Cork Feminista Conference Recording 21st June 2014

[Paul Carr]

A few more, from the early Doctors of the Church:

Tertullian of Carthage

Dripping breasts, stinking wombs, and crying babies

Woman is a temple over a sewer

[Women should wear perpetual mourning to atone for] the ignominy and odium of having being the cause of the fall of the human race

Clement of Alexandria

Every woman ought to be filled with shame as the thought that she is a woman

Amongst all the savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman

And this, surprisingly, is from Martin Luther:

And if a woman grows weary and at last dies from child-bearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it

The Bible, the Koran, the Torah et cetera were all books written by men for the consumption of men. The importance of women in these books was downplayed in contrast to the real everyday lives of those authors. They're essentially Nation Builders handbooks on how to build your successful nation state and they celebrate your tribal and national identity. Men were needed for the task of nation building by serving as disposable soldiers. Women got on with the business of bearing and raising children protected by the men. Women's role traditionally and biologically was to be a nurturer/protector of the children and the men's role was to be the protectors of women, the women subjects of the state in his role as a soldier and the woman he married and their biological children.

The classic feminist strawman argument is to say that historically women were oppressed by men but history shows that only a small percentage of men in any given society ruled for the vast majority of recorded history, the king and his noblemen. The vast majority of men were also subject to the rulings of men throughout the age of civilization and more often than not it was the men who had liberty taken from them as a result of these rulings. For example, men would be sent to war whilst women were spared that duty. Of course, there were also female rulers such as the pharoah Hatshepsut and Boudicca of the Iceni tribe who almost drove the Romans out of Britain.

[Paul Carr]

The problem with the assertion about the problems that circumcision produce it that they are unverifiable. To be certain of this effect, it would be necessary to have a large group men complete a survey of their sexual experiences before and after circumcision: and the prepuce would have to be normal, not diseased. It's impossible to imagine this happening.

I'm not sure that you can conflate circumcision with control of male sexuaity; it certainly doesn't interfere with enjoyment in the way that female genital mutilation does. FGM is certainly done for cultural reasons, though the underlying reason is "control" of sexuality; male circumcision is mostly done for "religious, cultural" reasons. And, again in Victorian times, surgical excision of the clitoris was used as an anti-masturbatory treatment.

The anti-masturbatory movement had its origins in a deliberate misunderstanding of the story of Onan in the Bible.

It might certainly be possible to ask a large group of women which they prefer or find more comfortable. I'm not sure if this has ever been done scientifically; there are reports that really don't give a clear preference for one or the other.

As far as Moses Maimonides is concerned, certainly circumcision was an anti-masturbation operation in Victorian times, though he was surely not imagining this. In his days, boys were circumcised on the 8th day; and childhood memories are unreliable before they are about 4 years old. To remember something that happened as a neonate, when brain functions are not anyway fully established is simply impossible. And as a cleric, I ask why he is so concerned with sex, which is a normal bodily function; and if you look at the views of others I've cited above, it's clear that their opinions were based on opinion and not fact.

You write that you are not sure that a rationale behind male genital mutilation was the control of male sexuality but then you write that you are certain that the rationale behind female genital mutilation was control of her sexuality without providing any evidence whatsoever.

The bodies of baby boys do remember circumcision. Baby boys who are circumcised have elevated levels of the stress hormone cortisol for 6 months afterwards. Almost half of circumcisions done on baby boys are done without anaesthetic. A study was going to be done on testing the variety of anaesthetic (usually topical anaesthetic) to use on baby boys undergoing circumcision. The study was cancelled because it was considered "inhumane". Inhumane to study it but okay to do it!

Anyway, here is an excellent presentation by Stefan Molyneux in which he addresses Male Genital Mutilation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGcpdjVY1FI

[Empirical]

"Mutilation" is not a neutral word. Male genital "mutilation" is not the equivalent of female genital "mutilation". Whatever the origins and reasons for male circumcision, it does not remove the ability to penetrate the female. In the most severe forms of female genital "mutilation" the wounds produced must be drawn together or sewn together, so that there remains only a small passage for urine and menses. In such woman, a further procedure to "open" the vagina is necessary before penetration can occur. How is this not some sort of control of female sexuality.

The equivalent of female genital mutilation in the male would be penectomy; this certainly prevents penetration, and probably also removes sexual enjoyment. The eunuchs of the Ottoman sultans were often "shaved"; that is, not only were they castrated, but the penis was also removed as well. They often had to catheterise themselves with a quill to urinate, assuming that they actually survived the procedure. This extreme form of removal of all the male genitalia is more like the removal of the external female genitalia.

There is no comparable operation in the female to male circumcision; the closest might be removal of the clitoral hood, but I'm not aware that this has ever been practised.

[Paul Carr]

"Mutilation" is not a neutral word. Male genital "mutilation" is not the equivalent of female genital "mutilation". Whatever the origins and reasons for male circumcision, it does not remove the ability to penetrate the female. In the most severe forms of female genital "mutilation" the wounds produced must be drawn together or sewn together, so that there remains only a small passage for urine and menses. In such woman, a further procedure to "open" the vagina is necessary before penetration can occur. How is this not some sort of control of female sexuality.

The equivalent of female genital mutilation in the male would be penectomy; this certainly prevents penetration, and probably also removes sexual enjoyment. The eunuchs of the Ottoman sultans were often "shaved"; that is, not only were they castrated, but the penis was also removed as well. They often had to catheterise themselves with a quill to urinate, assuming that they actually survived the procedure. This extreme form of removal of all the male genitalia is more like the removal of the external female genitalia.

There is no comparable operation in the female to male circumcision; the closest might be removal of the clitoral hood, but I'm not aware that this has ever been practised.

I marvel at the double standards of Government and UN and UNAIDS and WHO officials on this issue. They treat this as a gender rights issue rather than a human rights issue. UNAIDS actually participates in and funds male genital mutilation programs in various African countries. It is relabeled "male circumcision". By contrast, Female Genital Mutilation is rightly condemned.

Child genital mutilation is the initiation of the use of force against a helpless infant. Unless there is a pressing medical need (which is rare since antibiotics are widely available) there is no need to perform it. The WHO estimated in 2007 that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over were circumcised (30% global prevalence) The practice is not condemned. By contrast, UNICEF estimates 125 million females have been circumcised. This practice is condemned.

Also, this is interesting from a 2006 UNICEF document.

http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/gmackie/documents/UNICEF.pdf

__________________________________________________

"In the majority of cases it is mothers or grandmothers who organize and support the cutting of their daughters, and in many places the practice is considered “women’s business.” DHS survey data from eight African countries where FGM/C is practiced show a higher proportion of women than men favouring its continuation. This is consistent with data and testimony drawn from field reports and case studies. The perpetuation of FGM/C and professed support of the practice by women represent one of the chief puzzles that researchers have sought to better understand."

_________________________________________

No doubt the feminists will blame the ever lurking patriarchy one way or the other.

[Curvaceous Kate]

I marvel at the double standards of Government and UN and UNAIDS and WHO officials on this issue. They treat this as a gender rights issue rather than a human rights issue. UNAIDS actually participates in and funds male genital mutilation programs in various African countries. It is relabeled "male circumcision". By contrast, Female Genital Mutilation is rightly condemned.

Child genital mutilation is the initiation of the use of force against a helpless infant. Unless there is a pressing medical need (which is rare since antibiotics are widely available) there is no need to perform it. The WHO estimated in 2007 that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over were circumcised (30% global prevalence) The practice is not condemned. By contrast, UNICEF estimates 125 million females have been circumcised. This practice is condemned.

Also, this is interesting from a 2006 UNICEF document.

http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/gmackie/documents/UNICEF.pdf

__________________________________________________

"In the majority of cases it is mothers or grandmothers who organize and support the cutting of their daughters, and in many places the practice is considered “women’s business.” DHS survey data from eight African countries where FGM/C is practiced show a higher proportion of women than men favouring its continuation. This is consistent with data and testimony drawn from field reports and case studies. The perpetuation of FGM/C and professed support of the practice by women represent one of the chief puzzles that researchers have sought to better understand."

_________________________________________

No doubt the feminists will blame the ever lurking patriarchy one way or the other.

You could say the same about people putting holes in babies ears, which seems to be mostly females. That is a form of mutilation and it hurts and can get infected and that is done for fashion!

[Paul Carr]

You could say the same about people putting holes in babies ears, which seems to be mostly females. That is a form of mutilation and it hurts and can get infected and that is done for fashion!

WHO defines female genital mutilation as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons". In December 2012, the UN General Assembly condemned this practice. Why not do the same for male genital mutilation? Why not have the same definition for male genital mutilation as for female genital mutilation and condemn that too? In other words, this should be a human rights issue, not a gender rights issue. Unfortunately, for some time now, the UN has decided that women and girls deserve rights over and above those of men and boys.

The UN set up a Commission on the Status of Women after WW2. There was no Commission on the Status of Men. In 1967, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. There was no Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Men. In 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. It has been described as an international Bill of Rights for women. There was no Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Men. In 1993, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. There was no declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Men. This is despite the fact that in western societies, men are nearly twice as likely as women to be a victim of a violent crime (rape included in total) and 3 times as likely to be murdered. Bizarre!

[The Libertarian]

A few more, from the early Doctors of the Church:

Tertullian of Carthage

Dripping breasts, stinking wombs, and crying babies

Woman is a temple over a sewer

[Women should wear perpetual mourning to atone for] the ignominy and odium of having being the cause of the fall of the human race

Clement of Alexandria

Every woman ought to be filled with shame as the thought that she is a woman

Amongst all the savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman

And this, surprisingly, is from Martin Luther:

And if a woman grows weary and at last dies from child-bearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it

While to all intelligent people this obviously sounds incredibly insane, I was a teenager through the 1980s and Ireland was a Theocratic state where for example they voted in a referendum to equate a woman's life to a foetus (even if you oppose abortion, this is seriously insane!).
The young women still had the Magdellan laundries at the back of their genetic memories and to project yourself as a madra was the norm!
Most of my mates told me they lost their virginity at 17/18 and I find that impossible to believe given the Ireland of the time!
Can you imagine how horrible such a place would be for people like us and couple it with an economic depression equal if not worse than now and no social media and no access to foreign TV!

[The Libertarian]

Actually, come to think of it the young women in 1980s Ireland and all Irish women post famine before them were psychosexually genitally mutiliated!
While neither should happen at all, (well I know 3 adult males who did have to get circumcised for health reasons), FGM corresponds to castration, male circumcission is not!
I actaully saw a C4 documentary where they showed a young Somali girl about 12/13 being castrated (having her clitoris partially cut in this case) at her aul lad's (he must have been in his 60s) insistance! It was carried out by a woman and without any anaesthetic and the young lady was screaming in horrible pain throughout, naturally enough!
Her fucking cunt of an aul lad gave her a small toy elephant for going through with this crime against humanity! He should be given life imprisonment after a severe battering!
Actually I was reminded of the whole scene with the way our shitebag Quisling politicians have made us bend over and take it up the hole from our European masters!

[Laura Lee]

Late as per feckin' usual, but a huge well done to all of the speakers, I thought you were fantastic.

I was going to speak myself but am laid up right now. I'll be back on my feet very soon and speaking in Galway,
I'll let you know the details as soon as I do.

[Curvaceous Kate]

Late as per feckin' usual, but a huge well done to all of the speakers, I thought you were fantastic.

I was going to speak myself but am laid up right now. I'll be back on my feet very soon and speaking in Galway,
I'll let you know the details as soon as I do.

I hope you're making a speedy recovery Laura xx