Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Latest Pro-Circumcision Dismission Tactic: Accusations of "Mansplaining"

"I'm big and you're small, I'm right and you're wrong,
and there's nothing you can do about it!" ~Agatha Trunchbull

"Mansplaining" is a neologism coined to describe the phenomenon of men talking over and down to women, particularly in the case of a man pretending to explain to a woman what she already knows, in a manner that's condescending or patronizing, even if it's her field of expertise.

Like when a man tries to lecture a woman on how her own reproductive system works, or about the challenges she faces as a woman in the workplace, etc.

It's understandable.

The phenomenon is real, it's a legit issue, and there needs to be a word to address it.

The problem, however, is that the term has become so overused in almost any situation to the point that it has lost its usefulness, as now it seems it has come to mean just any time a man tries to explain something and a woman is inconvenienced.

A cheap shut-down and attempt at dismissal.

If a person is explaining or stating something and a woman doesn't want to hear it, because she is actually wrong, and that person happens to be male, all a woman has to do is accuse the person of "mansplaining."

Conversation over.

She wins by virtue of having a vagina.

The term can also be used by a male trying to assert his feminism, in order to dismiss any man daring to challenge a woman. (There may be ulterior motives for a man trying to come off as "feminist." Hugo Schwyzer comes to mind.)

Recently on twitter, one Dr. Jennifer Gunther roused the ire of intactivists by making idiotic statements about male circumcision.

I can't quote her on here now because I've been blocked myself.

Apparently she is in favor of it, citing all the usual tripe. (Prevents this and that, children don't remember it, men aren't adversely affected by it, blah blah blah...)

But when intactivists start challenging her on it, she starts blocking them.

Apparently she can't finish what she starts.

It's funny, because she recently wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled: "My Vagina is Terrific: Your Opinion of It Is Not" with the saucy subtitle: "I dared to discuss my anatomy. Men couldn't handle it."

While she feels men don't get to talk about her vagina, she certainly feels entitled to talk about men's penises.

And while men "couldn't handle" her discussing her anatomy, it sounds like she can't handle men talking about theirs.

Adorable.

I wasn't one to let an idiot doctor get away with spewing unmitigated bullshit, so I chimed in with this:


Not to let the woman with the terrific vagina be outdone by the male intactivist (and possibly to score feminist brownie points), another male Twitter user attempts to dismiss me with the following:


There are a few things wrong with this attempt at a dismissal.

First and foremost, the irony of having a woman explain male anatomy and circumcision to males seems to escape him.

Second, male anatomy is outside of the expertise of OB/GYNs, whose field of expertise is the female reproductive system.

And third, yes, doctors have a professional responsibility dispense factually correct information, preferably within the purview of their field of expertise.

If men pontificating on the female reproductive system, female genitals, and/or what a woman's experience is can be called "mansplaining," what is it called when a woman attempts to dictate to men about the male reproductive system, their penises, and what their experience will be?

What is it called when a woman who neither has a penis, nor is circumcised, attempts to dictate what the experience of either circumcised sex will be?

And what is it called when a doctor tries to sound informed on a topic outside the purview of  her field of expertise?

An OB/GYN's field of expertise is the female reproductive system and has no business touching the genitals of male babies.

And yet, according to national surveys, OB/GYNs perform the bulk of male infant circumcisions.

Why?

It must be asked, how is it they're performing circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting male infants and legally getting away with it?

It was cute.

Real cute of Mr. Michael Busch to try and play the mansplaining card to try and silence and dismiss intactivists.

Not today.

If Dr. Jen can talk about her vagina, then I can talk about my dick.

If men are the least people to be commenting on women's bodies, then Dr. Jen and other women need to shut up about men's dicks.

Circumcision concerns male genitals, something Dr. Gunter does not have and whose field of expertise does not concern.

I have a penis.

Of all people I am entitled to talk.

It's ironic to be accused of mansplaining for calling out an OB/GYN for womansplaining to males about their genitals.

Not a man, not even a medical expert on male genitalia.

Dr. Gunter should stick to vulvas and vaginas and leave children’s penises alone

I'm going to affix some definitions to the term "womansplaining":

When a woman lectures intact men about their uncircumcised penises, how "dirty" they are, how much more difficult it is for them to stay clean, prevent diseases etc., etc.

When a woman who isn’t circumcised and comes from a country where girls and women are legally protected from forced genital cutting lectures men about male organs and circumcision, and has the nerve to give men patronizing advice on how they should be grateful they’re circumcised because it’s "cleaner," "healthier," etc.

Here are other terms I think should make the English lexicon:

clitsplaining:
 When a woman who isn't circumcised tries to lecture others about the horrors of female circumcision, as well as the "benefits" of male circumcision, even though she has a clitoris, doesn't know what it's like not to have one, much less what it feels like to be a circumcised male

Perhaps we also need the term "vulva appropriation" to describe a western woman who is not circumcised and claims to speak for all circumcised women, even though most circumcised women are quite happy with their status?


 A circumcised African woman speaking for herself

 Circumcised Malaysian woman speaking her mind

female privilege:

Having laws that protect only your sex from forced genital cutting, religious or not

Being able to say “My body, my choice” and “My child, my choice” regarding male infant circumcision in the same breath.

Decrying FGM, even while there is a federal law against it, while telling angry circumcised men that male circumcision is "harmless," that you prefer circumcised penises, that they should “get over it” and say they’re “mansplaining” when they don’t shut up.

Having entire organizations raising awareness of FGM, and then having the nerve to ask “Why is male circumcision becoming mainstream? Why does this have to be about penises?”

Being able to say female genital cutting is deserving of attention, but male genital cutting should be ignored.


circumsplaining:

When circumcised men, or women who think they speak for circumcised men, to lecture intact men about their uncircumcised penises, how "dirty" they are, how much more difficult it is for them to stay clean, prevent diseases etc., etc.

Male readers, whenever anyone, man or woman, accuses you of mansplaining for educating an ignorant woman about your own genitals, don't let it slide.

Instead, point out the shameless womansplaining and female privilege going on.

Calling you a "mansplainer" is an attempt to make you silent.

Don't be.

Instead, fire back:
 "My Penis is Terrific: Your Opinion of It Is Not"

#mansplaning #womansplaining #malecircumcision #femaleprivilege #clitsplaining #vulvaappropriation #OBGYN #circumcision #i2


Related Post:
The Circumcision Blame Game

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Catching Up - Important News I've Missed


I'd like to apologize to my readers; I haven't been as active on this blog as I'd like to be. Believe it or not, your blogger has a life outside of intactivism, as intactivism isn't making me rich, and I need to maintain a family. I wish there was some sort of way to be active in this movement, AND make the money that I need for me and my family to survive while doing it.

In the mean time, while I don't have the time to dedicate to long, well-thought-out blog posts, I do post my thoughts often on Twitter. If you're interested, please follow me @Joseph4GI.

Recent News
There have been a lot of important things in the news regarding circumcision. Every time I see something I tell myself "I'll write a blog post about it today," but hardly ever have the time to actually do it.

Today, what I will do is, I'm just going to go down a list of recent pieces of noteworthy news and briefly comment on them.

Iceland Ban
I already posted my thoughts on this in my last blog post, but in short, I don't think it's realistic, and like the San Francisco attempt, it is going to fail. We just aren't ready for a ban yet. We were ready for a ban on FGM because the West already pretty much agreed that they hated it, unlike with MGM, where it's become pretty much ingrained in American culture. They say that in big movements like these, laws are the very last things to change. There will be a ban when we get most of the world on-board the idea that forcibly cutting the genitals of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a violation of basic human rights.

Recently Published Studies
A number of studies that throw a monkey wrench in the pro-circumcision narrative have been published.

A study that showed circumcised men are at a higher risk for cancer-causing HPV was published last year in May, but it didn't really make the news until the latter part of the year. The usual claim by male infant circumcision advocates is that HPV prevalence is higher in intact men, supposedly making them a risk-factor for cervical cancer in women. If this study is correct, then the exact opposite is true.

In another study that was published relatively recently, findings showed that male circumcision greatly increases the risk of urinary tract problems. Again, this goes contrary to the pro-circumcision slogan that male circumcision is supposed to reduce problems with UTIs and the like. This wouldn't be the first study to show this, however; other studies have showed an increase in UTIs post-circumcisions. Studies in Israel here, here and here suggest that circumcision may actually be causing UTIs in infants.

Finally, a new and recent study suggests that that circumcision complications are much higher than circumcision advocates would like parents to believe. Typically, circumcision advocates minimize the number of complications due to circumcision, citing numbers as low as 2% if not lower. The AAP itself in 2012 actually said in their policy statement on circumcision that ''the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown." 

There are a few factors contributing to the lack of information on the true incidence of the adverse effects of circumcision. For one, there is a predisposition in American researchers in trying to find only "benefits" in circumcision, and aren't really interested in finding adverse effects; as circumcised males, fathers or mothers of circumcised children, and/or spouses of circumcised husbands, they're simply not interested in looking. Additionally, doctors who profit from the practice are probably not interested in publishing information that would likely lead to infant circumcision being banned, not to mention lawsuits. At least in the US, doctors and hospitals aren't required to publish information regarding adverse outcomes of male infant circumcision. Until the release of this information is made a requirement, we may never know the true incidence of complications of circumcision.


What this latest study goes on is a regional claims database. Because some adverse outcomes of circumcision go unreported, this can only be a conservative estimate.

"American Circumcision" Wins Yet ANOTHER Award
I did manage to post about the film "American Circumcision" winning the Best Documentary Film Award at the Lone Star Festival. Well sir, it looks like the film has managed to nab yet ANOTHER award, this time, the Silver Jury Prize at the Social Justice Film Festival.


Congratulations to the film maker Brendon Marotta for yet another award for his film.

Public Muslim Man Advocates for Choice
When I first saw this tweet, I just couldn't believe my eyes. I'm so glad that, Jews, as well as Muslims, are speaking out against forcibly cutting children, even under religious pretext.


I'm so glad to see people from circumcising faiths speaking out like this!

Well, that about wraps it up for this post.

Until the next time!

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

CIRCUMCENSORSHIP: Scholarly Circumcision Articles Being Censored on Facebook


It's happened to me before; I post a link to a news article on a legit, valid news source, or to medical literature on a reputable journal on Facebook, only to have it immediately labeled as "spam" and deleted no sooner than I had clicked "post."

I would sit there and wonder if this was something that was happening only to me, but earlier today, I ran across a post in my news feed confirming to me that that I'm not the only one.

I've taken screenshots of the post on my news feed and have posted them below.

Facebook users can see the post on the matter, and the conversation ensuing among other intactivist Facebook users here (last accessed 1/15/2018).

SCREEN SHOTS:


I've downloaded the screen shot referenced in the conversation above and posted it below:


The conversation continues...


The screenshot referenced just above has been posted below:


The conversation continues...


The final screen shot mentioned can be seen here:


It is quite evident that there are people at Facebook who have decided to take the liberty to censor intactivism by labeling news articles or research papers that don't speak favorably of male circumcision as "spam" and immediately removing them.

This puts intactivists in the awkward position of not being able to substantiate the facts we post; in essence, Facebook is blocking access to verifiable information.

This wouldn't be the first time a social media outlet has made it difficult for intactivists to post; not too long ago, Twitter was keeping me from posting the following:


I tried to post this over and over again from different devices to no avail.

I kept getting error messages.

Finally, I took a screen shot which is the only way I could post what I wanted to say.

I talk about what happened me on Twitter on a different post, here.

All I can say is that, the information we post must be powerful and intimidating, if people at social media outlets are going as far as trying to censor us.

They may succeed temporarily, but not for long.
"Truth suppress'd will find an avenue to be told."
"Three things cannot remain long hidden; the sun, the moon, and the truth."

Monday, December 18, 2017

Circumcision Censorship at Twitter?


I've been very active on Twitter recently (@Joseph4GI if you're interested).

All had been going more or less very well.

That is until this morning, when I tried posting the following:


The first time I tried posting this was on my phone, but I kept getting the error message "We're sorry, something went wrong. Please try again in a minute."

I must have kept trying for about a half an hour, when I realized something was wrong.

Then I went to my tablet and tried re-typing my message and posting there.

Same deal.

Finally, I went to my PC and tried posting again.

This time, I only get the message "Sorry, something went wrong."

Then I take the above screen shot and tweet that.

That went through just fine.

I try retyping the above tweet again, and I get the same error message.

I think something is amiss, and I'd like to know what it is.