Mar 192013
 

I hate the circumcision debate because both sides of the circumcision debate have been taken over by women.  The last time I wrote an article about circumcision, I took a look at some comments from women involved in the anti-circumcision movement, and they all had bizarre ideas like circumcised men are permenantly damaged and incapable of actual sex.  One woman couldn’t stop thinking about how her son’s penis was irrevocably damaged.  These women were making circumcision all about themselves despite not actually being the recipients of a circumcision.

Recently, I found an article in the Huffington Post from a woman against circumcision who made it all about women too:

Even though the age for circumcision ranges widely across all circumcising societies, what is most universally constant is the requirement that circumcision occur before marriage. This rule not only establishes the father’s status in the male-dominant community, but it also works to achieve another salient objective: marriageable girls are entrained to view any uncircumcised man as undesirable, thereby ensuring the ethnic stability of the tribe. Girls know from an early age that they would risk social ostracism by mating with an uncircumcised male.

On a meta-historical and biological level, circumcision acts to rename, remap, and invert our fundamental and primal relationship to the feminine. It is not coincidental that this ritual of tribal belonging necessitates the cutting, blood-letting, and altering — in a public ceremony — of the male child’s sexual organ. As Glick points out, “Female blood contaminates, male blood sanctifies.” Thus, he explains, “the shedding of male blood is an act of consecration.”  By creating historical and social linkage through this sacrificial ritual, circumcision functions to supersede and transcend our most primary maternal and biological system of relationship making patrilineal and patriarchal hierarchy appear “natural and inevitable,” as Nancy Jay notes in her brilliant book, Throughout Your Generations Forever.

Similarly, in both the Hebrew Scriptures (Samuel 1:1) and the New Testament (Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38) , by citing and repeating the lineage of male progenitors, legitimacy is established. The names of the mothers are usually unmentioned, irrelevant in a male-dominant culture.

Circumcision subverts the community’s relationship to the life-giving principle of the feminine, not only by obliterating the woman’s rightful identity in structuring the historical social network of her tribe, but also by trivializing and implicitly forbidding her to acknowledge, much less act upon, her deepest mammalian instincts to protect her newly birthed child. She knows, long before she has even conceived, that in order for her male child to be bonded to the male community — past, present and future — and to a male-imaged god, she must surrender him to the men with a knife to cut, wound and cause great pain to the very vulnerable sexual organ of this newly birthed child. Typically, a mother’s feelings are dismissed or ridiculed. Her voice is silenced, even to herself.

Can it be a coincidence that we have language for the primary disempowerment for men, but not for women? When men are wounded in their primal potency of manhood, we say they have been “emasculated.” When women are wounded in their primary potency of womanhood, we rarely notice. We have no language, no conceptual structure, no word to claim, much less attempt to heal the experience of core female disempowerment.

The wounding of circumcision irreversibly alters both mother and child: the mother is fractured at the base of her deepest womb-wisdom, which knows that she must protect her child no matter what; and the baby, shocked and traumatized, is fractured in his ability to absolutely trust the protective arms of the mother he has biologically and innately turned to as his primordial source of safety. From the beginning, masculinity is now defined as that which must be cut off from the mother and all that is female, nurturing, and essential for human survival. In this way women are made complicit in this masculine-defined model of motherhood. Nancy Jay states, “Gender is therefore unequaled as a cornerstone of domination.” Circumcision is the weapon that not only destroys a boy’s foreskin but also deftly excises maternal authority over the ultimate well-being of her child. For if a woman is forbidden to feel entitled to her instinctive need to protect her newborn child, what feelings of her own can she ever trust?

