I’m going to post some quotes about reasons for circumcision. I want people to think if these are good reasons for cutting children’s genitals and what we could do instead. If you agree with these statements, then I’ll do what I can to change your mind in the future, but fair enough. If you don’t, come back for the next post to discuss the issues.
Unfortunately, our daughter fell into the statistical minority, developed UTIs, and was circumcised before 6 years old to prevent recurrence. I no longer had to fear for my daughter’s fragile teenage years (which will soon be upon us), and her mother understood that, for our daughter, the procedure was medically necessary. But if I were making the decision today for a young child, given the current medical advice, I hope I’d be more open to leaving things the way nature intended them.
Is this how we would typically treat a UTI in North America or Europe? I had a few of them myself growing up, it’s not abnormal. I didn’t get sliced up – even if it would have helped – instead I was given antibiotics. Yes antibiotics carry their own risks and can damage the gut through eradicating gut flora. Nevertheless with a bad infection it’s the best course of action. Surgery for anything is normally a last resort. Apparently, when it comes to children, it’s easier to slice up their bodies. They cannot really say no, make their own decisions.
Then I saw this about bullying:
Please have girls circumcised my wife still at 48 has emotional scars. The kids nicknamed her spinster, called her ugly – other girls age 8 tried to pull her pants down and with a pocket knife saying they were going to make her normal and pretty. (Their mothers wanted her to be marriageable).
Is this typical of dealing with bullying? Rather than dealing with bullies and cruelty, we plead the right to mangle children. Why have emotional scars when your privates can be one big jagged scar of vacant flesh.
Are these good reasons to circumcise? Should we allow female circumcision (any of the four types), based on the pleading of family? Avoiding emotional scars, infections, “health issues”, ability to marry… could we validly say these are serious considerations for mutilating young children?
It would be great to hear some opinions before posting the follow up, so I have more to work with 🙂
I had wanted to finish this miniseries of inanity, but at the time didn’t think the damage to my sanity was worth it. However I believe it is about time this is done with. It is the last six points of eighteen, found here. She claims female privilege is insane, I argue its commonplace and what our very civilization is founded on; further that the things she complains about aren’t female oppression, or are actually caused by feminism itself.
13. Female disadvantage is being payed a lower salary in the same position a man holds. Female disadvantage is being judged if you’re a stay at home mom because you’re not living up to the rights won by feminists past but being judged if you do not stay at home to raise your children.
This is the wage gap myth. Women work less overtime, take more holidays, take more sick days, leave work earlier/start later, take maternity leave and generally don’t ask for raises as frequently as men. Women earn the same as men hour-to-hour in the same position; statistically women earn slightly higher than men in the hour-to-hour, same position job, on average. Its a fractional percentage but it exists. Forbes goes into the wage gap myth. Women also do jobs with less danger (and thus lacking danger pay) and with more emotional or self satisfaction, such as caring for others or doing something they love but for less money. Even with “liberation” women still mostly become secretaries and nurses. I don’t know of many female underwater welders, crab fishers or oil rig workers. Where are the summer roofing women clamoring for fair representation hauling shingles and mucking about in tar? Where are the women demanding they wake before dawn to sling garbage off the streets as equitable distribution of careers? Why don’t they want to close the death gap? 93% of US workplace deaths are male, and this excludes military deaths. Why aren’t women demanding they be given riskier, more dangerous jobs that puts more female lives on the line, if they so desperately want to be closing gaps?
Generally women will gravitate towards things they like even if it pays less, while men have historically been forced into any paying job they can get. Men will more often hate their jobs or careers but do it for the money it brings. They usually do this so their children can be raised in the home by a parent (mother), rather than in a institution by a stranger (daycare, school). Women will also take lower wages if it means they can work from the home, or do small home business from the home, to be with children. This contributes to the average of lower pay; also in Canada small businesses earning less than $10,000 a year are untaxed. For a mother that’s helpful and it doesn’t push a family into a higher tax bracket.
The second part is this girl shooting herself in the foot. That “disadvantage” comes from feminists and feminism. Stay at home moms, like myself and most of the women I know, don’t attack each other for raising our children. Nor do we go after the women we know who work, and they don’t attack us. The only people causing disadvantages here are feminists who expect every woman to pick up and follow them in lock step. If one does not, then they are to be ridiculed, ostracized and beaten down. They take it as an insult that other women don’t appreciate their efforts to “free” them.
Some women simply don’t like working to pay for a second car and daycare, so they can go to work. Others care more for being the ones to actually raise their own kids, or put education on priority and prefer homeschooling to the decaying school system. The condemnation about stay at home moms, or even motherhood in general, comes from feminists. Most stay at home moms I know prefer women to be home with the kids, and consider it the better choice, but all also understand that sometimes circumstances necessitate otherwise. That’s not judgement.
I don’t think its fair, or intellectually honest, to use problems among feminists, caused by feminism, to argue female disadvantage.
14. Female disadvantage not having her opinion taken seriously when there is a real issue.
Does this actually happen or is it just rhetorical fantasy? I would also like to know, is your opinion valid for the real issue? There may be a real issue, but your opinion may also be validly ignored. Opining that your cookies are excellent has nothing to do with the real issue of the five cent increase in gas prices because of the carbon tax. There is no reason to take your opinion seriously in this moment. Or, there may be an election of Canada’s new Prime Minister but your views on the pertness of a candidate’s arse or how cute he is, while your opinion, cannot be taken seriously for electoral platforms.
If you have a valid opinion, in your patriarchal fantasy world, you’d get a pat on the head and told what a pretty, smart girl you are to have thought of that all on your own. So even in the darkest corners of your male dominated nightmares, you’d still get credit. After all, those nasty men let you speak in their presence, didn’t they? As someone who lives in a male dominated social structure, and worked in a male dominated industry, I have never been condescended to or had my opinion not taken seriously. I actually have men ask my opinions willingly, or consider them thoughtfully; men appreciate intelligence and wit. I would ask the feminist, are you sure your opinion is valid for the situation, or are you just so used to participation trophies you cannot comprehend being dismissed on the grounds of failure? You may actually be dense, illogical, invalid, plain wrong or flighty; not oppressed or disadvantaged.
15. Female disadvantage is being successful and being told it’s only because you’re a woman, not because you’re hardworking.
Sometimes women do make it because they are hardworking. There could be valid reasons for general suspicion that aren’t being considered. Let’s weigh in against the claim. Being a woman greases the wheels. It’s also harder to not let a woman be successful because she can take you to court for discrimination. Women often don’t do as well, yet are promoted, because of lowered expectations. This is actually real, and as hardworking as you may be, and may have earned everything to a certain level, at some point you are raised above men for being a woman. I have to agree with the premise of this one, because the government establishes sex quotas. Women have to be hired in certain percentages, have to be promoted in certain percentages, etc., for “equality”. This insures women are hired or promoted at standards considered unsatisfactory for men.
What I disagree with is that its a disadvantage. This is actually female advantage, in that women are handed things they don’t earn. If a woman cannot make the standard, that should be the end of it. The fact that women are forced into roles and jobs, objectively they did not earn, makes the complaint of “because you’re a woman” credible. This is not every situation, of course, and it may happen to some women and if so I hope they prove their grit and mettle. Generally speaking if you can do the job, that’s all anyone cares about.
Ambition is usually a male trait. There are ambitious women, but nearly every male is ambitious in some way, while it is less obvious in females. (For this we will ignore hypergamy and the social climbing of women; these are different sorts of ambitions.) Typical ambition drives men to be actively successful, or to scrape their ways to success. Women do start up many small businesses, usually from the home, but they are generally little part time jobs they like to do. Men will start something and drive it to become a large business; women are less inclined and less interested in doing such. Men are also more likely to fail and lose more than women, as they risk more and invest more; feminists like to disregard this point.
16. Female disadvantage is having your body dissected by the media and society, and having immense pressure to live up to an arbitrary and unattainable ideal image of beauty.
I both agree and disagree with this one. The writer and I agree for different reasons I suspect. I’m disgusted with the grotesque display of bodies everywhere. There’s no sense of modesty in our world. Girls dress like hookers, and young women wear skin tight clothes with all their bits jiggling. On a limb, my guess is the feminists see nothing wrong with this, but complain that people look and judge. They create their own monster.
Feminists on one hand whinge about objectifying women and living up to unrealistic standards, then turn around and talk about empowerment, slut walks and “their bodies”. As women have become more “sexually empowered” the more clothes have come off, the more weight has come off and the more demanding the gluttonous media is. Women wanted to keep shortening their skirts, pulling off their sleeves and tantalizing men, because they were “free” and “liberated”.
I agree that being part of a meat market is wrong and disrespectful, but sweetheart, it starts at home first. This disadvantage only goes as far as the individual woman allows it. Women who dress nicely but modestly are not only treated with more respect simply in passing, but are not treated as objects. Being pretty and unpretentious avoids the whole situation. Women make money off their bodies; models, strippers, porn stars, reporters and tv anchors, actresses, waitresses and bar tenders to name a few. The very system feminists complain about let them make money with little labour. What is an advantage to many is a disadvantage to others.
In this case, empowerment belongs in the hands of each woman: isn’t this actual empowerment? Women can choose to unplug from the mass media and not enslave themselves to all these trends. They can choose to reject slut walks or looking like they’re standing on a corner. I agree that the media has a crazed view of beauty they are pushing but one doesn’t have to obey. Most women don’t look like that and everyone knows photoshop and air brushing is used. Few people truly believe women need to appear like supermodels at all times. Surprisingly (not so surprisingly) most men I know dislike makeup and fake parts.
I’ll add that this unattainable perfection affects men, too, but admit it is not to the same level. Fitness magazines push the perfect six or eight pack, chiseled features, hairless bodies, and rippling muscles. Most men also do not look like this. Unlike women, men also do not get private gyms. There are unisex gyms and women only gyms. There are plenty of overweight, obese, untoned, and completely normal average guys in the gym. Many more are too ashamed to even enter, as women intermingle and it is as hard for a fat guy as a fat gal to exercise in front of others. Another trait men are judged on is their height, and there is massive hate for short men out on the internet. Plenty of women, feminists too, rail against short men and mock any male shorter than they for daring to ask them out. (Yes, my husband is shorter than I.) And guys, you’d better have good credit, a good job, your own place, a car, etc., etc. Because women’s eyes turn to looks that aren’t on a man’s body, but in what he possesses. She can judge you for appearances she prefers but no man had ever notice anything physically attractive.
17. Female disadvantage is having to hide the fact that you’re a feminist because it’s seen as a dirty word. Female disadvantage is being told you’re just a harpy nit-picking feminist who is being over-sensitive.
Feminist is a dirty word, because feminists are shrews and harridans. Wanting all the advantages and rights with none of the obligations and responsibilities is simply wrong. Women aren’t forced into compulsory military service, women don’t usually end up paying child support, women don’t have to work dangerous jobs, etc. I would also like to know why it is a female disadvantage to deny feminism. That seems more like a choice, rather than a sex-spanning conundrum. Most women don’t like feminism. Personally, I’m against every wave of feminism. I accept this is an outlier position. Almost every modern anti-feminist thinks the first wave, and even the second, were good. It is this last “third wave feminism” that has so many people – yes people, all sorts of people – pissed off.
Why is hiding feminism female disadvantage? Universities thrive on it. Even the only men’s gender course is run by the women studies people. Women can complain about anything they want, in public, and completely lie (glass ceiling, wage gap), and they are taken seriously. When boys are killed in the world, no one cares, but if girls are kidnapped, it’s a global outrage.
Having to hide feminism and feeling judged is a personal issue; one cannot take legitimate criticism of feminism and dreams it is abundant (victim mentality and martyr syndrome are endemic in today’s society). Everyone proudly proclaims themselves as feminist, or pro girl, or girl power, or whatever else pro-woman they can think up. How this is female disadvantage is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is that when people now bring up feminism, they may be openly critiqued or asked questions. It is no longer taken strictly as gospel all the time. This social heresy makes hard line feminists, I’m extrapolating here, feel very disadvantaged.
