Disturbing. a feminist argument for circumcision, on the basis that it makes men better by making them more like women. People will rationalize anything to support this practice.

MaunaLoona · 2012-07-09T06:41:32+00:00

By "sacrificing" a piece of the breast by removing the nipple at birth women could be rid of their most tender part. By making them more like men, women can be made more whole.

Yep, makes about as much sense as her argument.

melb22 · 2012-07-09T06:33:34+00:00

In "sacrificing" a piece of the penis, in uncovering and revealing themselves in their most vulnerable part, in making themselves more like women, men can be made more whole.

That part is indeed disturbing.

rusty890 · 2012-07-09T08:32:42+00:00

I find it irritating that some women think that they should have any control over the circumcision issue. This is a men's issue and men will decide it.

SwanOfAvon22 · 2012-07-09T06:22:20+00:00

The pathology of her argument is terrifying. I'm legitimately unnerved by it

tallwheel · 2012-07-09T07:39:59+00:00

In our society, male violence is still the norm, based on phallic authority and the fear that phallus can instill. Since we have seen how blood offers expiation throughout the Torah, can those few drops of covenantal blood be seen as atonement for male control?

"Because penises are scary, we must make them bleed. This blood also atones for the fact that the boy's grandfather kept his wife in the kitchen."

Falkner09 · 2012-07-09T05:36:57+00:00

something destructive and "macho" gets refined by a bris, directing a man away from pure instinct and toward prudent judgment. Maybe Freud was right about the dominating power of the libido: if so, it makes sense to take that absolute power away from the penis. So much of what happens in sex is covenantal. Perhaps this is why Covenant has to be imposed on this organ from the very start. The common notion in our sexist world is that men are created "whole" and perfect. Circumcision negates that aggrandizement. In "sacrificing" a piece of the penis, in uncovering and revealing themselves in their most vulnerable part, in making themselves more like women, men can be made more whole. |

disgusting. circumcision is in fact, rooted in ancient attempts to control everyone's sexuality. it's one of many practices that ensured human beings are treated as the property of the cult, practices that included the brutal control and actual sale of women. and this person tries to argue that it's goal is to improve men by damaging the male organ to make them more female? people will rationalize anything to make this practice look acceptable to modern human rights standards. And it just doesn't fly.

edit also, I just realize that she says it's sexist to think males are created whole. yet, who is arguing that females aren't created whole? just because one sex is whole means the other isn't? and also, whats with this sophistry that circumcision makes a person "more whole"? that's not even possible, this lady needs a dictionary.

callumgg · 2012-07-09T12:56:34+00:00

[permanently deleted]

RedBarclay · 2012-07-09T16:55:16+00:00

In response to the title alone: It makes men more like women to remove it? That's funny, cuz I've still got the hood of my clit.

theozoph · 2012-07-09T17:32:46+00:00

by Rabbi Elyse Goldstein

Stopped reading here.

CrawdaddyJoe · 2012-07-09T15:10:30+00:00

This is a rabbi making an argument. It has less to do with feminism and more to do with a religious figure grasping at any argument they can to justify ritual abuse. I'd hardly call it feminist, considering the rabbi makes the claim that boys must be purified of feminine blood and that only male blood is capable of making the covenant.

Smoke_deGrasse_Sagan · 2012-07-09T21:45:48+00:00

I love how people selectively quote from their holy books. I've heard the Torah also said that it's your fathers obligation to circumcise you, and if he doesn't, then its your obligation when you're older.

wufoo2 · 2012-07-09T20:18:44+00:00

What's funny about this is, the intact penis is in a certain sense more female than a circumcised one. The foreskin is a container, enveloping the glans, making it less a protrusion and more like the internal organ (as it was designed). Also, the inner foreskin secretes smegma, just like under the clitoral hood.

stemgang · 2012-07-09T22:17:02+00:00

Rabbi Elyse M. Goldstein of the Kolel Adult Centre for Liberal Jewish Learning!

Not just politicized religion, but a female Rabbi too!

That's not Kosher.

McFeely_Smackup · 2012-07-09T18:33:49+00:00

Out of that entire long page of raging psychosis rendered in the form of religious prose, how did the OP pick ONE thing to be disturbed by?

Seriously, I don't think I could whittle that manifesto of nutjobbery down to a top 10 things to be horrified by.

dollyknot · 2012-07-09T15:17:08+00:00

Amongst our species, the age of science happened, when we rejected emotion as being the fountain of truth, and started looking for evidence as the fountain of truth.

The problem is some of us still live in the stone ages no matter what the evidence.

These people have no respect of human rights and the concept of citizenship is foreign to them.

Peter_Principle_ · 2012-07-09T17:07:45+00:00

Why is this a discussion at all? Circumcision is a religious practice and should be protected under the rights of religious freedom.

Title	Disturbing. a feminist argument for circumcision, on the basis that it makes men better by making them more like women. People will rationalize anything to support this practice.
Author	Falkner09
Upvotes	75
Comments	41
Date	July 9, 2012 5:30 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/w9a2q/disturbing_a_feminist_argument_for_circumcision/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/disturbing-a-feminist-argument-for-circumcision-on.1018317 https://theredarchive.com/post/1018317

Comments