People who prey on others are not confused about what they're doing.

Popular rhetoric these days is that people - well, typically "men" or even explicitly "all men" (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - need to be "educated" about consent so they can comprehend what is and is not acceptable. Setting aside legitimate, honest miscommunication and philosophical disagreement for the moment, this is either wishful thinking or derogatory generalization or both.

The people who perpetrate deception, harassment, force, etc. know that they are perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. and are well aware that people consider it unacceptable. I've dealt with many of these people myself, both men and women (and even a transgender individual or two as well). Those same people will often complain about the same or similar things happening to them or somebody they care about, even to their victims, before, during, and/or after they do it themselves. The issue is not that they think their behavior is acceptable, or insignificant, but that they think it is acceptable or insignificant only when they do it. This is not a lack of comprehension or innocent misunderstanding of the subject, but a case of blatant self-entitlement. To give them the benefit of the doubt with rhetoric about how they "don't understand" is to basically just give them a bullshit excuse for their intentional transgression(s). To suggest they should be lumped in with other people who don't carry the same attitude is insulting to those other people.

It's not a nice simple quixotic theory like "teach men not to rape" or "men don't understand consent" or any of the other nonsensical rhetoric being thrown around, but the world we live in is not nice and simple just because we want it to be. "Men" are not "almost exclusively" or even "primarily" responsible for possessing or displaying this attitude and people who possess and display this attitude are not simply in need of "education" to be able to understand that what they are doing is unacceptable. What actually needs to be addressed in this case is that some people from any gender believe that they're above having to respect things like consent just because they don't want to, even though they know damn well what they're doing is unacceptable.

If you want to have educational and philosophical discussions to address some of the legitimate miscommunications and disagreements about consent as well, that's fine. Just don't suggest they're "gendered issues" or lump it in with people perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. or suggest people who perpetrate those things are "uninformed" about consent. By excusing, "gendering" or conflating those issues you're not doing any favors for anybody except the people who absolutely don't deserve it.

Why The Illegal NSA Data Collection Doesn't Actually Worry Me

I'm sure you've heard by now all about the illegal spying and data collection by the NSA.  A lot of people seem very concerned that their privacy has been violated and worried about being harassed, exposed, etc.

Here's why it's not a big concern of mine:

Yes, our information is being illegally mined, collected and stored somewhere for the NSA to access whenever they want.  Yes, as a matter of principal such illegal data mining should be halted and those responsible for breaking the law prosecuted.

However, with so much information to deal with how likely is it they're going to notice any specific one of us in the clutter?  Statistically, you probably have a better chance of randomly pointing to a spot in the picture and having your finger land on Waldo than the NSA actually taking enough interest in you to bother accessing any of their stored data about you specifically.  Personally, I'm not going to be losing sleep over my name being in some insurmountably massive NSA database where it's likely no human will ever lay eyes on it, even if it is an illegal invasion of my privacy.

What I wish I had said...

I attended a lecture about infant male genital cutting yesterday and afterward I found myself being asked questions about my interest in the subject by somebody writing an article on it. One of the lines of questioning went something like this:

Interviewer: So, you oppose the practice based on how it violates the child's right to body integrity?

Me: Yes.

Interviewer: Are there any other reasons?

I didn't have a good answer for that one, because there was just too much to say in response. Everything covered throughout the entire lecture was another reason, from myths that clearly have no factual or rational basis forming the foundation of the pro-cutting position, to the attempted imposition of moral "pre-punishment" and sexual control the mutilation represents, to the procedure being in violation of every modern medical ethics measure, to the dishonest way it is marketed, to the shitty way the legal system handles the subject, to the fact that it can be viewed as violation of the child's religious freedom, etc.
However, this is what I wish I had said:

Other reasons?

Isn't that one enough?

A cosmetic surgery which drastically changed the function and appearance of my genitals was forced on me without my consent. The mutilation left me with virtually zero fine touch sensation and greatly, severely diminished erogenous sensation of any type, from what I gather, possibly much less even than many other mutilated men. The mutilation also left me with damage to vital subcutaneous structures resulting in consistent pain and ever-present risk of further, much more severe complications in the future. The only real option I have for resolving the most concerning damage and corresponding pain is additional surgery, which carries risks of its own and is probably as likely to make things worse as it is to improve anything.

I will spend my entire life not knowing what it is like to look down and see my genitals the way they were meant to appear. To feel the sensations I was meant to feel. To experience sex without at least as much pain involved as pleasure. To not have to put substantial effort into the sometimes futile attempt to acheive orgasm, not just within a specific timeframe, but at all.

I will spend my entire life "playing through" the discomfort, disfigurement, disfunction and dysmorphia that I was never given the option to refuse, simply because the people who were supposed to be looking out for my interests apparently thought their perverted aesthetic preferences about a helpless infant's genitals were more important than my right to not have normal, healthy parts of my body crushed, ripped and cut off without my consent.

And the real kicker is, mine was considered a "successful" mutilation, because I was lucky enough not to be one of the victims to bleed to death, or contract a fatal infection, or lose much more of my genitals to the procedure than was intended, or end up with any number of other more severe deformities than I did.

Isn't a person's right to decide for themself whether they want to be subjected to such an unnecessary violation of their body enough reason to oppose the practice, so somebody else has the opportunity to choose whether they risk going through the rest of their life dealing with the same things I do...or worse?

I guess it likely wouldn't have made much difference to say it.
Probably would have been a bit too long of a quote to make it into the article anyway.

Africa Prediction: Female Genital Mutilation Increased as AIDS Prevention

No, I'm not advocating any type of genital mutilation.
If you clicked on the title to rip me a new one for being such a horrible person, too bad. I hate the idea just as much as you do. I'm simply predicting that it will happen.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let's get to the actual content.

How can I make such a prediction?
How can the two possibly be linked?
How can that even be possible?
Why do I suspect that's where things are headed?

I'll tell you, but first, let me tell you when it started.

Now.
Well, not exactly, but we'll get to that in a bit. However, let me tell you why now is important.

As you may have heard, three groundbreaking studies have recently concluded that circumcision of males prevents HIV transmission. This seems like great news, because a simple snip of the foreskin will make a huge dent in the epidemic, right?

Wrong.

What you may not have heard is that all three of those studies were designed by known male circumcision advocates - and later manipulated, specifically to conclude that circumcision was the answer, in contradiction to the actual data. Here's how:

• In all three studies, the circumcised group had to abstain from sexual activity for a period of time, while the uncircumcised group were free to maintain normal sexual activity. Obviously, the circumcised group contracted fewer cases of HIV, because they were not having sex. Abstinence was the only relevant variable at that point.

• In all three studies, when the circumcised group started sexual activity again, they actually started catching up in number of HIV infections to the uncircumcised group, demonstrating that if anything, they may have been contracting the infection more readily than the uncircumcised group. This does not at all suggest circumcision is an effective preventative measure.

• All three studies were terminated early, before the numbers could equalize, even though in one of the three studies the circumcised group had come close to matching the number of infections as the uncircumcised group. This demonstrates that when things didn't go the way they were hoping, the circumcision advocates running these three studies decided it was best to cut them short, before the results could prove the theory wrong. They then announced their findings to the world and the "Circumcise Africa!" campaign was born.

Pretty sneaky, huh?

How does this relate to Female Genital Mutilation?
Hold on, I'm getting there. First, let me tell you what I think will happen next and where it came from.

Next, they will start routinely circumcising infant boys.

It is reasonable to assume that male circumcision will progress in Africa in a similar manner to the way it did in the USA - That is, it started as a way to "protect" certain people at risk for diseases - in the USA it was "masturbation, infection, venerial disease, cancer, blindness, insanity, death..." and a whole huge list of other afflictions the foreskin was blamed for causing. The issue actually started a long time ago in the USA. It then became a "preventative" measure which was routinely performed on infants, because it was promoted as "harmless and even beneficial." "Harmless and beneficial? Why not just get them right out of the womb to make it easier?" I suspect this is the next stage in the progression of genital mutilation in Africa.

