest of the child is when the kid is strong enough to fight back.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think "Agrees" is the word they're looking for.

[–]intensely_human 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

NO!

[–]Roddy0608 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why was she forced to agree/consent? It doesn't make sense to me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its all a part of the fetish when you legally get to diddle a boys dick and then cut it up.

[–]gently_smiling_jews 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your body's not really yours. Your body is a used product you're given to when you're 18. Like a used car picked by your parents, with your only sense of self-identity being your bumper stickers and the interior. Then you spent your 20s trying to reclaim it.

[–]newspapers_ignizzle 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am fully opposed to circumcision. Myself, my younger brother, and my father are all uncircumcised, never had a single problem. My girlfriend tells me that every man she's been with whose been circumcised has had some problem or other with his penis. Over-sensitivity, premature ejaculation, painful erections, and just generally weird looking dicks.

[+]iWoof_Cub -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Your gf is a shallow bitch!

[–]newspapers_ignizzle 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How does listing off several things she perceived make her a shallow bitch? Enlighten me.

[–]iWoof_Cub 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh wow I so totally read that wrong I thought she was referring to all those problems on uncut men. Another words I thought she was ragging on intact penis. I so retract my statement in regards to calling her a shallow bitch. I dated both men and women who hated on my hood and broke it off right after so forgive me I'm a little jaded towards women and men who think all uncut penis is nasty and problematic. Once again my apologies

[–]TheMightyMrM 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry to burst the bubble here, but didn't she already agree to this? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting the genital integrity of everyone, especially babies, but if she already agreed to let the procedure happen...I can't really finish my thought, but I'm hoping I just said enough that someone understands the sentiment

[–]Roddy0608 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I like to think people are allowed to change their mind before it's too late.

[–]TheMightyMrM 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Morally, I agree wholeheartedly. Legally, this is a very tricky question

[–]rockymountainoysters 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'll finish your thought. They're cutting off a piece of a frightened little boy's penis.

Now, you were saying something about some agreement?

[–]TheMightyMrM 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I may have been mislead. I was under the impression that she signed the agreement months before, changed her mind, ran off with the kid, then came back and was forced to sign another agreement. From the pictures I've seen, the second one was most definitely under duress and not at all a legitimate course of events. However, if she agreed to the first one, not under duress...I mean, fuck, it's fucked up that it'll mess up this kid's genitals, but if you willingly sign a legal agreement, that shit sticks with you and you gotta be ready for the consequences. If I was in fact mislead and there was no first, not under duress signature, then you're rntirely right. However, if I am not incorrect, then I feel like this isn't the best case we could be putting our energy into.

[–]PassifloraCaerulea 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

IIRC, the mom signed a parenting agreement before the kid was even born, part of which included a provision that the father was to schedule and pay for the circumcision. It was later on (sometime before the father brought the current suit) that she decided to look into this circumcision thing, became horrified at the reality of it all, and changed her mind.

[–]iWoof_Cub 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Karen Walker voice: I like you.

[–]deadalnix 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The article present it asa parental battle. Because, you know, it is obviously about the parents, notabout the son's dick, or the "justice" system willing to enforce it.

[–]iWoof_Cub 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm just gonna leave this here for wishful thinking:

http://youtu.be/bwdX0428hlI

[–]Gaming_Loser -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Pack it up boys, the feminists won. They literally can now have the state cut our dicks off.

[–]pastel-forest 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You clearly didn't read the article and jumped to conclusions. It was the father trying to get him circumsised, the mother was trying to protect him.

[–]Gaming_Loser -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But the JUDGE decided it was OK to do this. Doesn't matter about the father. What if this was a father asking to have this done to his daughter?

[–]pastel-forest 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

...was the judge a feminist? how are you blaming feminism for this.

[–]GoGoCougarsGo 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So wait, a male judge agrees to let a father mutilate his son against the mother's wishes, and this is somehow the fault of the feminists? Did I stumble into /r/MensRightsCircleJerk? I get that you're joking, friend, but you sound like an idiot.

Every feminist I've ever talked to about this issue is opposed to infant circumcision. I'm sure you could cherrypick one or two in favor of it if it suits your world view, but I don't think that'd be very accurate.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No but seriously, most Feminists I've read about are agaisnt male circumcision (though they might not see it as serious as FGM). Not surprisingly, all my Jewish Feminist friends seem to have no problem with it.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Every Feminist you've talked to is against male circumcision? Lawl. You must have spoken to like 2 Feminists that were semi-rational.

[–]GoGoCougarsGo 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're a caricature of the Men's Rights Movement, and you're holding it back from being productive. Try to wait until you're out of middle school before you form such strong opinions, buddy.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol. Okay, buddy. It's not like we've posted countless Feminists saying "FGM is NOTHING like male circumcision" and defending its 'health benefits'

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a middle schooler and I just want to say you're acting like 8-year old SJW. Though as an apology for my age group, I must admit that most 14-year olds are well composed when it comes to social issues.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL @ this sub!

Especially @ the fact that the Intactivism nonsense is only getting some attention because it was a woman who was complaining and could get arrested for it!

Haa

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This story leaves many more questions than answers. Seems like it got cut short.

[–]iWoof_Cub 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While I will agree with you on more questions than answered most likely someone got paid under the table to shut this down faster than Olivia pope. I'm still down voting for that cut short joke

[–]SocietalDisgrace 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bad choice of words at the end.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This isn't a non-serious Askreddit thread. Hey I'm all for free speech and this sub isn't exactly an Orwellian safe space, but it's an unwritten rule just basic decency not to make insensitive comments.

[–]troubledtimez -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel bad for the boy and the boys father. She seems like a real nutcase.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter