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.

May 252012
 

We hear a lot about how the Catholic Church is supposedly anti-feminist.  Except for a few minor matters like abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, the Catholic Church agrees with feminism completely.  Anyone who tries to claim that the Catholic Church is anti-feminist will typically say point out how much feminists hate the Catholic Church.

In the case of feminists hating the Catholic Church, why do feminists hate the Catholic Church since they agree on most of feminism?  Justinian at The Spearhead figured out the answer:

The left’s hatred of the Catholic church mirrors the way women look down on male feminists.

This is what it comes down to.  The Catholic Church is the organization equivalent to male feminists.  Just how male feminists are hated by feminists despite the fact that they agree with each other, so is the Catholic Church hated by feminists.

Feb 092012
 

The reason why there is so much written in the manosphere about socons, conservatives, etc. is because it is recognized that feminism is not purely a left wing ideology.  It has infected both the left AND the right, and TDOM explains this and how feminism transcends both the left and the right:

That’s an interesting way of framing the discussion. I’ve often viewed feminism as neither left nor right by nature. Instead it is as many feminists freely admit, a gender issue and there are members of both genders on either side of the political spectrum.

I think early feminists adopted the leftist view as a matter of strategy and for recruitment purposes. The Marxist approach to economics was easily adaptable to cultural practices. All it took to draw in membership was to convince people that women are disadvantaged. With societal structures predominantly populated with men, this was easy enough to do. The term “patriarchy” was redefined and used for this purpose. first wave feminists laid the groundwork and second wave feminists became the footsoldiers.

Aligning themselves with cultural Marxist idealism served another purpose as well. The communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era resulted in a popularization of Marxism during which time, it became chic to be openly Marxist and difficult, if not destructive, for opponents of Marxism to speak out against them. the fear of being identified as a “hatemonger” keeping opponents in line.

At first, feminism was only a part of the liberal movement of the 60s but by the mid-80s it had eclipsed the movement itself and liberalism had become more or less synonymous with feminism to the point that one could not be leftist and not be feminist.

On the right, the movement was more subtle. Women were already being pedastalized by white knight chivalry as standard practice. The leftist acceptance of the women as victim model was simmply transferred to the right. One did not have to adopt the value system to accept the model. In fact, on the right women were already seen as helpless. all that was needed was to turn “helpless” into “victim.”

The second wave feminist could fight the battles and the conservative feminist would move out of the way and then reap the rewards.

The chivalrist ideal was prevalent on the left as well. For more liberal chivalrists it was easy to accept feminists because of their Marxist position. They simply incorporated feminism into their own leftist idealism and became collaborationists (manginas as they are sometimes called). The right wing chivalrist (the white knight) picked up on the woman as victim mantra and rushed to her rescue.

Feminism transcends left and right. It is neither and it is both. It favors wealth and cultural redistribution from male to female while seeking to establish a totalitarian police state to control the “oppressor class.” To that end it has abandoned the liberal ideal of personal freedom and liberty for all, in favor of personal freedom and liberty for the new feminist oppressor class while restricting liberty and freedom for the new oppressed class (male). It seeks to replace what it calls patriarchy with matriarchy (which can now be equated with female supremacism). thus while claiming to hold the liberal ideal of “equality” feminism has in reality adopted the conservative ideal of a ruling class superior to that of the working class and with more rights and privilege and the full force of the state to enforce that privilege.

Apr 292011
 

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it’s probably a duck.  If a person talks a feminist then they probably are a feminist even if they claim to be anti-feminist.  Whether its thinking that feminism has saved them from men dumping their wives en masse when they hit middle age and marrying a younger woman, describing marriage in feminist terms, worrying that sluts are being denied their humanity, or just general paranoia about men, it is not difficult to find example after example of socon (social conservative) and tradcon (traditionalist conservatives) AFINOs (anti-feminist in name only) saying things that are dripping in misandry and/or indistinguishable from things that feminists say.  Knowing that there’s little difference between feminists and the socon and tradcon AFINOs.

The only time that these AFINOs will sound different from a feminist is when talking about abortion but even the AFINO anti-abortion position is misandrist.  Here is a good example (H/T: MarkyMark):

And when we do decide to look, it will finally be time to realize that ABORTION IS A MEN’S ISSUE. That’s right, for too long we have assumed abortion is a women’s issue. It’s not. Men make women pregnant. Women don’t make women pregnant. Can we open our eyes and see that reality, too?

It is the sexual incontinence of men that drives the vast majority of abortions in our nation. Men want to have sexual relations with no responsibility concerning what happens to their female lover–even if what happens is pregnancy. It’s time for pastors and bishops and rabbis and imams to starting telling it like it is over the pulpit: “Men, if you made a woman pregnant, you are morally responsible for the abortion. God will hold you accountable that you sired a child in a context where you had no intention of taking care of the child and its mother.” Isn’t it time that we engaged the moral choices men are making that create the abortion problem in the first place? But most of these pastors and bishops and rabbis and imams are men, and so abortion wrongly remains a “women’s issue.”

If we are going to open our eyes to the reality of fetal life, then it’s also time to open our eyes to the reality that it is men that are causing abortions.

This is the same misandrist argument we have seen from socons and tradcons many times before.  To them only men are guilty of fornication.  Women who fornicate are “victims” of men because penises magically appear inside women.  Socons and tradcons extend this blame of men and absolution of women to abortion.  If something bad happens, it’s automatically a man’s fault according to them.

In all Western countries no man can force a woman to have an abortion or prevent a woman from having an abortion.  The law has made it so that men (except perhaps male abortion doctors) have no say in abortion.  (And attempts by men to stop a woman from having an abortion using illegal methods are a one way ticket to jail, and the woman will still have the abortion regardless.)  Yet socons and tradcons want to blame men for abortion because men “force” women to have abortions.  This is nothing more than socons and tradcons transferring the sins of women on to men in a pathetic attempt to claim that women aren’t violating their professed morality.

This position is misandrist and feminist.  It deviates slightly from the feminist position in that feminists are pro-abortion and socons and tradcons are anti-abortion but each position can be summed up thus:

Feminist: Men are forcing women to have babies that women don’t want.

Socon/Tradcon: Men are forcing women to have abortions that women don’t want.

Even in the case of abortion there’s no real difference between the feminist and socon/tradcon positions.  If it sounds like a feminist, then it’s a feminist and the socons and tradcons sound feminist almost all the time.

Jan 142011
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

The “mommy wars”, the debate whether women should stay at home with the kids or go to work, is rarely brought up in the manosphere if at all.  There is an excellent reason for this.  In terms of anti-feminism the mommy wars are meaningless.  In fact, the mommy wars serve as nothing but a distraction for actual anti-feminism and are another example of the argument between various forms of feminism/female supremacism on how to best extract money and resources from men (or how to best hold the whip over men).

Socons (social conservatives) use two main arguments for women staying home, traditionalism and children.  “Traditionalism” isn’t about what was traditional over human history but what the archetypal stay at home mother of the 1950s which was an aberration and wasn’t even universal back then.  Throughout history women have done work that added income to the family.  In addition there weren’t washing machines, stoves, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, etc. so there was more work to be done in maintaining a household.  In the future more and more of household maintenance will be handled by robots such as the roomba leaving less and less work for a woman in maintaining the household.  The idea that women should stay home with young children has merit.  However, children grow up, move out, and live their own lives.  As people live longer the time a woman would spend having young children is a diminishing percentage of woman’s life.  What is she doing with the rest of her life?  What socons seek to produce is not stay at home motherhood or traditional families but domestic divas who have little to no work to do.

The level to which socons want women to not be involved with things outside the home is extreme.  Some socons even object to having their daughters spend any time at church ministries. Considering that a church ministry usually involves some degree of community service, they are even objecting to women doing any community service whatsoever in favor of “being at home”.  The question must be asked, “What are these socon domestic divas and proto-domestic divas (their daughters) doing all day?”  The answer seems to involve claiming that it takes an army of women to clean a house and that unmarried daughters should stay at home doing make work jobs of questionable merit like “sewing her wardrobe”.  It seems to be all about minimizing work that women do and hiding this fact from men.

While feminists want women to go to work (or more accurately to a job), they are similar to the socons.  Feminists will claim that women with jobs are “more productive” and “doing real work”.  This is wrong.  Over the last several decades many women have poured into the workforce into jobs like public sector jobs, quasi-public sector jobs like healthcare and education, human resources, etc.  What do these jobs have in common?  They are bureaucratic, bloated, inefficient, ossified, and in most cases unnecessary.  In addition, they wreck the productive sectors of the economy.  Many of these jobs are nothing but make work jobs, and women hold these economy wrecking make work jobs.  Even outside of these sectors of employment, women can cause problems.  A feminist had this to say about housewives trying to get work:

During preliminary interviews with housewives she saw that they had one thing in common: an extremely infantilized mode of behavior. Whenever the conversation didn’t go exactly as they wanted, they would become highly emotional, raise their woices, bcome irritable, cry, make unreasonable demands. They had no understanding of how to negotiate or listen to others. Their expectations of what they are owed by recruiters and employers were extremely inflated. It was obvious that inscribing themselves into the hierarchies of a workplace, curbing their highly emotional response to every slight contretemps and learning to listen to other people was going to be next to impossible for them.

Any man willing to be honest about it will easily be able to come up with multiple examples of women acting like this who are not housewives or former housewives.  These are more reasons why feminists are wrong about women in jobs automatically being productive or doing real work.  Like with the socons, it’s about minimizing the work women do and hiding this from men.  The feminists and socons just disagree about the best way to do that.

On the other hand the feminists and the socons do agree that men are at fault for not making their respective positions happen.  Feminists claim that men are evil brutes trying to keep women at home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.  Socons are claiming that men have become “unmanly” and are forcing their wives to work, and that men are “pressuring” women to go college.  Whatever their positions in the mommy wars, both the feminists and socons attack men with truckloads of shaming language.  This is why the mommy wars are a distraction completely useless to men and useless to anti-feminism.  It is nothing but an argument about how to best hold the whip over men in a very literal sense because the mommy wars are about women doing as little work as possible and making men do more.

Jun 142010
 

I have avoided weighing in on the circumcision debate until now.  While there are those who think this should be a main MRA issue,  it’s not something I think about.  I’m circumcised and since that is what I have always known, I don’t feel like I was violated or victimized.  I have to agree with Ferdinand.

That being said I do agree with the idea that if there is no reason to perform a surgery (such as circumcision) then it shouldn’t be done.  If I ever had any sons, I doubt I would have them circumcised.  Hestia provides a very compelling argument against circumcision.

I always try to take the pro-male position on anything so I started reading up on the pro vs. con arguments for circumcision.  Hestia’s post provides us a good pro-male reason to be against circumcision.  However, as I started investigating I realized that both sides of the circumcision argument have been feminized.  The pro-circumcision argument is obviously feminized.  Baby boys are having unnecessary operations done on them and the original reasoning had to do with stupid anti-masturbation arguments.

Just because one side is obviously feminized does not make the other side of an argument pro-male.  I started looking into the anti-circumcision argument and organizations and forums.  What I found was disturbing.  Rather than finding solid logical arguments on the anti-circumcision side such as medical procedures that are unnecessary should not be done and Hestia’s excellent point, I found a bunch of shrieking extremists just like Foseti did.  I expected to find more men making the anti-circumcision argument.  Instead I found a bunch of women.  These women were saying the craziest things such as that circumcised men couldn’t have sex properly.  One woman claimed that because most men in the US of her age were circumcised that she never really has had sex.  These women kept trying to convince circumcised men that they were permanently “damaged” and incapable of proper sex.  I even came across comments from this one woman, a mother, who by default had her first son circumcised.  After seeing the pain her oldest son went through she and her husband didn’t have their subsequent sons circumcised.  That sounds reasonable except after that she went on to talk about over and over how “damaged” her son was and how she couldn’t look at her son without knowing that his dick has been permanently harmed.  She said that she couldn’t stop thinking about how her oldest son would never be able to really have sex.  I have been circumcised and I have had no trouble with sex.  The only reason this woman’s oldest son will have any problems is not because of circumcision but because his mother is a loon that is obsessed with her son’s dick.  No one on this anti-circumcision forum noticed how bizarre and creepy it was to think about a son’s dick.  These women were not concerned with the boys circumcision was actually happening to.  Notice how it’s all about them.  It’s a form of attention whoring.

Knowing this I realized that anti-circumcision can be used by women to hide their anti-male attitudes.  I’m sure there are plenty of women who will claim to be not anti-male because they are “against circumcision”.  After boys are a week old these women will throw them to the wolves.  When it counts with issues such as the sexual harassment industry, the false rape industry, or the divorce court system these women will be solidly anti-male.  A man who is the victim of one of these things isn’t going to care if he has his foreskin or not.

A while back I read a man say that there are two things that the MRM should not concern themselves with, abortion and circumcision.  I still have to agree because there are separate anti-abortion and anti-circumcision organizations and both are used as cover for women to hide how they are anti-male.

Translate »