But, you still haven't told me how this relates to FEMALE Genital Mutilation!
OK, now I'll tell you.
The answer is, The Stallings Study.

That's right. There was a study, claiming that female circumcision decreased the chances of contracting HIV. It exists. It happened. It is out there, waiting for concerned (or motivated) Africans to find and interpret however they want to.

Results
The crude relative risk of HIV infection among women reporting to have been circumcised versus not circumcised was 0.51 [95% CL =0.38

In fact, this study makes the specific assertion that female genital mutilation, not male is the main statistical difference in relative risk:

Both circ vs male only = 0.56 Relative Risk Estimate
Both circ vs neither = 0.55 Relative Risk Estimate
Male circ vs neither = 0.97 Relative Risk Estimate

But how could that be?
It's actually very simple. It's probably true. It's probably true for the same reason those three "groundbreaking" male circumcision studies found an initial difference between the two groups: decreased sexual activity. When a woman receives little or no pleasure (possibly even intense pain, depending on the specific procedure) from sexual activity, she is less likely to participate in sexual activity, therefore lowering her risk of contracting HIV. The question is, do you think the Africans who heard "male circumcision prevents AIDS" and didn't bother to question why will be more concerned with the reason why female circumcision has been shown to have the same effect, or do you think "female circumcision prevents AIDS" will be enough once again?

But they'd never go THAT far, would they?
They already do. Female Genital Mutilation is happening in Africa right now. On top of that, "more advanced" cultures have now told them that cutting off parts of genitals is not only the answer to the AIDS epidemic, but is even a good thing for the person's general health. "Civilized" people advocating circumcision + lower risk of HIV for circumcised females? At some point, somebody is going to add 2 + 2 and get 4. When that happens, a whole new wave of "preventative" Female Genital Mutilation will begin. Last I heard, women contracting HIV from rape and then infecting other men was considered a major cause in the spread of the disease, so why wouldn't they try to do everything they possibly could to prevent women from contracting it? Remember, these are also the people who are advocating putting all homosexuals to death. Do you really think they're going to stop short of female children in the effort to solve the epidemic, when they already cut the genitals of female children, or do you think they'll just do it more?

What if we just hide that study?
Even without that one particular study, how long do you think it will take for the people who advocate Female Genital Mutilation to find other studies, or pick up on the statistics and start doing studies themselves? Hell, even without medical justification, people are already doing it, so why wouldn't the advocates decide to do the same kind of shifty study that was done to promote male genital mutilation? The notable thing is, this may even encourage them to suggest the less invasive forms be intensified to increase the "benefit" of the procedure. Women who would have otherwise only been subjected to the lesser forms of genital cutting may instead be subjected to the forms which are designed to make any sexual activity as unpleasant as possible.

Who's to blame for this? What can be done to stop it?

Who's to blame?

You are.

Every person who has not stood up for a child's right to genital integrity, whatever form they may be in, has contributed to the idea that it is acceptable to mutilate children.

Every person who has participated in the "circumcision" of infants, whether they be a medical professional or not, has perpetuated the tradition of mutilation.

Every mother or father who did not protect their child from being cut when they were able has let that child become yet another victim, instead of an example.

Every person who has said Male Genital Mutilation is "not the same thing" has contributed to the environment which lets people not only condone, but advocate genital mutilation in Africa.

Every male who is angry about having his basic human rights violated and yet refuses to speak out is contributing to the silence which allows ignorance.

And every person who has been witness to somebody claiming genital mutilation in any form is a human rights violation and still couldn't be bothered to read an article and pass on a link to somebody else is guilty of maintaining that ignorance.

What can be done?
People need to be taught that proper hygiene, safe sex practices and medicine are preferable and more effective methods of controlling disease than genital mutilation. We need to start advocating the benefit of condoms and safe sex education, the dangers of rape (even for the perpetrator) and the sanctity of genital integrity for everybody.

