I am going to lay out why this is a silly argument to make while discussing Female genital mutilation vs Male genital mutilation.
Vagina has about 1000 nerve endings, and the clitoris has about 8000.
Source —— I looked on many websites to find a exact number of nerve endings in the vagina but I could not find anything besides the original source of this. Clitoris has a lot of sources for the 8000 mark.
Foreskin has been listed at between 10,000 - 20,000 - 70,000. So I will be going with 20,000 to compare the two.
Now that the numbers and source information is out of the way, I can get into the body of my argument.
The penis fully intact has 24,000 nerve endings, when the foreskin is removed, 83% of the nerves are removed.
Vagina fully intact has 9,000, when clitoris is removed it is a loss of 89% of the nerve endings.
Now lets see how many clitorises, glans/shafts and vaginas would have to be removed to equal 1 foreskin removal.
- Combined - 1.58
- Clitorises - 2.5
- Glans/shafts - 5
- Vagina’s - 20
While it is factually correct that the removal of a clitoris is worse then glans/shaft of the penis, to leave the argument left at that is not telling the whole truth. From the data I have shown the removal of the foreskin is worse then removing all of the nerves of vagina, clitoris and glans/shaft.
This is why circumcision is not a medical act but mutilation of male genitals. And this is the reason to outlaw it with female genital mutilation, and fight just as hard against both and not just one.
Open question for feminists: if feminism is about equality and the improvement of women’s condition, why do many of you spend so much time poo-pooing and mocking the experiences of other groups?
Because male circumcision is in no way the same thing as female circumcision. Because in no way does the “oppression” of males in anyway compare to the oppression of females. Males as a gender have never been oppressed. It’s not “poo-pooing” the experience of other groups; it’s being annoyed and angry and frustrated that other groups do not take female oppression and the fears females face every day seriously.
I’m glad that you reblogged this post (instead of using the answer function) so that I’m not the only who has to deal with your lack of reading comprehension and general intelligence. That’s right folks, the gloves are coming off tonight.
This post was never about female circumcision, female oppression, or any kind of fears faced, or not faced, by women every day. These things were literally never mentioned until you brought them up. This post was about about a couple of douchenozzles mocking the grief and anger expressed by a collection of people that I happen to belong to. It was a post tagged under ‘circumcision’, which meant that the people who check this tag on a daily basis have to see this drivel. I don’t give a rat’s ass if you care about circumcision as an issue, or sympathize with the people who feel victimized by it, but if you actively and viciously put down my experience, you will get a prompt fuck you from me.
And you know what else…
Eli Ungar-Sargon from his debate with Rabbi Boteach (via legalizeforeskin)
Reblogging this for truth.
Did something thrilling happen in the world of circumcision whilst I slept? I woke up to a dashboard full of arguments about circumcision, and then when I went to the library to get the book they’d gotten from another library for me, some Mormon dude was looking at stuff about foreskins or something. I feel like this is a weird theme for my day to have.
while i strongly believe in being allowed to practice your own religion and not have it changed or interfered with by non-religious people, i have to admit that this is great.
i think giving the parents the right to circumcise their children without consent, strips the child of their basic human rights and if we all believe that everyone is be entitled to their own body as priority #1, more countries should follow this example.
60% of the male population have undergone genital mutilation.
Dearest new internet buddy, bluetrafficlight, this would be an example of the fucked up approach that MRAs take to… MRAing or whatever. Here’s a picture created to raise awareness of FGM. And some MRA reposts it with the commentary “FUCK YOU” because men are circumcised. The fact that men experience circimcision is apparently, according to this MRA, supposed to negate the harm caused by FGM. He could have made a post about the negative impact the phenomenon of circumcision has on men. But he did not. He instead simply dismissed an important feminist issue (and tagged it “feminism”).
Also, he is a white male, in response to your point about the high instances of Poc MRA bloggers on tumblr.
since when does one person represent the whole movement?
and hey when men make posts about our issues we get this shit
look at you doing this now!
when 89% of all people in trafficking arn’t male THEN you can speak
go fuck yourself
the only coverage of mens issues we get people like you fuck up
im sick and tired of this bull shit
because its not feminism its not valid? because we scrutinise or point out flaws? its a sociological political movement MEANT for scrutinisation
worst of all this is coming from YOU
an upper class, white girl
go fuck yourself
reminder that bluetrafficlight equates circumcision with clitoral mutilation which a really cool and discreet way to admit you dON’T know how sex works i mean FUCK
just like how a woman getting her period is like a guy getting stabbed in the taint and bleeding everywhere. why don’t they make male tampons, if guys might get stabbed in their taints and need to shove a thing up there to stop all the horrible bleeding. thats super unfair. because all humans are physiologically identical O H W A I T
equates circumcision with clitoral mutilation which a really cool and discreet way to admit you dON’T know how sex works i mean FUCK
Hmm, Funny that you should say that.. Seems to me that you are saying that you don’t know how sex works for men, and probably don’t care.
I assume you think that a chapped, dry, calloused glans feels just the same when it is stimulated as a natural one? Perhaps you are of the opinion that men are so shallow that any touching of their glans, no matter how numbed by over stimulation and damaged by lack of physical and biological protection it is, will give them the greatest of pleasures?
Or maybe you just think that circumcision always goes according to plan, and no-one’s glans dies and falls off as a result? That there is not a laundry list as long as your arm of possible complications?
What a fun ride for an infant!
Obviously no infant, male or female should be forced to have their genitals mutilated.
However, acting like FGM is a larger problem than MGM is disingenuous at best, and an erasure of the suffering of millions of men.
At 1.25 million circumcisions of newborns in the US per year, a 0.5% infection rate amounts to 6000 cases per year, and a 4% overall rate of complications requiring treatment represents 48,000 patients experiencing avoidable morbidity.
And that is in a country with acceptable facilities/methods, what about one where the facilities and levels of training are just a little bit lower? 20.2% complication rate, that’s what.
It is time to end these sick traditions once and for all, whether performed on a boy or a girl. They are a horrible violation of the individuals agency, they have lifelong consequences, and in either case can lead to the unnecessary death of an infant, and all of the pain, depression, and social costs associated with such a tragedy.
What might do us all some good is if we stopped arguing about which terrible criminal behaviors are worse, lumped the issues together by calling them HGM (Human Genital Mutilation), and proceeded to fight THAT.
The World Health Organization has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over have been genitally mutilated, and that up to 140 million women have also been so treated.
What do you think? A lot more appropriate than everybody arguing with each other over who has it worst?
Maybe if we take it from this angle, some infants will be saved from this terrible physical and emotional violation, rather than a bunch of SJ bloggers having something to get mad at a different group of SJ bloggers about, and accomplishing nothing but more division and diversion.
from the bottom of my chapped and dry and desensitized glans, unfairly stripped of its physical and biological protection: holy shit you are an insane person
Oh, of course. I mention the danger of necrotising fasciitis, or ablation of the entire penis, and you focus on the certainty of a chapped glans, like that is my problem with the issue.
Also, you did a great job of glossing over the fact that I am also completely against FGM.
Plus, your use of mockery, and ad hominem clearly shows that you are not serious, or particularly interested in any type of real exchange of ideas.
So, in the same spirit; You sir, can get so bent you are twisted.
Why don’t you leave discussion of serious issues to those that actually care about them, and go hoot and holler at something.
The person who called you insane is the insane one. Or just really stupid. Either way, I agree, it should be called HGM instead. Sounds much more inclusive and equal.
The fact that men experience circimcision is apparently, according to this MRA, supposed to negate the harm caused by FGM.
Lemme just stop you right there.
FGM has been illegal in this country for how long? Since 1997. It’s also illegal to perform FGM on ANY British citizen anywhere in the world.
Okay, lemme give you some numbers, since apparently you don’t understand.
Between 1997 and 2009, there were 36,743,826 births. ~50% of those were male: 18,371,913. Between 60 and 80% underwent MGM: 11,023,148 - 14,697,530.
That’s just since 1997. The current US population is ~314,000,000, and half of those are male: 157,000,000. That’s between 94,200,000 and 125,600,000 men living right nowwho have had their genitals mutilated.
