Female-dominant cultures?

[Traitorfish]

And look at Sweden. The moment feminists held power, the country is being destroyed from the inside by mass immigration.

Wait, I thought that was the Jews? Or are they all on the same team? You guys need to make your minds up.

 

[Ajidica]

Wait, I thought that was the Jews? Or are they all on the same team? You guys need to make your minds up.

I thought it was the Papists. Nasty tricksy Papists!

 

[Traitorfish]

Jeez, the Freemasons are going to be so mad when they realise nobody else has been sticking to the handbook.

 

[Plotinus]

There are fields that women are pushing men out of now, like teaching, and higher education.

Literally every claim in this post is false, but this one in particular jumped out at me. I work in higher education and it is absolutely not true that "women are pushing men out" of it. On the contrary, it is extremely male-dominated. There has been quite a lot of work done on studying this, and it shows that as you progress from undergraduate to postgraduate to postdoctoral to lectureship to senior lectureship to professorial ranks, at every stage more women drop out than men do. So even in subjects where the gender split among students is 50-50, you have far more men teaching or in senior leadership roles. Studies show that men still greatly outnumber women in academic publishing, and in the sciences they particularly outnumber women in first/last-author names (which are more prestigious). Studies also show that academics judge male applicants to be more competent than female ones even when their CVs are identical.

Male babies do not have a right to protection from genital mutilation, girls do. People campaign for girls in Africa to be pretested from FGM, but not for boys in their own countries to be protected from MGM.

This is the only reasonable point you've made, and it's quite true that, in some countries (basically America and I think Australia), casual circumcision of baby boys remains common despite there being no good reason for it. It certainly should be illegal, at least where there is no medical or religious reason to do it. However, you forget three things. First, the physical damage done to baby boys through circumcision, although not trivial, is nowhere near as severe as the damage done to girls through FGM. Second, FGM is performed as a way of controlling women and, supposedly, diminishing their sexual power. It is intended to harm and is part of a wider pattern of often brutal suppression of women's rights and control of them by men. This is not the case with circumcision. And third, and I suppose relatedly, you'll notice that in discussions of circumcision, at least with Americans, it's the men who want to carry on doing it and insist on doing the same harm to their children that they themselves suffered. I suppose this is something a bit like Stockholm Syndrome where a person who has suffered harm rationalises and minimises it to themselves as a way of coping with it, and this makes them insist on doing it to others because if they didn't they'd have to admit to themselves that they were harmed. But that's just my guess. Either way, it's not feminists who are forcing baby boys to get circumcised against the wishes of their fathers - quite the reverse, as a rule. You're quite wrong to claim that no-one campaigns against it.

 

[Mouthwash]

I suppose this is something a bit like Stockholm Syndrome where a person who has suffered harm rationalises and minimises it to themselves as a way of coping with it, and this makes them insist on doing it to others because if they didn't they'd have to admit to themselves that they were harmed.

Such a mystery why you people do less well at the polls these days...

Moderator Action: Cut out the random attacks, please. ~ Arakhor

 

[Lexicus]

This is not the case with circumcision. And third, and I suppose relatedly, you'll notice that in discussions of circumcision, at least with Americans, it's the men who want to carry on doing it and insist on doing the same harm to their children that they themselves suffered. I suppose this is something a bit like Stockholm Syndrome where a person who has suffered harm rationalises and minimises it to themselves as a way of coping with it, and this makes them insist on doing it to others because if they didn't they'd have to admit to themselves that they were harmed. But that's just my guess. Either way, it's not feminists who are forcing baby boys to get circumcised against the wishes of their fathers - quite the reverse, as a rule. You're quite wrong to claim that no-one campaigns against it.

So a few thoughts. There was a story not so long ago on NPR where they were discussing FGM and in fact, according to the woman who was talking about it, it's generally the older women in a tribe or other grouping who are the most insistent about the younger ones going through FGM.

Secondly, I am a man who was circumcised as an infant, and I am pretty much agnostic about the question. If I had a child I wouldn't insist on their getting circumcised or not, would probably just go with whatever the doctor thought was appropriate.
I really don't quite understand what the big deal is about it and I have come away from multiple interactions with intactivists who tried to convince me I was the victim of some kind of horrible abuse and it left me scratching my head. I don't feel "harmed" at all and I don't feel like there is any kind of psychological issue there where I just don't want to admit I was hurt or anything. I don't feel any anxiety or other negative emotions related to it. So I just really don't understand the passions it arouses in people, I guess.

Finally...

It certainly should be illegal, at least where there is no medical or religious reason to do it.

I don't quite understand this idea. If we agree that circumcision is in fact unethical then "religious reasons" should not be accepted as an excuse.

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't quite understand this idea. If we agree that circumcision is in fact unethical then "religious reasons" should not be accepted as an excuse.

Do communal or spiritual beliefs count for nothing, then? Even if circumcision were harmful (I assume that's what you mean by 'unethical'), plenty of Jews and Muslims would still have wanted it done to them as an infant. Also worth noting that cutting off an infant's foreskin is quite different than a mature foreskin - if a circumcision ban were enforced, a lot of 18-year-olds would be suffering unnecessarily.

 

[Lexicus]

Do communal or spiritual beliefs count for nothing, then? Even if circumcision were harmful (I assume that's what you mean by 'unethical'), plenty of Jews and Muslims would still have wanted it done to them as an infant. Also worth noting that cutting off an infant's foreskin is quite different than a mature foreskin - if a circumcision ban were enforced, a lot of 18-year-olds would be suffering unnecessarily.

The argument as I understand it (I do not believe infant circumcision is necessarily unethical, to be clear) is that it is unethical to do something like that to an infant because they can't consent to it - whether it is harmful or not is beside the point, as that is a judgment to be made by the person undergoing the procedure, and when that person is an infant they cannot consent to it.

At least, that is the best argument I have ever seen from the intactivists. It certainly seems like the strongest one - emotional appeals to "mutilation" and the pain experienced by the infant are generally not convincing to me since, as I said, I was circumcised as an infant and have no trauma or painful memories associated with it.

Anyway, there is no room for religious exemption to the above moral logic. If the thing is unethical, then it is unethical, period, except in cases where it is deemed medically necessary or whatever.

Please note again that I am not against infant circumcision myself, I am simply talking about claims I've seen made by people who are against it.

 

[Mouthwash]

Consent is generally useful in situations where harm is possible, no? And not even then. I didn't consent to be raised by the two people who happened to be my biological parents, but they did anyway - what if they had been violent drunks, or ISIS supporters? Should the state house and feed all children until they are old enough to select their caregiver?

 

[Plotinus]

Cutting off an infant's foreskin is still a very unpleasant and incredibly painful procedure; people just don't realise this because no-one remembers what happens to them as an infant. It's not non-trivial. And I don't think that, were it to be banned on infants, "a lot" of 18-year-olds would be suffering as a result, because why would any of them want to have it done? Most boys here in the UK are not circumcised and no-one gets it done as an adult unless there is some unusual medical reason for it. I had one friend who had to do that and it was indeed painful but not, I think, much worse than the suffering an infant endures.

The reason why it arouses strong passions, at least in me, is twofold. First, it's an utterly unnecessary procedure that causes great suffering to a child for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Why would anyone do that? Certainly as an adult you don't remember that suffering - no-one remembers anything from before the age of 3 or so - but it certainly happened. That doesn't make it OK, any more than it's OK to punch a baby in the face even though it won't remember it when it's older.

And second, it is done without the child's consent. If adults want to chop healthy bits off themselves, that is perhaps permissible, although it's hard to see why any psychologically healthy person would want to do such a thing. But to do it to a small child who has no say in the matter is fundamentally wrong - it violates their bodily integrity for no reason, treating them as a thing to be acted upon, not a person to be respected.

(Plus it's just yucky! Who wants something that looks like a skinned fish in their pants? That looks painful!)

I agree that, ideally, if circumcision is unethical then "religious reasons" aren't a good reason to allow it. But if you straightforwardly ban circumcision you are, among other things, banning Judaism, and that is hardly something to do lightly! Plausibly, the harm that would be caused by such a move would be greater than the harm caused by allowing circumcision to continue. The reasons why Jews circumcise their children are quite different from the reasons why non-Jewish Americans do so; the latter are trivial, the former are not. It is about membership in the community, which is an important thing. I do think that the practice of circumcision is a black mark against Judaism as a religion, and Islam too, but while it is a part of those religions we have to accept that fact and work with it.

There's nothing odd about that; it is common for religions to be given exemptions from some laws where it is not a matter of life and death, e.g. the relaxation of laws about uses of animal products in the case of Native Americans, or the exemption from having to provide contraception to employees in the case of Catholic institutions in America.

[EDIT - crossposted, but still.]

 

[Traitorfish]

What I want to know is, if the West is a female-dominated culture, why are only four of twenty-nine NATO leaders women?

Hey, we're up to five. The matriarchy marches on!

 

[Lexicus]

why would any of them want to have it done?

But if you straightforwardly ban circumcision you are, among other things, banning Judaism
[...]
The reasons why Jews circumcise their children are quite different from the reasons why non-Jewish Americans do so; the latter are trivial, the former are not. It is about membership in the community, which is an important thing.

This. This is why.

Plausibly, the harm that would be caused by such a move would be greater than the harm caused by allowing circumcision to continue.

Can you explain this a little more fully? This seems to be the only reason why your religious exception isn't just special pleading to avoid getting locked into the absurdity of wanting to ban Judaism and Islam.

 

[Mouthwash]

Cutting off an infant's foreskin is still a very unpleasant and incredibly painful procedure; people just don't realise this because no-one remembers what happens to them as an infant. It's not non-trivial.

It's a brief pain, conducted in formal settings (no one is going to 'get creative'). That seems better than, say, whipping children or forcing them to fight a ritual battle.

And I don't think that, were it to be banned on infants, "a lot" of 18-year-olds would be suffering as a result, because why would any of them want to have it done?

I meant if it were banned on religious people.

First, it's an utterly unnecessary procedure that causes great suffering to a child for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Why would anyone do that?

Well, a lot of people think God commanded us to do it as part of a covenant. Surely that's a good enough reason, assuming it was true?

But to do it to a small child who has no say in the matter is fundamentally wrong - it violates their bodily integrity for no reason, treating them as a thing to be acted upon, not a person to be respected.

So is being born.

(Plus it's just yucky! Who wants something that looks like a skinned fish in their pants? That looks painful!)

It's a universal principle of human biology that wounds heal stronger than before. It's likely that the circumcised have some kind of natural growth/protection that the uncircumcised don't need.

Can you explain this a little more fully? This seems to be the only reason why your religious exception isn't just special pleading to avoid getting locked into the absurdity of wanting to ban Judaism and Islam.

The biggest problem would be that everyone would ignore the law, and millions of circumcisions would be done without medical guidance.

 

[Plotinus]

This. This is why.

Well quite, but then if you have an exception for religious reasons that wouldn't come up.

Can you explain this a little more fully? This seems to be the only reason why your religious exception isn't just special pleading to avoid getting locked into the absurdity of wanting to ban Judaism and Islam.

There's nothing absurd about wanting to ban Judaism and Islam - it would just be a morally repugnant thing to do, especially given Jewish history in particular, and that alone, one would have thought, would be enough to want such an exception without calling it "special pleading".

But what I mean is: circumcision is a harm, but it is not a great harm, at least compared to some others. I think the harm done to a child by circumcising it is less than the harm that would be done to Jewish communities in particular by banning circumcision altogether. Because such a ban would make Judaism impossible, and that would mean destroying not merely a religion but a culture, or way of life, or whole identity, depending on how you view it. Circumcision is part of what makes Jews Jews and without it Jewishness is suppressed. It is surely easy to see that that would be a great harm. So it seems to me that circumcision is harmful enough to justify banning it being carried out for trivial reasons, but it's not harmful enough to justify banning it altogether. In that respect it's different from FGM, which is much worse and so such a religious exemption couldn't be justified.

My in-laws come from a culture which does both. Fortunately, at least in this country, the younger generation seem to be abandoning both, at least to the very limited extent that I can tell.

It's a brief pain, conducted in formal settings (no one is going to 'get creative').

I don't think it is a brief pain. But what difference does that make? Why inflict a pain at all, brief or otherwise, for no good reason?

That seems better than, say, whipping children or forcing them to fight a ritual battle.

Possibly - although those things wouldn't change the child's body permanently. But even if they are worse, there isn't much merit to the argument "X is worse than Y, therefore Y is justified."

I meant if it were banned on religious people.

Well, yes, I agree, which would be a good reason not to enact such a ban.

Well, a lot of people think God commanded us to do it as part of a covenant. Surely that's a good enough reason, assuming it was true?

Yes, but I was thinking of those who do it without religious reasons.

So is being born.

I agree with that, which is one of the many reasons I think anatalism has a lot going for it. So I don't take this as a counter-argument at all.

However, someone who wasn't an anatalist might reply that giving birth to a child is necessary for that child to acquire any goods at all, so by giving birth to the child you do it great good, at least potentially. So even though you give birth without the child's consent, this violation of its consent is justified by the great good you are doing it by bringing it into existence in the first place. This doesn't apply to circumcision, which if performed for trivial reasons brings about no good.

It's a universal principle of human biology that wounds heal stronger than before. It's likely that the circumcised have some kind of natural growth/protection that the uncircumcised don't need.

I'm sure they do, just as wounds scab over and form scars which are less sensitive than healthy skin. But I wouldn't really see that as a positive outcome!

 

[Lexicus]

It's a universal principle of human biology that wounds heal stronger than before.

As a brief aside, I'm not sure where you learned human biology but wherever it was, you should get your money back.

Should the state house and feed all children until they are old enough to select their caregiver?

I mean, you act like the state doesn't take children away if their parents are deemed sufficiently neglectful (or whatever, I don't know the exact circumstances under which the state takes custody of children but we all know it happens).

There's nothing absurd about wanting to ban Judaism and Islam - it would just be a morally repugnant thing to do, especially given Jewish history in particular, and that alone, one would have thought, would be enough to want such an exception without calling it "special pleading".

My use of the word was simply a nod to the reductio ad absurdum.

But what I mean is: circumcision is a harm, but it is not a great harm, at least compared to some others. I think the harm done to a child by circumcising it is less than the harm that would be done to Jewish communities in particular by banning circumcision altogether. Because such a ban would make Judaism impossible, and that would mean destroying not merely a religion but a culture, or way of life, or whole identity, depending on how you view it. Circumcision is part of what makes Jews Jews and without it Jewishness is suppressed. It is surely easy to see that that would be a great harm. So it seems to me that circumcision is harmful enough to justify banning it being carried out for trivial reasons, but it's not harmful enough to justify banning it altogether. In that respect it's different from FGM, which is much worse and so such a religious exemption couldn't be justified.

That is a considered answer that makes sense to me. I still do think that if the judgment is circumcision is unethical, then Judaism being banned would be good insofar as Judaism entails unethical practices. I actually do take that position with respect to certain business activity, ie
them: "but banning this type of labor abuse would mean that [insert family business here] would go belly-up!"
me: "if [family business] is reliant on this type of labor abuse to exist, maybe it shouldn't exist"

But I can understand thinking that a thing is unethical, but not sufficiently unethical to justify a no-holds-barred approach to stamping it out.

So even though you give birth without the child's consent, this violation of its consent is justified by the great good you are doing it by bringing it into existence in the first place. This doesn't apply to circumcision, which if performed for trivial reasons brings about no good.

Saying that being born is a good requires the same playing around with the definition of "good" that one could, presumably, also use to claim circumcision is a good. I also have anti-natalist leanings fyi.

 

[Plotinus]

Saying that being born is a good requires the same playing around with the definition of "good" that one could, presumably, also use to claim circumcision is a good.

Well, I don't know, because one can plausibly say that bringing a child into existence is likely to result in that child experiencing many good things, provided it's not born into a warzone or something like that. Whereas one can't say with anything like the same degree of plausibility that circumcising a child (for non-medical or non-religious reasons) is likely to result in that child experiencing many good things, or indeed any at all.

For clarity's sake, I'll say that I don't think that being born is a good or that the fact that it makes the possession of other goods possible makes it a good, so I don't need to make this distinction in order for my position to be consistent. But I can at least conceive of a plausible argument for why giving birth to someone benefits them, whereas I can't think of a similarly plausible one for why circumcising them does.

I also have anti-natalist leanings fyi.

I'm glad that we agree on that, then!

 

[schlaufuchs]

It's a universal principle of human biology that wounds heal stronger than before.

ITT renowned sports physician, Dr. Mouthwash, recommends severing every athlete's ACL the day they're drafted.

Also fun non-flippant fact: if you look at a medieval manuscript and you see places where holes have formed, those indicate places where the cow was injured and developed a scar at some point during their life. Contrary to Dr. Mouthwash's assertion, scar tissue is actually considerably weaker than regular tissue, and so, when the cow is killed, and its skin tanned into parchment, those scarred portions of the hide are much more likely to degrade or deteriorate over time.

 

[Mouthwash]

I mean, you act like the state doesn't take children away if their parents are deemed sufficiently neglectful (or whatever, I don't know the exact circumstances under which the state takes custody of children but we all know it happens).

I was still given away without any means of consent. Also, the state cannot actively investigate all parents - they can only do so when they already have grounds for suspicion.

I agree with that, which is one of the many reasons I think anatalism has a lot going for it. So I don't take this as a counter-argument at all.

However, someone who wasn't an anatalist might reply that giving birth to a child is necessary for that child to acquire any goods at all, so by giving birth to the child you do it great good, at least potentially. So even though you give birth without the child's consent, this violation of its consent is justified by the great good you are doing it by bringing it into existence in the first place.

Even after birth, I can't consent to growing older or having emotions or being subject to any phenomenon whatsoever. And there was no "rational core" from which consent may be derived - I was a collection of instinct and sensation and arguably still am. So is the concept even applicable?

I'm sure they do, just as wounds scab over and form scars which are less sensitive than healthy skin. But I wouldn't really see that as a positive outcome!

Scars might have been useful in a time before medical care. Plus, muscles and bones show fairly straightforward improvements from the phenomenon. So there's no reason to suppose, in the absence of known effects like scarring, that there isn't some hidden benefit.

ITT renowned sports physician, Dr. Mouthwash, recommends severing every athlete's ACL the day they're drafted.

I meant where it can heal, it heals stronger. Some species heal differently though.

Also fun non-flippant fact: if you look at a medieval manuscript and you see places where holes have formed, those indicate places where the cow was injured and developed a scar at some point during their life. Contrary to Dr. Mouthwash's assertion, scar tissue is actually considerably weaker than regular tissue, and so, when the cow is killed, and its skin tanned into parchment, those scarred portions of the hide are much more likely to degrade or deteriorate over time.

Being tougher doesn't necessarily mean easier to preserve. I will look into this.

 

[Yeekim]

no-one remembers anything from before the age of 3 or so

I absolutely have memories from age 2.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, even after birth, I can't consent to growing older or having emotions or being subject to any phenomenon whatsoever.

No, but there's nothing you can do about that, at least non-lethally. That doesn't apply to circumcision. The argument "People don't consent to unavoidable thing X means it doesn't matter that they don't consent to avoidable thing Y" doesn't seem to me a very good argument and I doubt it does to you either.

And there's no "rational core" from which consent may be even derived - I was a collection of instinct and sensation, and arguably still am. So is the concept even applicable?

By that logic there's no distinction between rape and consensual sex. Which isn't, in itself, to say that your argument is wrong, because perhaps abhorrent moral conclusions might be true, but I'd need to see some pretty strong argumentation before entertaining a conclusion like that! And any argument which is based upon the premise that rationality is impossible doesn't seem like a prima facie very good one.

In any case, you assume that "consent" requires a "rational core", but I don't see any reason to see consent as an intrinsically rational act, though it may be performed rationally. An animal can meaningfully be said to consent to at least some things or to withhold its consent, and if you doubt that, try giving a cat a bath.

Scars might have been useful in a time before medical care. Plus, muscles and bones show fairly straightforward improvements from the phenomenon. So there's no reason to suppose, in the absence of known effects like scarring, that there isn't some hidden benefit.

While it's hard to believe you mean this seriously, I'll still bite: in the absence of any positive reason to believe in a hidden benefit, it doesn't seem any more reasonable to believe in one than to believe in a hidden drawback. If you think otherwise, then what injuries are you planning to inflict on yourself in the hope of enjoying hidden benefits?

I absolutely have memories from age 2.

It's possible - no-one quite knows precisely when the cut-off age is, and it seems to vary from person to person. But one of the reasons it's very hard to tell is that it can be so hard to distinguish between genuine memories and "constructed" memories, where you think you remember something but in fact you've subconsciously created the "memory" yourself on the basis of knowledge that something happened. Memory is often unreliable, particularly memory of young childhood, and I've often had very clear memories which turned out to be quite mistaken (as when you "remember" something in a film you saw a long time ago, and then you see it again and find that it was quite different).

In any case, even if some people might remember some things from when they were toddlers, it's quite definite that no-one can remember anything from babyhood, because the relevant parts of the brain simply haven't developed at that stage. So the fact that no-one recalls any trauma from being circumcised as a baby is quite irrelevant to the question whether babies experience such trauma or whether it's justifiable.