Sadly, I think the seed has been planted already in Africa and the idea of cutting genitals to prevent AIDS will invariably result in the mutilation of more children, both boys and girls, than would otherwise be subjected to such abuse. In my opinion, the only way to convince the people in Africa that genital mutilation is wrong, is if the rest of us "civilized" societies can agree that ALL genital mutilation is wrong, be they female, male, or intersexed genitals. Every child must be protected from non-therapeutic genital surgery before any child can truly be safe. Then, when we tell Africa we were wrong to suggest it in the first place and plead for them to stop mutilating their own children, they won't simply look at us and say "Why shouldn't we, when you still do?"

Originally written 12-27-2011

Why Derogatory "Feminist" or "MRA" References Make My Eyes Roll

It has nothing to do with any gender bias or quixotic interpretation of the term(s) on my part, but instead due to the over-generalizing, ad-hominem nature of the argument and the accompanying argument(s), and the nonsensical direction the debate takes from there.

It's one thing to dispute the validity of an argument, or a specific claim, or a prevalent attitude or action, but to lump together and dispute the validity of an entire demographic, regardless of which demographic, isn't actually a defensible position, nor a useful strategy.  When you debate a specific point, your debate is relevant to that point.  You exchange information, logic, and rationality.  When you argue against an entire demographic and/or ideology, your debate degrades into meaningless drivel and propaganda.  You cease to be concerned with an issue and start arguing straw people and stereotypes instead.



I've seen plenty of claims like "feminists are misandrous bigots" and "women are selfish and don't care about men's issues."  You know what that gets you? NAWALT/NAFALT.  For example, the majority of participants in the local march for male genital integrity this past year were women, likely some feminists among them as well.  I can even show you several examples of women as high profile MRAs.

I've also seen plenty of claims like "MRAs are misogynists" and "men are oppressive and don't care about women's issues."  You know what that gets you?  NAMALT/NAMRAALT.  There's plenty of MRAs who have never said anything demonstrating hate of women.  There's plenty of self-identifying and very active male feminists who seem to care about little else.



And that's the end of any legitimate debate.  Every. Single. Time.
From there, it's nothing but each side trying to prove they are "less evil" somehow and the other is "more evil" somehow, because they think that will somehow provide them some sort of victory.

Get a clue.

Even if you were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "feminism" or "MRAs" were an evil group, it still not only allows the individual you're arguing with to deny personal association and involvement with that evilness, but it does nothing to address or refute any specific claims they've made, or convince them to change their mind about any issue, or raise awareness about anything.  All it does is get 2+ people bitching at each other about which one of them belongs to the "more bigot" demographic.  You think any normal, reasonable person is going to stick around and read 3 pages or listen to 15 minutes of that garbage before getting to the little nugget of useful information you've buried in there?  You think the person you're arguing with is going to see that nugget and change their mind about anything?  Think again.



So, what should you do when faced with a "feminist" or "MRA" then?
Focus on their arguments instead of their demographic.
Tell them how their claims are bullshit, and ignore their association.
Disprove their specific results instead of attacking their entire ideology.

If you can dispute their entire argument one piece at a time, independent of their ideology label, not only will they not be able to wiggle out of it with NAFALT/NAMRAALT, but they may actually not get so defensive that they throw up blinders and stick their fingers in their ears to avoid considering what you have to say.




In the end, what would be more valuable to your cause?

Normal people actually listening and being exposed to information, as well as opposing ideologues possibly changing their perspective...

...or just pissing off the person you disagree with as much as possible until one of you finally quits to go spout vitriol elsewhere?




That's why I roll my eyes every time somebody uses "feminist" or "MRA" as a derogatory label.  It doesn't actually have anything to do with human rights, or exposing bigotry, or honest debate, or even raising awareness about any particular issue.  It's about nothing more than animosity and an attempt at vengeance based on your own prejudice, not theirs.

MRM/Feminism - two sides of the same coin?

I'm sure you've noticed that there's no shortage of people involved in either the MHRM or Feminism camps willing to label the other as "a hate group."  The truth is, both sides are guilty of derogatory, generalizing rhetoric.

Yes, the MHRM has been classified as "a hate group" by the SPLC, but it seems the integrity of the organization doing the classification and the circumstances surrounding such is controversial, at best.  The MHRM have, on the other hand, done a good job of exposing many examples of feminist hatemongering, such as the deliberately misleading domestic violence and rape data and publicity, volumes of anti-male/female-superiority rhetoric and even what's called "The Agent Orange Files" which is a compilation of plots for anti-male eugenics and social engineering by feminists even in prominent public positions.  However, they are not innocent of negative, generalizing, anti-female rhetoric, themselves.

One of their favorite lines when accused of misogyny seems to be "...but they can never give any examples!" so here's a few examples:

"Women, it is apparent now, lack an ethical sense. They are without the capacity for moral agency."

"This is why for at least several generations, a major fraction of adult females have operated with the singular self-interest and disregard for others of overgrown children."

"Men are, indeed, more intelligent and creative than women, on the whole."

"Men's Rights" and "Feminism" aren't inherently anything but a discriminatory focus, which isn't automatically a negative for anybody else.  It is the specific rhetoric and opinions often voiced by members of both which make them negative.  That's not to say that both sides don't have some good points as well, some of which I agree with, but negative generalizations about the "other" gender are why I consider both "ant-_____" instead of "pro-_____" groups.

So, are the MRM and Feminism two sides of the same coin?  I'd say yes.  One seems to be less extreme and more likely to provide references to factual data in their arguments, but both seem to have similar (albeit, polar opposite) gender ideology themes to their literature.

Activist Guidelines

It seems to be a popular tactic these days for "social justice" to focus on "who's to blame" and "whom to attack" and "whom we don't like" and such.  If you ask me, an entirely offensive fight does more harm than good.  It hurts people labelled as "offenders" without actually benefitting anybody.  Harming people for no real purpose is not activism, just bullying.  It's done for the same petty reasons as any other type of bullying; insecurity, jealousy, anger and hate.

So, I think it's worth making a list of simple guidelines for anybody interested in doing something worthwhile, instead of just lashing out for the sake of being nasty.  That way, people know the difference between participating in a cause and just being a bully.

First, do no harm.

Anybody who truly intends to help people isn't going to try to hurt people.  The people not in your preferred group are still people and don't deserve any less, simply because you aren't focused on them, specifically.  Trying to hurt them isn't going to help you, or the people you claim to be fighting for, or anybody else, for that matter.  All generalizing about, projecting motive upon or dehumanizing others will do is piss off everybody.  As an activist, your job is to elevate, not tear down - to advocate, not attack.

Focus on your cause.

If your focus is on "fighting the system" or "sticking it to the man" or anything of that sort, your focus is not on the people you claim to be fighting for.  Focusing on trying to attack others or convince them that they are bad people is going to make them defensive, not receptive.  Instead of slinging derogatory insults like "privileged" and "ignorant" focus on things like "disadvantage" and demonstration of the information you think they lack.

Don't be a hypocrite.

If your problem is stereotyping and/or dehumanization of a demographic, it's not going to serve your cause to stereotype or dehumanize other demographics.  If you want sympathy and serious consideration for your cause, mocking the concerns of others isn't going to get it.  If you claim to represent "truth" then ignoring or minimizing the importance of facts and sound logic presented by the other side isn't going to speak well of your integrity.

Don't hate.

This is one of the biggest pitfalls I regularly see.  Regardless of a person's demographic, status, position, association, or power, they are no less human, nor less an individual as you.  None of those things negate their experience, perspective, or potential input toward a discussion.  Making judgements about or attempting to negate their personhood is not the same as making judgements about or contradicting their arguments.  Personal/political attacks and/or dismissals are not a form of rational debate.