Additionally, the removal of the foreskin creates a secondary loss of sensitivity: not only has the most erogenous tissue of the male sexual organ been removed, but, as the man ages, the glans loses its mucosal covering, becomes dried out, and keratinizes over time. Typically by middle age the glans of the circumcised penis has lost much of its receptive potential and the man requires more abrasive stimulation to achieve orgasm. Often this is just as a woman is becoming peri-menopausal and experiencing decreasing vaginal lubrication. Typically, the problem is identified as the woman’s entry into menopause; the contribution of the circumcised partner is rarely acknowledged. In subtle but profound ways, circumcision functions to diminish a man’s pleasure potential, allowing his bond to his partner to be subordinated to his bond to his tribal male peers.

Circumcision achieves this by violently breaching the maternal-infant bond shortly after birth; by amputating and marking the baby’s sexual organ before he knows what he has lost; by disempowering, “taming,” the mother at the height of her instinctual need to protect her infant; by bonding the baby to the community of men past, present, and future and to a male-imaged G-d; by restructuring the family and the society in terms of male dominance; and by psycho-sexually wounding the manhood still asleep in the unsuspecting baby boy. In all of these ways — socially, politically, religiously, ethnically, sexually, tribally, and interpersonally — the cutting of our baby boys’ sexual organs is the fulcrum around which patriarchy exerts its power. Circumcision is a rite of male domination — domination and the entitlement of domination over other men, women, and children, both institutionally and personally. It is the essence of patriarchy.

These are just a few quotes from the article.  In an anti-circumcision article, terms like “womb wisdom” and sentences like, “Circumcision is a rite of male domination — domination and the entitlement of domination over other men, women, and children, both institutionally and personally. It is the essence of patriarchy” have no place.  The point of being against circumcision is what happens to baby BOYS (and older boys and men if circumcision happens later).

What has happened is that women have managed to take over the anti-circumcision movement and make it all about them.  The boys who actually get circumcised are only an afterthought at best.  The “logic” that we see here is incredibly twisted, but that is what it takes to say women are the real victims of male circumcision.

What has happened to the anti-circumcision movement is a sober warning about what could happen to the MRM if we are not careful.  The anti-circumcision movement has been taken over by women and made to be anti-male.  We can’t let that happen to the MRM.

  15 Responses to “Baby Boys Get Circumcised; Women Hardest Hit”

  1. One point I do want to challenge you on as a circumcisesd male – namely on the issue of sexual function. The reality is that my sexual function is greatly diminished – the fact is that the male version of the clitoris was butchered from my body when I was a poor helpless infact. Sexually I am incomplete and always will be. I will never know what true sexual pleasure is as a man. Sexually my body is dysfunctional and always will be in terms of how it should have been. Let’s say the v word that is taboo in terms of even being remotely associated with men- I and other men who have been circumcised are genital mutilation VICTIMS, and short of plastic surgery which may or may not even fully restore sensation, I will be for the rest of my life, as will other victims..

    As for the comments, it figures- never mind the fact that those of us who have been genitally mutilated will never know what true male sexual pleasure is- oh no, it’s all about the poor [scumbag] mothers who were more than willing to to have their sons at their most vulnerable, to have their genitalia completely and utterly butchered. But no, never mind holding these proxy sexual sadist she demons responsible for a heinous form of child sexual abuse [along with their scumbag proxy sexual sadist fathers] – we have to protect the uterus because who gives a rat’s ass about a bunch of dicks on legs who are only good for being human shields/hired muscle, walking ATMs or sex machines right?

    At times like this, I despair for the messed up society we’ve become – I truly do…..

    • well the male version of the clitoris would be the crown of the head, so that’s a pretty badly botched circumcision.

      imo, circumcision is objectionable because it’s a form of violence against all males that society considers to be completely acceptable. however, like pmaft said in his other post, a guy who is falsely accused by a woman of any crime against a woman is not going to care if he has foreskin or not.

      • First off, you’ve confused form with function here. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis with over 240ft of nerve endings in it and is far more sensitive than the head of the penis.

        Secondly, your argument about sexual violence against men is utterly messed up- even in terms of its approach to men who have faced false allegations in the worst way possible and wound up being incarcerated.

        Firstly, even if you regard false allegations as a primary men’s rights issue rather than secondary in terms of causation, men who are victims of false allegations when incarcerated are subjected to proxy violence and proxy rape. To suggest that sexual violence against men is irrelevant because of false allegations is a complete fallacy that even ignores what men who are victims of false allegations go through in a worst case scenario.

        This leads me to the second aspect of this. False allegations are a secondary men’s rights issue – something which becomes blatantly clear when you examine causation. The reason false allegations are such an issue is because of the primary issue which sexual violence against men is just one aspect of – namely social attitudes towards male victims and female perpetrators.

        It’s this very ideology of female infantalisation and male disposability – institutionalised over the centuries by tradcons and merely manipulated by feminists into “patriarchal theory” that has allowed for the situation with false allegations to take place, and are merely the “cherry on top” in terms of the disposability and expendability of men.

        The fact is that if society treated male victims with compassion and female perpetrators seriously, then false allegations would become a rapidly decreasing issue in a short space of time.

        However this is the problem with many in the manosphere. They’re so blinkered in their view of false allegations and in ONLY viewing feminism as the enemy that their approach is often outright misandry. Take expanding the definition of rape for example- never mind the fact that the current definitions NEED expanding to recognise female-on-male vaginal rape, according to those with blinkers on, the definitions need to be universally restricted to minimise false allegations (when ironically the core issue which has made false allegations so prevalent male disposability and female infantalisation).

        Then there’s the response to feminist views on masculinity. We often lament the lack of compassion for men, yet how many in the manosphere promote male stoicism – a culture which perpetuates a blanket denial of compassion for men and is designed to make men perpetually disposable slaves who exist to service female infantalisation.

        This type of “who cares about male victims of violence when we have the feminist agenda to deal with” is not only self-defeating, but quite misandrist.

        I’m not saying that false allegations aren’t a serious issue because they are – the damage they do to men’s lives can be life destroying and range from ostracism, to proxy violence and unjust incarceration and even suicide. However if putting the cart before the horse was an Olympic event, that last post of yours here was a gold medal winning performance.

        • I can only wish I was capable of reading that much into other people’s posts. you’re like the comment whisperer.

          anyway, speaking as an uncircumcised man, I can absolutely guarantee everyone reading this that the foreskin is not even remotely “the most sensitive part of the penis” so let’s not even attempt that fraud. which recalls to the biggest danger of trying to turn men into “equal victims,” pushing the belief that circumcised men are no longer human.

          I mean, as long as you don’t mind me forcing words down your mouth as well. kinda sucks, huh?

        • Regardless of what you intended to say- let’s highlight your final sentence which put your entire post in its context:

          “however, like pmaft said in his other post, a guy who is falsely accused by a woman of any crime against a woman is not going to care if he has foreskin or not.”

          Translation, male victims of sexual violence should come second to male victims of false allegations. It is that kind of chauvinistic dismissal of
          male victims of sexual violence (and when the premise is applied to other areas, violence against men, male mental health issues, male health issues including suicide and male destitution) which is stark evidence why just going after feminism while giving tradcons a free pass will only result in a continuation of the status quo of men being regarded as disposable and denied compassion.

          If that wasn’t what you meant then I suggest you clarify what you’d previously said.

          “anyway, speaking as an uncircumcised man, I can absolutely guarantee everyone reading this that the foreskin is not even remotely “the most sensitive part of the penis” so let’s not even attempt that fraud. which recalls to the biggest danger of trying to turn men into “equal victims,” pushing the belief that circumcised men are no longer human.”

          First off even if it’s not the most sensitive part of the penis, it’s still an incredibly sensitive part of it.

          Secondly even if it wasn’t that sensitive at all, why the hell should anyone have the right to butcher my penis without my permission (incidentally I am circumcised and I feel like I’ve been mutilated), when we rightly go ape as a society about girls being subjected to mutilation and for the same flawed and flimsy reasons?