It is not disadvantage to be told you’re a harpy and nit picking and being over sensitive, because you are. If you stopped being a whining nag emoting over everything, people would stop saying it to you. It is not female disadvantage to be told off; everyone is told off. Everyone gets annoyed, and everyone pushes too hard and too far at some point. Being told to shut up and sit down isn’t female disadvantage, its an individual issue. I’m not disadvantaged because your feelings were hurt, or because people disagree with you. Nor is any other woman.
18. Female disadvantage is being tossed aside as irrational and arrogant. Female disadvantage is being told “You have it good enough, why keep fighting?”
This one makes me feel like she was really scraping the bottom of her skull for anything after that flop in point seventeen. If you are being irrational and arrogant, than you are going to be told so and, yes, tossed aside. If you are not being irrational and arrogant, than other than all your feelings, where is your proof? If arguing for feminism has people calling you irrational and arrogant, than frankly I agree with them. It has nothing to do with you being a woman, everything to do with you presenting rhetoric, lies and slogans. Neither men or women had great pasts; for most of history men and women worked together, performing different functions, so we could all survive. Women were given the good graces to not have to work outside the home, as breastfeeding, raising toddlers, taking care of a home and garden or farm and making all the food and clothes from scratch was already a full day and night of labour. Why feminists are obsessed with adding a forty hour work week to all the work women already do by their very natures is mind boggling. Unless they really hate women.
Women don’t have it good, in the sense that women able to be women, wives and mothers thrive; they aren’t. Women as materialistic entities “winning” at society, do continue “the fight” and do have it good. They marry men, instigate the majority of divorces, then take everything. They can get jobs they aren’t qualified for, based on legally enforced government quotas. They get the same hourly pay as men, even though they statistically don’t do as much actual work. Everything in schools circles around them. Harming boys and mocking men is celebrated.
Wives and mothers, on the other hand, get shafted. Their husbands struggle to find work in a failing economy flooded with competition from men and women. The government taxes families into poverty, making a family life difficult. (People are staying unmarried or divorcing because they lose less money as separate entities than as a family). The government funds single mothers in daycare, camp, college, after school activities; when she marries, all these are cut off. Families have to pay school taxes even if they home school.
The focus of this drama, has been marriage. Apparently this entire event is on “The Family”, and ways we can change “The Family”. The appearance of it has been on how to accept everything in the secular world. The secular world opposes Christ, scripture and His doctrines through Holy Mother Church. In reality, “The Synod on the Family” would be more accurately rendered “The Synod on Everything Except The Family”. We have the full spectrum of input from special interest groups, Catholics, atheists, the media, cardinals; they all desire a discussion on gay “marital” union, and divorce. The very fact we can even have an evident discussion by prelates purportedly representing God Himself proves the failure of the Modernist Church. No synod was needed, no discussion giving legitimacy to even the bare idea of such heresies and vulgarities.
On the indissolubility of marriage: Mark 10:8-12, Matthew 19:9, Luke 16:18 (all variances on the same verse), 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. [I will add all verses presume the natural law of man and woman marrying, as the purpose is of a sexual nature, thus for the production of offspring; further, Genesis 1:28, 3:16 (the last here is a “proofs in the pudding”, kind of proof).]
If the Church truly cared about her sheep and was a loving Shepherd, that is all we would have needed. No contrivances, no mental games. Instead we are handed two years of garbled doublespeak, permission of sin in the disguise of “mercy” (ignoring Catholic teaching: true mercy is to prevent, or the aid in turning way from, sin), and all sides at the end declaring victory over a muddy, bloody, ruined battlefield where each side has salted the earth. Everyone with a keyboard has said something, every blog and writer (I hesitate to utilize the word journalist) has already commented on all these events. Some have the documents up in English already.
The one no one has spoken of, except in passing in a “women priests” moment before being dropped, is the section on “Women”. Here is the pertinent translation:
27. The woman has a crucial role in the life of the person, the family and society. “Each human person owes his or her life to a mother, and almost always owes her much of his or her very existence, and his or her human and spiritual formation,” (Francis, General Audience, January 7, 2015). The mother guards the memory and the feelings of birth for a lifetime: “But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Lk 2,19.51). It remains true, however, that the status of women in the world is subject to large differences arising primarily from socio-cultural factors. The dignity of women needs to be defended and promoted. It is not simply a problem of resources, but of a different cultural perspective, as highlighted by the plight of women in many emerging countries. In many contexts, still, being a woman provokes discrimination: The gift of motherhood is penalized rather than valued. On the other hand, a woman’s sterility, in some cultures, is a condition that leads to social discrimination. We shouldn’t forget the growing phenomena of violence in which women are victims within the family. The exploitation of women and violence to their bodies are often linked to abortion and forced sterilization. Added to this is the negative consequences of practices related to procreation, such as surrogacy, or the commercialization of gametes and embryos. The emancipation of women requires a rethinking of the tasks of spouses in their reciprocity and a shared responsibility in family life. The desire for a child at any cost has not resulted in happier or stronger family relations, but in many cases has actually exacerbated the inequality between women and men. A greater appreciation of their responsibilities within the Church can contribute to the social recognition of the role of women: their involvement in decision-making, their participation in the government of some institutions, and their involvement in the formation of ordained ministers.
Section 27 was adopted by a vote of 251 to 9.
This is likely the most important part of the entire Synod. Without this, and the gradual climb towards this, no other part of the Synod would even be possible. It will be the most ignored and under rated part of the document. It will go with a few snide remarks, or praise, depending on how much you love or hate the Faith, respectively. However, this is why we are in this situation. The destruction of the family, the allowance of any form of genital union being deemed “marriage”, to the point where the Catholic Church ostensibly had to give it enough credibility to discuss whether it is a sacramental marriage or not, the very idea of divorce whatsoever, the ease of annulments, the allowance of mortal sinners to communion: it all starts here. The entire failure of society begins with our trashing and denigrating of women.
I will be dissecting this paragraph. It shocks me that a base female layperson can see the glaring scriptural theological error within the first few lines, and yet it is delivered by men who are supposed to be learned in the Faith. For shame.
So the word is out! Apparently the church is saved! Yaaaaay.
The very fact any of these things were even spoken about proves how far the church has fallen. This is three steps forward two steps back. Pushing as hard as they can, then “reeling” themselves back in to “be conservative”. It’s a typical, well practised Marxist ploy. Every time, they gain a little ground, and the masses follow.
As for the person chittering about annulments not being Catholic divorce. (These are all USA numbers, not global). Yes, when 338 were given out in 1968, those were annulments, very hard to get. Annulment means the marriage never sacramentally existed, it never happened. Seeing as it is very easy to have a sacramental marriage and almost impossible in church law to have an invalid marriage, the number SHOULD be low. In 1974 it jumped to 28,000. That’s a difference of two things: only 8 -eight- years and Vatican II. Suddenly over 27,000 people could seek civil divorce, saying they were not really “church married”.
This is clearly allowing for divorce.
In 2012 there were 24,010 cases. (1990s had been 2-3x this number, depending on year).
Following trends, as we are wont to do, by making it easier to get an annulment, there will be a massive spike in “annulments”. Ignoring obviously that Christ said no man can pull apart what God has put together.
When we say Catholic divorce, this is what we are saying. People who go get their divorce paperwork done, by the 10s of thousands, and then submit it to the Church, to have it rubber stamped. They are facilitating divorce, even if you want to call it annulment.
An annulment, again, means the marriage NEVER existed. This only happens if you were forced into the marriage, or one of the parties didn’t intend to be married (extremely hard to prove – claims of it after he finds a new love toy, that he never meant it, notwithstanding), or a prenup.
If you are prepared enough that you got a dress, tux, caterers, rented a hall or reception area, sent out invitations, got a priest, did a rehearsal, went shoe shopping, got makeup and hair done, then walked willingly down the aisle and said the vows: you are married. You are married no matter how many civil divorces you have and you are married no matter how much you think you hate each other.
That is scripture, that is church law, and those are Christ’s words.