Cork Feminista Conference Recording 21st June 2014

[Curvaceous Kate]

Not as appalling as the fact that the UN, simultaneous to its call for an end to female genital mutilation worldwide, actually launched a plan in 2011 to accelerate male genital mutilation in Africa for AIDS prevention. It is a plan supported by some feminists.

Circumcision and genital mutilation is the same thing.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...-females-only/

I didn't realise being circumcised stopped men having sexual pleasure. So how do they cum and seem to enjoy sex? I've met plenty who are. A relative of mine was circumcised as a child, due to having problems with his penis and it was actually done for his benefit. Is it possible that the same could be said of genital mutilation?

[Empirical]

I didn't realise being circumcised stopped men having sexual pleasure. So how do they cum and seem to enjoy sex? I've met plenty who are. A relative of mine was circumcised as a child, due to having problems with his penis and it was actually done for his benefit. Is it possible that the same could be said of genital mutilation?

Circumcision doesn't stop men having sexual pleasure. It's a bit uncertain whether it improves things or not, or whether it simply delays things. To be certain, you'd have to run a trial in which some men were circumcised and some weren't, and compare the before and after results. Funnily enough, no such trial has been done. But it's quite clear that whatever effects circumcision does or doesn't have, men still get pleasure. Some argue that the pleasure is increased, because things take longer.

But, female genital mutilation is done with the express intent of preventing sexual pleasure in women. Just how effective this is remains unclear, clearly there are no before and after trials. But the intention is quite clear; all we can say is that the likelihood is that sexual pleasure is either eliminated or reduced. It's certainly not increased.

[Curvaceous Kate]

Circumcision doesn't stop men having sexual pleasure. It's a bit uncertain whether it improves things or not, or whether it simply delays things. To be certain, you'd have to run a trial in which some men were circumcised and some weren't, and compare the before and after results. Funnily enough, no such trial has been done. But it's quite clear that whatever effects circumcision does or doesn't have, men still get pleasure. Some argue that the pleasure is increased, because things take longer.

But, female genital mutilation is done with the express intent of preventing sexual pleasure in women. Just how effective this is remains unclear, clearly there are no before and after trials. But the intention is quite clear; all we can say is that the likelihood is that sexual pleasure is either eliminated or reduced. It's certainly not increased.

Thank you! Which means that the genital mutilation is purely about control and serves no other purpose, whereas circumcision can be done for various reasons, but control (generally) is not one of them, i.e. not comparable.

[Empirical]

Thank you! Which means that the genital mutilation is purely about control and serves no other purpose, whereas circumcision can be done for various reasons, but control (generally) is not one of them, i.e. not comparable.

Exactly! FGM is about control, circumcision isn't.

[Paul Carr]

Circumcision doesn't stop men having sexual pleasure. It's a bit uncertain whether it improves things or not, or whether it simply delays things. To be certain, you'd have to run a trial in which some men were circumcised and some weren't, and compare the before and after results. Funnily enough, no such trial has been done. But it's quite clear that whatever effects circumcision does or doesn't have, men still get pleasure. Some argue that the pleasure is increased, because things take longer.

But, female genital mutilation is done with the express intent of preventing sexual pleasure in women. Just how effective this is remains unclear, clearly there are no before and after trials. But the intention is quite clear; all we can say is that the likelihood is that sexual pleasure is either eliminated or reduced. It's certainly not increased.

Female or male circumcision is genital mutilation.

From: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens...al-mutilation/

Leading US website Not Just Skin note that: ‘Female circumcision is typically viewed as more horrific than male circumcision because it is usually done under unhygienic conditions rather than in a hospital, and because one form of female circumcision, infibulation, is particularly severe. However, both male and female circumcisions are classed as genital mutilation by the International Coalition for Genital Integrity.

‘Both forms of circumcision remove functional, normal tissue, cause extreme pain, permanently disfigure the genitals, and permanently damage the sexual response. And in most cultures where female circumcision is performed, male circumcision is also performed with equally unhygienic instruments. Regardless of the child’s gender, when done to infants or children, unnecessary genital surgeries violate human rights because they are amputations performed without medical need and without the individual’s consent.

‘The World Health Organization recognizes three types of female circumcision. Type I removes the clitoral hood and/or the clitoral tip. Type II removes the clitoral hood, clitoris, and part or all of the labia. Type III, also known as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision, involves removal of all external female genitalia and suturing of the vaginal opening. Male circumcision can be compared to type I or II female circumcision. Although the glans is not harmed at the time of circumcision, the loss of protective structures causes it to dry out and lose sensitivity over time. It is also important to note that most of the nerves and pleasure receptors present in the clitoris are, in the male, present in the foreskin and its associated structure, the frenulum. Removal of these nerves constitutes a loss that can be most adequately compared to a partial clitoridectomy.’


Unfortunately, the U.N. has been playing cynical wordgames on this issue for some time now and has been seeking to distance female circumcision from male circumcision by labelling the former as female genital mutilation such as in this 2007 U.N. document on male circumcision.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...596169_eng.pdf

Note footnote on page 27.

"For the purposes of this document, the term ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ is used. The word ‘mutilation’ reinforces that this practice is a violation of girls’ and women’s human rights, and thereby helps to promote national and international advocacy towards abandonment"

By contrast, U.N. document calls for the roll out of male circumcision services, provided it is done hygienically, as a means to reduce the risk of HIV acquisition and transmission. This is despite the fact that numerous studies have shown no reduced risk of HIV infection for circumcised men, compared with those uncircumcised.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/boys...on-of-infants/

My view is that both female and male genital mutilation/circumcision performed on an infant not in a position to give consent are both practices to be condemned. It is a violation of his/her right to bodily integrity and should only be performed where there is a pressing medical need. Even in the case of phimosis for example, it is often not necessary. Phimosis can be fixed without circumcision, either through stretching with lubrication therapy or by making a small cut. Removal of the entire foreskin is very rarely a necessity.

It should also be pointed out that male circumcision is fatal to about 117 infants every year in the US alone.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

It should also be pointed out that the harvested foreskins of circumcised baby boys are used in certain beauty products such as wrinkle cream for example.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/profiting-from-pain/

[Cassandra]

You own a fedora. You must do.

[Paul Carr]

That is correct. The canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden refused to allow women to vote until the federal government forced them to in 1971.

Swiss law is based on the Code Napoleon. In 1971, the civil code began, "The man is the head of the household; he determines where the family will live..." an it goes on to say that the woman may only work with the express consent of her husband.

This has subsequently been changed, so that today the family is recognised as a partnership. Even today,in tax law, the man is still responsible for all the income in the family, and the tax declaration goes to him. A married woman still needs the consent of her husband if she wishes to get a bank loan etc.

Unsurprisingly, many Swiss live "in sin", or as they say, "concubinage"—which always strikes me as demeaning to the woman; they have separate tax arrangements. If they are married, the incomes are added, and as the income tax is progressive, a double income pays more tax than two single incomes. There are also problems with inheritance.

Give Switzerland time, Empirical, they'll catch up.

[Empirical]

Female or male circumcision is genital mutilation.

From: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens...al-mutilation/

Leading US website Not Just Skin note that: ‘Female circumcision is typically viewed as more horrific than male circumcision because it is usually done under unhygienic conditions rather than in a hospital, and because one form of female circumcision, infibulation, is particularly severe. However, both male and female circumcisions are classed as genital mutilation by the International Coalition for Genital Integrity.

‘Both forms of circumcision remove functional, normal tissue, cause extreme pain, permanently disfigure the genitals, and permanently damage the sexual response. And in most cultures where female circumcision is performed, male circumcision is also performed with equally unhygienic instruments. Regardless of the child’s gender, when done to infants or children, unnecessary genital surgeries violate human rights because they are amputations performed without medical need and without the individual’s consent.

‘The World Health Organization recognizes three types of female circumcision. Type I removes the clitoral hood and/or the clitoral tip. Type II removes the clitoral hood, clitoris, and part or all of the labia. Type III, also known as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision, involves removal of all external female genitalia and suturing of the vaginal opening. Male circumcision can be compared to type I or II female circumcision. Although the glans is not harmed at the time of circumcision, the loss of protective structures causes it to dry out and lose sensitivity over time. It is also important to note that most of the nerves and pleasure receptors present in the clitoris are, in the male, present in the foreskin and its associated structure, the frenulum. Removal of these nerves constitutes a loss that can be most adequately compared to a partial clitoridectomy.’


Unfortunately, the U.N. has been playing cynical wordgames on this issue for some time now and has been seeking to distance female circumcision from male circumcision by labelling the former as female genital mutilation such as in this 2007 U.N. document on male circumcision.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...596169_eng.pdf

Note footnote on page 27.

"For the purposes of this document, the term ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ is used. The word ‘mutilation’ reinforces that this practice is a violation of girls’ and women’s human rights, and thereby helps to promote national and international advocacy towards abandonment"

By contrast, U.N. document calls for the roll out of male circumcision services, provided it is done hygienically, as a means to reduce the risk of HIV acquisition and transmission. This is despite the fact that numerous studies have shown no reduced risk of HIV infection for circumcised men, compared with those uncircumcised.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/boys...on-of-infants/

My view is that both female and male genital mutilation/circumcision performed on an infant not in a position to give consent are practices to be condemned. It is a violation of his/her right to bodily integrity and should only be performed where there is a pressing medical need. Even in the case of phimosis for example, it is often not necessary. Phimosis can be fixed without circumcision, either through stretching with lubrication therapy or by making a small cut. Removal of the entire foreskin is very rarely a necessity.

It should also be pointed out that male circumcision is fatal to about 117 infants every year in the US alone.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

It should also be pointed out that the harvested foreskins of circumcised baby boys are used in certain beauty products such as wrinkle cream for example.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/profiting-from-pain/

Let me say at the outset that I do not and cannot agree with 'routine' circumcision or 'female genital mutilation' (or whatever name you choose to call it). Mutilation is however not a neutral term.

But I do feel that it may not be appropriate to regard them as equal or equivalent. The reasons for male circumcision aren't the same as those for female genital mutilation. There are surgical reasons for circumcision, as stretching and steroid creams don't always work. And yes, there is a problem with bodily integrity; should parents decide what they want for a minor child? I'd say no, if the circumcision is for 'cultural' reasons. I'd say that religious circumcision falls into this category, but I do appreciate how significant it is to adherents of some religions. To me, this says more about religion and belief than about the rights of the child.

There are surgical reasons for 'female genital mutilation', only we don't call it that; it then becomes a simple or a radical vulvectomy, as done for cancer. The end result is similar; but of course cancer is predominantly a disease of older people, not children. (One very strange thing about FGM; women who have had the more severe forms performed, must often have this relieved for childbirth—the birth canal has to be enlarged; and some women then ask for this 'relief' to be reversed. To perform this in western countries is a criminal act—there is a case pending in England where it sounds as if this is part of the problem.)

Indeed, circumcision and female genital mutilation raises the obvious question; why are Judeo-Abrahamic religions quite so obsessed with sex?

[Paul Carr]

Let me say at the outset that I do not and cannot agree with 'routine' circumcision or 'female genital mutilation' (or whatever name you choose to call it). Mutilation is however not a neutral term.

But I do feel that it may not be appropriate to regard them as equal or equivalent. The reasons for male circumcision aren't the same as those for female genital mutilation. There are surgical reasons for circumcision, as stretching and steroid creams don't always work. And yes, there is a problem with bodily integrity; should parents decide what they want for a minor child? I'd say no, if the circumcision is for 'cultural' reasons. I'd say that religious circumcision falls into this category, but I do appreciate how significant it is to adherents of some religions. To me, this says more about religion and belief than about the rights of the child.

There are surgical reasons for 'female genital mutilation', only we don't call it that; it then becomes a simple or a radical vulvectomy, as done for cancer. The end result is similar; but of course cancer is predominantly a disease of older people, not children. (One very strange thing about FGM; women who have had the more severe forms performed, must often have this relieved for childbirth—the birth canal has to be enlarged; and some women then ask for this 'relief' to be reversed. To perform this in western countries is a criminal act—there is a case pending in England where it sounds as if this is part of the problem.)

Indeed, circumcision and female genital mutilation raises the obvious question; why are Judeo-Abrahamic religions quite so obsessed with sex?

The New Testament specifically states that circumcision need not be performed (Galatians 6:12-13 and Acts 15:24). The Quran has verses against circumcision.

http://www.quranicpath.com/misconcep...ision.html#s19

As for Judaism,

"In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, circumcision is not even mentioned. Fallible men devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. Even Rabbi Maimonides acknowledged this fact."

From: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Historically, therefore both male and female circumcision was carried out for cultural reasons not religious ones. It is interesting to read what Rabbi Maimonides had to say because he clearly states that a historic motivation behind male circumcision, just like female circumcision, was control of sexuality.

But, whatever the motivation, I condemn the practice unless there is a pressing medical need.

As Kristina Hansen writes,

"It’s a centuries-old practice which stems from religious and cultural beliefs that circumcising girls controls women’s sexuality and enhances fertility when they are of child bearing age. It’s along the same line of nonsensical reasoning that is used for justifying male circumcision when people say it is necessary in order to keep the penis clean, that it helps prevent the spread of STD’s, and that it’s more appealing or enhances sexual performance."

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...-females-only/

The U.N. said in 2010 that about 70 million girls and women had undergone the procedure, and the World Health Organization said about 6,000 girls were circumcised every day. Yet, according to published data roughly a total of 1,306,411,547 men and boys are circumcised — a global circumcision rate of 37.4%. On its face therefore the problem of male circumcision is much more extensive than female circumcision. Genuine surgical reasons for male circumcision can constitute but a tiny percentage of this. For example, in most cases, phimosis can be fixed without circumcision, either through stretching with lubrication therapy or by making a small cut. Removal of the entire foreskin is very rarely a necessity.

Sadly, the U.N. takes a feminist standpoint on this issue - condemning female circumcision which it labels female genital mutilation while encouraging voluntary male circumcision provided it is done under hygienic conditions as a means to prevent the spread of S.T.I.s despite the large body of research that shows that it doesn't reduce transmission rates. By just condemning female circumcision, it trivializes the problem of all circumcision. A similar process goes on in relation to violence against women. Since the 1993 Declaration of the Elimination of Violence Against Women, violence against women and girls is considered by the U.N. to be worse than violence against men and boys. Once again, this trivializes the problem of all violence. Indeed, in western societies, men are twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime and three times more likely to be murdered but, violence against men is nonetheless ignored. We have feminism to thank for that. The Irish Justice Minister, Frances Fitzgerald, has said that the Istanbul convention on violence against women which was originally open for signature in May 2011 will be implemented into Irish law.

Reading the foundational principles of the Istanbul Convention, we see that some of them are taken straight from the (Marxist) Feminist playbook. For example:

"Recognising that the realisation of de jure and de facto equality between women and men is a key element in the prevention of violence against women;

Recognising that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women;

Recognising the structural nature of violence against women as gender-based violence, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men;"

From: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN...s/Html/210.htm

Aside from the fact that violence against men and boys is ignored, the document also reduces the reason why men inflict violence on women and girls to upholding the alleged unequal power relations between men and women. (a.k.a. the Patriarchy)

As I mentioned in my first comment in this thread, the Irish Labour party was the first of the big political parties in the Republic of Ireland to support the criminalization of the purchase of sex at their Ard Fheis in April 2010 when they passed a motion tabled by Labour Women. Labour Women had originally made their call for the criminalization of the purchase of sex in September 2009 as a means to implement a document that the Labour party published in 2006 on Violence Against Women.

[Empirical]

The New Testament specifically states that circumcision need not be performed (Galatians 6:12-13 and Acts 15:24). The Quran has verses against circumcision.

http://www.quranicpath.com/misconcep...ision.html#s19

As for Judaism,

"In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, circumcision is not even mentioned. Fallible men devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. Even Rabbi Maimonides acknowledged this fact."

From: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Historically, therefore both male and female circumcision was carried out for cultural reasons not religious ones. It is interesting to read what Rabbi Maimonides had to say because he clearly states that a historic motivation behind male circumcision, just like female circumcision, was control of sexuality.

But, whatever the motivation, I condemn the practice unless there is a pressing medical need.

As Kristina Hansen writes,

"It’s a centuries-old practice which stems from religious and cultural beliefs that circumcising girls controls women’s sexuality and enhances fertility when they are of child bearing age. It’s along the same line of nonsensical reasoning that is used for justifying male circumcision when people say it is necessary in order to keep the penis clean, that it helps prevent the spread of STD’s, and that it’s more appealing or enhances sexual performance."

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...-females-only/

The U.N. said in 2010 that about 70 million girls and women had undergone the procedure, and the World Health Organization said about 6,000 girls were circumcised every day. Yet, according to published data roughly a total of 1,306,411,547 men and boys are circumcised — a global circumcision rate of 37.4%. On its face therefore the problem of male circumcision is much more extensive than female circumcision. Genuine surgical reasons for male circumcision can constitute but a tiny percentage of this. For example, in most cases, phimosis can be fixed without circumcision, either through stretching with lubrication therapy or by making a small cut. Removal of the entire foreskin is very rarely a necessity.

Sadly, the U.N. takes a feminist standpoint on this issue - condemning female circumcision which it labels female genital mutilation while encouraging voluntary male circumcision provided it is done under hygienic conditions as a means to prevent the spread of S.T.I.s despite the large body of research that shows that it doesn't reduce transmission rates. By just condemning female circumcision, it trivializes the problem of all circumcision. A similar process goes on in relation to violence against women. Since the 1993 Declaration of the Elimination of Violence Against Women, violence against women and girls is considered by the U.N. to be worse than violence against men and boys. Once again, this trivializes the problem of all violence. Indeed, in western societies, men are twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime and three times more likely to be murdered but, violence against men is nonetheless ignored. We have feminism to thank for that. The Irish Justice Minister, Frances Fitzgerald, has said that the Istanbul convention on violence against women which was originally open for signature in May 2011 will be implemented into Irish law.

Reading the foundational principles of the Istanbul Convention, we see that some of them are taken straight from the (Marxist) Feminist playbook. For example:

"Recognising that the realisation of de jure and de facto equality between women and men is a key element in the prevention of violence against women;

Recognising that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women;

Recognising the structural nature of violence against women as gender-based violence, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men;"

From: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN...s/Html/210.htm

Aside from the fact that violence against men and boys is ignored, the document also reduces the reason why men inflict violence on women and girls to upholding the alleged unequal power relations between men and women. (a.k.a. the Patriarchy)

As I mentioned in my first comment in this thread, the Irish Labour party was the first of the big political parties in the Republic of Ireland to support the criminalization of the purchase of sex at their Ard Fheis in April 2010 when they passed a motion tabled by Labour Women. Labour Women had originally made their call for the criminalization of the purchase of sex in September 2009 as a means to implement a document that the Labour party published in 2006 on Violence Against Women.

If we have differences, aren't they a matter of degree?

As for feminism, this is now such a fragmented body, that it seems essential to more closely define it. Here, I think you are referring to 'radical feminism', some of whose adherents, at least, regard all heterosexual intercourse as an assault against women, and thus rape; the origin of the all men are rapists meme, and that the only 'proper' feminist is a lesbian. Unfortunately, this position leads to at least two incompatibilities or paradoxes. Firstly, since no woman wants to be assaulted or raped, the implication is that no woman could enjoy heterosexual intercourse. Secondly, it also implies that only men can be rapists. Both of these implied assertions are wrong; many women do enjoy sex with men; and while females raping males is uncommon, it isn't unknown. Of course, taken to the extreme, radical feminism is self-defeating; there cannot be any future members of the clan.

I'm not at all likely to have much regard for any opinions that such people have.