This doesn’t “negate” jack shit. FGM is illegal in most of the free world, but right now, in the US, there could be almost 130 million men who have had their genitals mutilated. Every second, 2 or 3 baby males will have their genitals mutilated.
EVERY FUCKING SECOND.
And EVEN THEN, that’s a birth rate of 4 million/year. It’s higher than that, but I can’t find a real number, so we’ll approximate.
When I say MGM is a problem, I refer to the fact that 2 baby boys will have their genitals mutilated every second. FGM, however, has been illegal in this country for fifteen years.
No, nothing will “negate” damage done, that’s actually fucking impossible.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to prove by giving a bullshit statistic with no source, and not even any frame of reference. 130 million where, worldwide? When, ever?
130 million is a big number.
But so is 125 million, and that is getting bigger every day. 130 million will not.
That is assuming the 130 million figure comes from the same place as mine.
If I could find some statistics on FGM, I could tell you approximately how many living women in the US have undergone FGM.
I looked, but I can’t find anything (I’m terrible at Google).
If someone wants to come at me with real statistics and citations, have at it.
yeah see the original argument is
130 million women HAVE undergone female genital mutilation. HAVE.
so this is counting all deceased women i’m guessing.
130 million altogether vs 125 million per year.. hmm
This is often cited as a major difference between misogyny and misandry, and a reason for the latter not to be taken seriously. “There may be individual instances of women hating men”, erasers will argue, “but there is no institutional oppression of men like there is of women”. I’m going to examine that claim.
Institutional discrimination against women that has existed:
- Not allowed to vote
- Not allowed to work
- Not allowed to fight
- Limited reproductive rights
- Negative/minimal/objectified representation in the media
- Minority presence in positions of power
Looking at this, we can immediately see that women were/are oppressed by society, and the leaders they have elected (whether politically, or by creating a demand for a certain product or show). Undoubtedly there are other instances of discrimination which I haven’t listed, but these are the major ones which I hear cited.
Institutional discrimination against men that has existed:
- Mostly not allowed to voteThis doesn’t only apply to women. Limited suffrage was more about class than it was sex, and so poor men, or men who weren’t the head of a household, were also unable to vote. This issue, then is not nearly so black and white as it is often portrayed. “A few individuals could vote, who happened to be men” is a very different issue to “all men could vote and all women couldn’t”, as it is usually described. The law didn’t just discriminate against women, because they were women.
- Expected/forced to workThe video linked there also explains that the greater burden of work is still placed upon men by the law, making this double standard very institutional in the present day. Some men could vote because they owned property, but it isn’t as if this is all that there was to it. This privilege was earned. Men had to work for their money, whereas women only had to marry a man and sponge off of him for their whole life. Women were mostly looked after, whereas nobody was looking after men. Poorer men were sent to work in factories or down mines, where thousands were killed. They had to work because they were men, and solely for that reason. This was hardly a one-sided privilege, then. Women faced a great amount of privilege in being seen as weak. Society still dictates that men work in harder, more stressful jobs for longer hours and retire later. They then face a much higher rate of suicide, are at higher risk of heart disease, and die earlier naturally - something which stress has been shown to cause. This is in the modern day, and the money that they are paid for this disproportionate burden is once again often spent on women, who men are expected to care for financially. This is in no way a privilege of men over women. Both sides suffer, and there could even be an argument that men suffer more.In the modern world, many claim that women still face institutional discrimination in the form of a ‘wage gap’. That may be true, but if it was then it would in no way detract from the suffering of men as mentioned above. It may also not be true, and there is significant evidence to suggest that.
- Expected/forced to fightA similar issue can be seen here. Men have been sent out to be slaughtered in their millions throughout history, simply because they were men, and that was their duty to society. Often they had no legal choice, and would be imprisoned or executed for refusing, and more recently they have faced intense societal pressure and been shamed as a coward if they said no. Women, by contrast, benefited from the privilege of protection whilst facing almost none of the risk. Complaining that ‘not being allowed to be massacred’ is solely discrimination against women is therefore ridiculous. More men than women throughout history have died because of institutional sexism.
- Limited reproductive rightsStatements such as “women don’t have the right to an abortion in some states, therefore men have more reproductive rights than women” are misleading. Men don’t have the right to an abortion either. Men don’t have free birth control either. Men actually have fewer options than women do, and their only option is one which detracts from their pleasure. Once they have had sex without a condom, they lose all control. Women have just as much right to buy a condom as men do, by the way, which already places them on equal footing. But if a woman gets drunk and has sex without a condom she can do anything from taking pills to have a foetus aborted if she doesn’t want to have children. Men can do nothing. If a man gets drunk and has sex, it’s the woman who took advantage of him’s choice whether or not he becomes a father and faces a massive legal responsibility. That’s not trivial matter, because child support is an incredibly burden (I highly recommend looking at this). Psychologically this is also a problem. If a man is raped, he is completely powerless to stop his rapist from having his child. Imagine how that would feel. When you compare them with women, men have actually drawn the short straw where reproductive rights are concerned. Any efforts to improve the choice for men fail, because they don’t get any sort of financial backing, whereas efforts to improve the existing abundance of choice for women are instantly championed by the government and have money thrown at them. This, then, is institutional oppression against men just as much as women, if not more.
- Negative/minimal/objectified representation in the mediaMen are the dominant presence when it comes to media representation, but again the issue isn’t as one-sided as it seems. Whilst men do make up the majority of positive portrayals, they also make up the majority of negative ones. A combination of feminist campaigns to have more positive female characters and the implicit stereotype that men make better villains have led to this becoming unbalanced: men are mostly shown as negative. Violence against men is also seen as acceptable, both in fiction and non-fiction media, which perpetuates a society in which men are at a much greater risk of violence.I’m not denying that female representation is bad; I only want to point out that men don’t have it great either. Disney princesses are ridiculous, but this isn’t one-sided. Female superheroes are objectified, but this isn’t one-sided. Speaking of objectification, men face a lot of that. Not only are we becoming more and more objectified for our bodies, with unnecessary topless men everywhere you look (making other men insecure, treating men as sex objects, detracting from their worth in other areas, and so on), but we have always been objectified for other things. Women have been treated as objects and valued on their beauty, and men have been treated as objects and valued on their wealth and power.Men not being portrayed as beautiful is actually also a problem. Men are generally portrayed as dull, crude, fat, hairy, ugly, smelly, repulsive, sex-obsessed beasts. Women are frequently worshipped as being sophisticated, beautiful works of art. It’s objectification of women, which is awful, but the imbalance also affects the other side. Women are seen as too attractive, and men aren’t seen as attractive enough.
- Expected to have powerOut of the above list, this is the only one which truly resembles a privilege for men. However, as I have just stated, men are objectified for power. Men being seen as powerful is good for them, yes, in the same way as women being seen as beautiful is good for them. But, as with that case, objectification and unrealistic expectations follow. Like any other stereotype, this one can work both ways. Power is a lot more complex than you might think.
- Allowed to be rapedI mentioned above that men could be raped. Legally, of course, they can’t. The FBI used to define rape as something that happens only to women, which is patently ridiculous, and institutional erasing of male victims. We campaigned, and they changed it so that men can now be raped by other men. Female rapists are still enabled. Male victims of female rapists are still erased - institutionally. It isn’t just the FBI, though: rape laws in most countries discriminate against men at a de jure level.Not only is this institutionalised misandry in principle, but it has more indirect effects. It skews rape statistics, for one thing. It stops male rape being taken seriously by wider society (it is even used as a punchline frighteningly often by the media). It teaches us that rape is something that only men do, and this opens up a whole new arena for institutional misandry - not just against male rape victims, but against men in general. There are a worrying number of people who think it acceptable to treat all men as rapists, purely on the basis of these statistics. Indeed, many supposed anti-rape campaigns work with this message. Firstly, that’s as offensive as treating all black people as criminals, or all Muslims as terrorists. It’s also institutionalised: men are sexually profiled as rapists much as black people may by racially profiled as thieves. Even worse, it has become institutional to such an extent that it is now acceptable to attack a man because he looks like a potential rapist. It’s legally okay for the police to arrest them for being men, and it’s okay for women to assault them for being men. If that isn’t institutional discrimination, nothing is. False rape accusations (they happen) can then be made, playing into this biased system, and men suffer once again. I’m not trying to claim that false accusations are more important than rape itself: men suffer greatly from the prevalence of real rape, and how under-reported it is, and so I wouldn’t be fighting for men’s rights if I did. However, false accusations can still ruin a man’s life and send him to prison, where he may very well be raped himself.As well as other rape, men are especially stereotyped and treated as potential paedophiles: we are much more comfortable having women around our children, and many businesses have decided to take their bias and institutionalise it.
- Allowed to be abusedThis is a similar situation. The law, and those who enforce it, do not take male victims of domestic violence seriously - and neither does wider society. It’s a hidden crime, and a surprisingly prevalent one.
- Allowed to be genitally mutilatedFemale circumcision is illegal in the Western world. Male circumcision isn’t, despite occurring without the child’s consent, being dangerous and causing more harm than good . This is something which we don’t question, but which we really should.
- Criminally profiledI’ve mentioned racial profiling, and I want to demonstrate that sexual profiling is also a think. The victims of racial profiling are usually young black men. They are profiled because they are black, but also because they are men. Men are seen as intrinsically more violent, crude, and untrustworthy than women, just as black people are seen as intrinsically more so than white people. That’s the theory, and the statistics support it. Men are disproportionately arrested, convicted, sentenced for longer, denied parole, and sentenced to death more frequently than women for the same crime. This bias is actually more prevalent than the tendency to disproportionately charge black people: sexual profiling is actually more of a thing than racial profiling. Instead of asking police “is it because I’m black?”, we should be asking them “is it because I’m a man?”, because the latter is likely to be having more of an influence on their judgement. This is another concrete example of institutional discrimination against men, based on stereotypes, that has spread throughout the whole system. Not only the police officers arresting more men because of their bias, not only juries convicting more men because of their bias, not only judges being harsh on men because of their bias, but the government also tries to step in and order them to be nicer to female criminals because girls can’t actually be mean in the same way as big nasty men can. I urge you to read these two explanations.It also works the other way: you’re much more likely to be convicted etcetera if your victim was a woman, because nobody cares about violence or theft or whatever against men. Rape and domestic violence, as already mentioned, are especially disproportionate.
- EducationAs a microcosm of wider society, schools are going to show the same biases as the outside world. Courts disproportionately punish men, and so teachers are going to disproportionately punish boys. This was my experience, fits the theory, and now there are facts to support it.
- Father’s rightsThese are the most well-known cases of anti-male discrimination by biased courts, and they are championed by the most politically powerful arms of the men’s rights movement. I therefore won’t explore them too much myself, because there is such a wealth of information out there (for example). These statistics are most worrying.As before, there are undoubtedly other instances of discrimination which I haven’t listed. As before, we can immediately see that men are oppressed. It is irrelevant whether or not men are the ones in power. Even a country entirely run by men can have institutional discrimination against men, it would just have to be internalised. As I have explained, our gender roles were not created by men. The patriarchy is a natural system which has been evolved to help us to survive. It’s holding us back now, but it is not the fault of any single group. Society created it, society perpetuates it, and society enforces it. Men aren’t the only villains but, even if they were, other men could still be their victims.
I’m not claiming that men are the only, or the ‘real victims’, of sexism either. Wherever there is misandry, there is misogyny. I’m only trying to point out that the opposite is also true; wherever there is misogyny, there is misandry. That includes institutional discrimination: as this post has hopefully demonstrated. I’m not trying to deny male privilege, I’m just pointing out that certain female privileges exist as well - and that many of them are institutional.
About time someone made some annotated animated gifs on the topic.
moondoggie-iluvyou replied to your post: lol “those things are absolutely worthless”. i, myself, favor them, but i know you don’t :P and yeah idk why everyone is so en fuego about this…who cares? i haven’t heard ONE case of a man actually caring he was cut or uncut. i think this is just another SJ trip down dumbass lane.“There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”—WHO Boys are having sex at the age of 9, they are prepared to take it for a spin not take it for a trim.
You know what reduces the risk of HIV infection even more than radical surgery done on a nonconsenting infant with no anesthetic or pain relief? Condoms.