          Finally to suggest that I and other male survivors of genital mutilation are somehow dehumanised is the very chauvinism which reduces men to little more than glorified sex toys (in addition to walking atms and human shields).

          As someone in that category, I’d welcome that danger because it would force a debate which would wake society up to the fact that they have no issue treating men like “uncovered meat” and that because of that paradigm, they are a pack of child groomers where boys are concerned (as opposed to the situation now where that belief is quietly accepted and assumed anyway).

          Furthermore it is easily rebuked with “by that logic, someone could argue for a girl who had been genitally mutilated to be regarded the exact same way. If you wouldn’t find that acceptable, then why are you hypocritically arguing for genitally mutilated boys to be treated that way?”

          But yes heaven forbid we abandon stoicism and actually treat men and boys like human beings right? That’s just unthinkable to the tradcon and feminist mind, isn’t it?

  2. That article makes me regret that I was never circumcised.

  3. It’s true what they say: you really can’t make it up.

    Reminds me of this quote by feminist heroine Hillary Clinton:

    “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. “

  4. @andrew & bow

    This is the problem, most men dont realise how entrenched they’re in feminism & how extreme their views are against men

    Male stoicism & treating men as rough & rugged emotionless people, are all the result of a monogamous society

    Yea traditionalism is the real enemy, but its foundation at its core, is monogamous marriage

    Monogamous marriage specifically forces men to stay with aging, decrepit infertile women, while men stay fertile & virile into their 60’s & 70’s

    Monogamous marriage specifically caters only to a womans biology, while the husbands biology is left to rot, as he’s left to masturbate & tied to a sexless infertile woman for decades

    Monogamous marriage also allows traditionalism to exploit male disposability on a community & national level

    Monogamous marriage, exploits men through a network of matriarchial women, where they give the impression of being submissive & feminine, while they take over his wages & his property, & redistribute the mans wages to thinly veiled feminist charities & goods

    Monogamous marriage is an artificial construct, all function healthy societies, are divided & destroyed

    First by introducing religion, then dividing the men against each other through monogamous marriage, & then introducing the concept of wage slavery

    Where instead of providing for yourself on your own farm & land, is replaced by working for other ppl for bits of worthless paper

    If you want to destroy traditionalism & get rid of male disposability, you have to follow the paper trail, the funding for traditionalism is marriage

    Note it doesnt end there …

    Once you’ve established the root cause of traditionalism, you have to go after religion

    As religion is the culture of society, it defines society to worship authority & enslave men

    Note the language used by christians, calling their god, lord & master

    Bowing & kneeling, declaring themselves not worthy & impure guilty sinners

    Theres a fine line between realising you’re flawed & not perfect, to declaring yourself a completely flawed imperfect object & grovelling to a fictional character

    Monogamous marriage is the denial & exploitation of a mans biology to protect aging decrepit women, religion is the language used to inject the concept of male disposability & enslaving men on a global scale

    You also have to realise what the real natural state of man is … which is tribalism

    Male only space’s are men forming tribes, where everybody is equal, & hierarchies are replaced by men working without the concept of greed & profit at any cost, of matriarchial women infested societies

    Greed & corruption arent foreign to men, but theyre natural & always will be natural to women

  5. “Womb-wisdom”. Is that like scrotal-smarts?

    Seriously, this seems to be a primary example of the feminine imperative. If something isn’t all about women, and how it affects them, then that thing must be made to be all about women

  6. […] Josh the Aspie said in my most recent post on circumcision: […]

  7. You’re right that anti-mgm women are selfishly making it about them, but in this case if the ends are that genital mutilation of males is being stopped that’s all that really matters.

  8. […] When someone talks about how voter ID laws (supposedly) cause voter suppression, it’s usually in reference to racial minorities or the poor.  While charges of voter suppression due to voter ID laws are bogus, it hasn’t stopped women from trying to make voter suppression all about them just like how women have made circumcision all about them. […]

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: