Making light of thingies.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Making light of thingies.

RE: PZ Myers link that was dropped on Bob's talk page.

I didn't want to bring this up on that page, as it would be slightly beside the point. It's good stuff from PZ, balanced and sane as always (well, maybe not always) and it's Science. But the conclusion:

...I consider it a prime example of selfish privilege to invade discussions of female genital mutilation, which does cause serious sexual and medical problems, with demands that we pay more attention to the lesser concerns of males getting lightly scarred penises.

Okay, so I quote mined off the "in the context of the thread" bit, and perhaps the context of the thread really does justify this position... BUT, isn't this really what activists do all the damn time? Particularly feminists but many in general. Take rape. Isn't getting drunk and sleeping with a friend in a way that you regret and might not have wanted at the time but caved in because you didn't have the confidence to refuse a significantly lesser concern than knife-point gang rape? And indeed, the whole "elevatorgate" where Richard Dawkins brought up the plight of women in highly repressive cultures to highlight that Rebecca Watson elevator encounter was a significantly less concern. But an activist would go mental if we treated these incidents differently - indeed, Watson did and keeps banging on about "privilege" as a result (for that matter, what is this "privilege" they keep talking about? Everyone who ever disagrees with an activist has it, but what is it?). So why the double standard where some things are passed off as a significantly lesser concern while other things aren't?

I'm actually 100% with you. Like i said on the salon thread - i **used to be** this exact kind of feminist. HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR BOY PARTS!!!! THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF!!!. Then I met a woman who had been scared, met guys from Indonesia who had been - sorry to say, "mutilated" cause they were circumcised "in the field" "at eight", as is tradition there. One is not better or worse than the other. Both can bring death, both can be "fine and safe with no lasting problems". To me, it's a child abuse issue, period. I am actually sickened at the UN for ADVISING that we circumcise boy cause it **might** improve their ability to defend against aids. If someone said "cutting off your tits at 13 will INSURE you don't get breast cancer" who would say "ok" to that. (and i won't even go into the poor quality of the studies done by and for the UN, yes "lancet" published them, but lancet also published the now world-famous "study" about vaccination causing autism. Just cause a study proves a CORROLATIOn, does not mean it's something that should be put into practice.

So you have every right jump into the conversations about whatever, I think. As long as you are using comprable settings. I'd not compare what is done to AMERICAN boys with what is done in Africa to african girls. but i would compare what is done to indonesian boys, aboriginal boys, etc. it's all about context.

Want some gory gory gory descriptions of what is done to little Aboriginal boys? It makes what's done to african girls look like a summer day at the races.

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits17:45, 6 October 2011

Indeed, that's why I think PZ is probably right about the "context" thing. If the discussion is about girls in Africa suffering severe mutilation, you're being a dick by bringing up your own problem if it's minor compared to that. But that's really just a more reasonable application of the attitude that dismisses it outright. The fact is, there's this prevailing line of thought that says they're both different and cannot be brought together, ever. Oh, there'll be a paragraph 18 tacked-on statement about how it's all wrong and they're against it, but that doesn't say much. We belittle other peoples plights all the time with our First World Problems, yet this is the only issue where that sort of thing is emphatically not allowed.

Adkgraffiti.png...I'll insult your snake!17:58, 6 October 2011
 

1: I think part of the reason for this is its use as a means to derail FGM discussions and whine about the feminazis.
2: The studies aren't necessarily flawed -- just the JAQing off that tends to surround them.
3: "If someone said "cutting off your tits at 13 will INSURE you don't get breast cancer" who would say "ok" to that." I lol'd. "Yes, the world is quite different now. There are no more elephants. There is also no more unethical treatment of elephants."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:03, 6 October 2011

1. Indeed, that's the context is important. But I think it's a more general observation. PZ blasting someone for being a dick is one thing, someone going out and actively defending their position that male circumcision Isn't A Big Deal So Get The Fuck Over It is something else.

2. Studies are studies. Assessing them is the hard part.

3. Actually, there's a serious point, related to no.2, in there about weighing up the pros and cons of a medical treatment. Lobbing bits off you to help prevent illness is a balancing act between how well it prevents that illness, and how big the bit is.

Adkgraffiti.png...I'll plagiarize your bathtub!18:09, 6 October 2011

On that #2 point, the WHO studies are flawed, mostly, because all peer-review attempts to replicate their results have proven inconclusive. Even the WHO admit that their data only showed a minor impact. As WfG mentioned somewhere earlier, condoms are extremely effective AIDS prevention, so why isn't the WHO going head-over-heels in promoting condoms instead? Especially because of all the religious nonsense that surrounds condom use, you'd think they'd rather be tackling the issue with a public information about condoms preventing AIDS campaign.

I would almost say that it's because of the religious nonsense. God (or at least His agents on Earth) are okay with one, not the other. What option will people have an automated respect for? The UN and WHO are massive organisations ran by people, they're not a skeptical organisation that would specifically want to work against religious rulings on prophylactics.

Adkgraffiti.png...I'll advocate your bat!18:35, 6 October 2011

WEll... here's another reason religion comes in. The UN with strong voting blocks in the muslim community, not to mention the power of the US has a HUGE buy in for keeping male circumcision "ok".

And if you can find non-religious reasons to justify it -- well how much better would that be. One of the French authors I read, a physician who is strongly critical of the UN and WHO's views, has said publicly that he thinks this entire "AIDS" connection is about justifying the practice of male circumcision. I personally, not being a physician or an advoisor to the UN, would not be surprized that this is an underlying factor.

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits18:40, 6 October 2011
 

"even the WHO admit their data shows minor impact" (i keep seeing 'who' and think 'whoville'.) And yet they publish that they are certain it can have a 50-60% impact (their words).

I just come back to the fact that circumcision woo is really just that, woo. there **might** be something there, but the there is not "that there".

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits18:36, 6 October 2011

Currently, they publish it as having a 50-60% impact. But when they originally came up with that idea, I remember reading in my local newspaper's AP syndication that they were claiming it had a 20-25% impact. But, back to point, I completely agree with your points.

 
 

"big", or rather "important. mine are big. but they aren't necessarily all that much more important that a little woman's. ;-) heheheheheh

Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits18:34, 6 October 2011