Sexism agianst men. does it exist?

[pepperbird]

5 minutes ago, Piddy said:

I'll answer your question again.  Yes I'm sure sexism against men exists, but pales in comparison to what women face in all areas of society.  Sexual assault / sexual harassment /domestic abuse / salaries, pay etc. / CEO and other upper management positions etc..

Women just are not treated the same.  Misogyny is a real thing and women can't even act like a man would or they're called a bitch.  There's a huge double standard with how women are treated.

So again, this thread is like the Anti White Prejudice thread in that the much bigger problem lies with who doesn't hold the power.  Has it gotten better?  Yes.  But there's a long way to go.  Unfortunately it's still a mans world for the most part.

 

 

and again, I will ask you- why do you frame it as an either/ or proposition. Why does saying that there's issues that impact men that do not receive the same attention as they do in women take anything away from women? I ask that as a female. I really do not understand it.
 

[pepperbird]

10 hours ago, Prudence V said:

Not remotely, from a medical point of view. Male circumcision is basically a cosmetic procedure, involving the removal of some extraneous foreskin. 
 

Female “circumcision” (ie FGM) is a functional destruction of female external genitalia. It involves the excision of the clitoris, aimed at preventing women from orgasm, and the removal of one set of labia and the sewing together of the other set, to close up the vagina. In some cases a tiny opening is left to allow menses to pass through when the girl reaches puberty, but in other cases, not. 
 

The explicit aim is to control female sexuality, to prevent girls / women enjoying sex and having sex. When a girl / woman marries, her husband slices open her vagina with a weapon, so that he can have sex with her. 
 

Male circumcision and FGM are worlds apart which is why the terminology changed for FGM, to show that it wasn’t the frivolous procedure that male circumcision is and that any equivalence was false. 
 

Circumcision or any cosmetic procedure (like piercing a baby girl’s ears) on an infant, or anyone else without their informed consent is wrong, IMV, but equating a minor procedure like male circumcision with life altering, life threatening FGM is disingenuous. 

you might want to read this article, as it either refutes many of your points, or at least provides food for thought
a few gleanings-

"The moveable skin facilitates sexual pleasure. In fact, the foreskin is typically the most sensitive area of the penis." so your "it's just a bit of foreskin" really minimizes what's going on

it's also surgery without consent, and goes against the dictum of  "do no harm". According to the article, which cites a wide selection of academic studies,

 

Circumcision can cause skin bridges, haemorrhaging, infection, as well as major penile damage,.

Dozens of case studies describe severe complications, including penile amputations and death; several infant deaths have been reported in the past few years.

A Canadian Coroner’s report, issued in 2007 following the death of a baby in Ontario, recommended the Canadian Paediatric Society conduct a surveillance study on complications.

The most detailed assessment of circumcision complications cites meatitis (affecting 8% to 31% of those circumcised), infection (affecting between 0.4% and 10%, age varying) and many other severe complications.

A more recent British literature survey estimates complications, including infection and hemorrhage, at rates as high as 10%.

Are you still going to claim it's benign and just a bit of extraneous tissue?

(source:https://theconversation.com/unethical-and-harmful-the-case-against-circumcising-baby-boys-1543 )

[Els]

Male circumcision and FGM are obviously not even in the same COUNTRY, let alone the same ballpark. If FGM was just removal of the clitoral hood it would be, but almost all FGM cases involves lopping off literally the entire clitoris (and sometimes also labia), and that's essentially the definition of FGM. Definitely not the same thing as removing foreskin, it would be more analogous to chopping off the boy's penis and balls, which I hope we would all be equally horrified by.

But I don't think that should minimize the fact that people really need to stop chopping off their infant sons' foreskins without their consent. Just let him make the decision when he's old enough to decide.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Elswyth

[OatsAndHall]

10 hours ago, elaine567 said:

I guess it is because the male is considered to have the power.
Male students can hold power over female teachers.
Height, weight, pure physical strength and the entitlement that comes with just being male = power. 

 

No. Male students are not viewed as holding any "power" over their female teachers. Their part in it is far more simple; people don't listen to a male student ether because a) they're a difficult student and/or b) female teachers simply carry more credibility in this department. There is a seriously flawed and disturbing underlying thought process that male teachers are attracted to their female students in some manner. Here's a delightful example of the contradiction:

I had a female student that apparently had a crush on me; something that I wasn't aware of but that other students were. Apparently they were making fun of her for it outside of my class.. She started acting out in my class and her grades fell off sharply. I tried to talk to her about her behavior and grades in the hallway (in front of a camera and another teacher) and she refused. She went home and told her parents that I tried to force her to talk to me in my room and they were furious. They were after me even after seeing the video footage and hearing from the teacher that witnessed the exchange. It was at a non-unionized private school and I had to threaten to get a lawyer for them to back off. And, it never should have gotten to that point as I had done NOTHING inappropriate.

In that same school, a female teacher gym teacher grabbed a male high school student by the arm and dragged him into her office after he called her a "stupid b-tch". As per her own admission, she became borderline verbally abusive towards the student before shipping him to the administration's office. She admitted to putting her hands on him and also to swearing at him. The parents were brought in and their response wasn't all that surprising: they admonished the male student for his actions and let the female teacher off of the hook. She ended up with a write-up in her file over the situation but that was the end of it.

Again, my situation NEVER should have gotten that far as the administration should have shut mom and dad down as soon as they saw the hallway video and heard what the witness had to say. I ended up in no less than FOUR meetings with the administration and the parents as the girl would pull the "he's got a thing for me" card every time I disciplined her for acting out in my room. Had I put my hands on her, I would've been fired and the police would've been called. Funny how that didn't happen with the female teacher.

[Prudence V]

1 hour ago, pepperbird said:

it's also surgery without consent, and goes against the dictum of  "do no harm".

addressed that earlier:

 

12 hours ago, Prudence V said:

Circumcision or any cosmetic procedure (like piercing a baby girl’s ears) on an infant, or anyone else without their informed consent is wrong, IMV, but equating a minor procedure like male circumcision with life altering, life threatening FGM is disingenuous. 

 

[Prudence V]

2 hours ago, pepperbird said:

I thought about this a bit more. You are framing it at cultural, so somehow it's acceptable or at least, you explain it.
The same is true for FGM. It's cultural, so why is one cultural practice terrible, awful and worthy of condemnation but the other is okay?
 

As I stated very clearly, IMV any cosmetic (or non-necessary) procedure carried out on an infant or any one else with out their informed consent, is wrong. If adult (or old enough to consent, since they’re not considered “adult” until after initiation) men choose to under circumcision, that is their choice and should be respected. That is very very different from young girls being forcibly mutilated against their will. 
 

Also, as I pointed out in another post (that contains live links to proper evidence, so hasn’t appeared yet), all Health and Human Rights bodies like the WHO, UN, UNICEF etc condemn FGM and state it has no redeeming features whatsoever, while the WHO itself recommended male circumcision in some circumstances to combat the spread of HIV, the NHS describes it as a “minor procedure” and the Mayo Clinic recommends it for certain conditions. 
 

Very, very different situations. 

[Piddy]

2 hours ago, pepperbird said:

and again, I will ask you- why do you frame it as an either/ or proposition. Why does saying that there's issues that impact men that do not receive the same attention as they do in women take anything away from women? I ask that as a female. I really do not understand it.
 

It's just not the same magnitude.  Therefore I find it hard for me to have the same strong opinion as I do for what women face.

[Ellener]

6 hours ago, pepperbird said:

Frivolous? Why do you feel qualified to decide that?

Genitally mutilating any infant- I am quite happy to judge that as misguided. We shouldn't be doing these things in 2020. For backward traditional values.

It shouldn't be a child's early experience of the world to have someone change their genitalia, what the hell are people thinking. Anyone who needs a medical procedure or wants to change their gender it can be done later, when the person is old enough to understand what's happening to them or decide for themself.

If men are routinely experiencing their earliest memories as being mutilated, that is probably the worst form of sexism there is. They were born perfect!

 

[pepperbird]

2 hours ago, Prudence V said:

As I stated very clearly, IMV any cosmetic (or non-necessary) procedure carried out on an infant or any one else with out their informed consent, is wrong. If adult (or old enough to consent, since they’re not considered “adult” until after initiation) men choose to under circumcision, that is their choice and should be respected. That is very very different from young girls being forcibly mutilated against their will. 
 

Also, as I pointed out in another post (that contains live links to proper evidence, so hasn’t appeared yet), all Health and Human Rights bodies like the WHO, UN, UNICEF etc condemn FGM and state it has no redeeming features whatsoever, while the WHO itself recommended male circumcision in some circumstances to combat the spread of HIV, the NHS describes it as a “minor procedure” and the Mayo Clinic recommends it for certain conditions. 
 

Very, very different situations. 

actually, studies have shown that there is no corresponding benefit when it comes to HIV. That;s an old myth that has been debunked.
 in norht america, most circumscriptions of males is done on infants. I suppose some adults choose to do it, but if that's what they want to do, it's their business, it mine.

[pepperbird]

1 hour ago, Ellener said:

Genitally mutilating any infant- I am quite happy to judge that as misguided. We shouldn't be doing these things in 2020. For backward traditional values.

It shouldn't be a child's early experience of the world to have someone change their genitalia, what the hell are people thinking. Anyone who needs a medical procedure or wants to change their gender it can be done later, when the person is old enough to understand what's happening to them or decide for themself.

If men are routinely experiencing their earliest memories as being mutilated, that is probably the worst form of sexism there is. They were born perfect!

 

and that is exactly the point i was making. I'm no world expert, but I don'[t know of many cultures anymore where adult men or even boys are routinely circumcised, although it used to be common in some cultures, often done in conditions that are every bit as unsanitary as they were for girls.
 

[basil67]

8 hours ago, pepperbird said:

to be honest, all you have to do is look at some of the posts in this thread to see why you don't hear more about it.

 

I don't ever recall us supporting a man who felt his or his children's life was at risk.   Refuges aren't for women escaping a nasty man, they are for women who need to be safe.

[Weezy1973]

As noted, women are way more passionate about male circumcision than men are. Men generally really love their penis, circumcised or not. Maybe some wish it were a tad bigger. 

[pepperbird]

2 hours ago, Piddy said:

It's just not the same magnitude.  Therefore I find it hard for me to have the same strong opinion as I do for what women face.

Actually, if one views a group as not having power, when it comes to  family law, the deck is stacked in favour of women.

[Ellener]

10 minutes ago, pepperbird said:

and that is exactly the point i was making. I'm no world expert, but I don'[t know of many cultures anymore where adult men or even boys are routinely circumcised, although it used to be common in some cultures, often done in conditions that are every bit as unsanitary as they were for girls.
 

Well I think it's pretty much universal in the US.

[basil67]

15 minutes ago, pepperbird said:

actually, studies have shown that there is no corresponding benefit when it comes to HIV. That;s an old myth that has been debunked.
 in norht america, most circumscriptions of males is done on infants. I suppose some adults choose to do it, but if that's what they want to do, it's their business, it mine.

Looking at the posts from men in the US, they seem to generally support it.   One could argue that it's unnecessarily or even harmful, but it's not sexist if the fathers are getting what they want for their sons.

[pepperbird]

8 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

As noted, women are way more passionate about male circumcision than men are. Men generally really love their penis, circumcised or not. Maybe some wish it were a tad bigger. 

um, you might want to do some looking. I've found lots of sites filled with men who are angry. I've included some links in a post above, but it's stuck in moderation for now.

Edited July 30, 2020 by pepperbird

[Weezy1973]

19 minutes ago, pepperbird said:

um, you might want to do some looking. I've found lots of sites filled with men who are angry. I've included some links in a post above, but it's stuck in moderation for now.

You can find sites with people angry about everything and anything. And to be clear, I’m not defending circumcision, in fact I think it’s unnecessary. It’s just the vast majority of men don’t care whether or not they were circumcised. 

[schlumpy]

15 hours ago, OatsAndHall said:

Again, my situation NEVER should have gotten that far as the administration should have shut mom and dad down as soon as they saw the hallway video and heard what the witness had to say. I ended up in no less than FOUR meetings with the administration and the parents as the girl would pull the "he's got a thing for me" card every time I disciplined her for acting out in my room. Had I put my hands on her, I would've been fired and the police would've been called. Funny how that didn't happen with the female teacher.

You put your finger right on it because that's where the failure is in upper administration and your only realistic response is to protect yourself by being less effective within the work place.

[pepperbird]

10 hours ago, enigma32 said:

@pepperbirdthe reason you are getting so much flack for your arguments is because most of the people replying to you seem to only see people being part of some identity group, not as an individual. So, if you come to them with a story about an individual man that is victim to an individual woman, they won't see them as you do. In their case, tough luck for the man because they feel that women in general are victims, women in general are being oppressed. To be fair, women are more often victims of physical abuse as far as I can tell. But then, I also think we need to stop seeing people as a representative of some identity group and see them as individuals. That would get rid of a lot of sexism/racism/every other ism. 

true enough.

[Prudence V]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:39 PM, pepperbird said:

A woman who is being physically abused had choices. She can reach out to local domestic violence shelters, access government programming and services etc.

I’m not sure what the relevance of this is to what I asked, and the original point. It wasn’t a situation of domestic abuse. He was gang raped. There are no shelters for survivors of gang rape any gender that I know of, in any country I’ve lived in. 
 

On the subject of shelters for domestic violence survivors though - there is only one in my home city, which has a population of millions. That shelter is run by an NGO, funded by donations from the public. Since the overwhelming majority of cases of domestic violence are committed on women and children, the shelter serves them. It has room for about 20 women and children in total. The state recognises GBV to be a serious problem, but there are too many other funding priorities - so no new services have been provided, for any gender. But if there were, it would be for the are of greatest need, which is currently women and children. 

[Prudence V]

On 7/30/2020 at 10:27 PM, pepperbird said:

actually, studies have shown that there is no corresponding benefit when it comes to HIV. That;s an old myth that has been debunked.

From current advice from the World Health Organisation:

 

Quote

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. 

The page can be found at: https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

[Prudence V]

On 7/30/2020 at 6:30 PM, pepperbird said:

you might want to read this article, as it either refutes many of your points

Actually, it doesn’t refute any of my points. 

It makes the claim that the studies that evidence a reduction of 50-60% in female-to-male HIV transmission have not been able to be reproduced - but the “evidence” it links to support this is a “site not found” cobweb link, ie no evidence. 
 

It makes claims that there have been complications in infants who have been circumcised - again, I have nowhere claimed that *any* non-essential procedures should be carried out on infants, or non-consenting adults, nor that such procedures never carry any risks. So insofar as this “refutes” anything, it refutes points I didn’t make, so is at best irrelevant. 
 

It claims that the removal of the foreskin may reduce men’s sexual pleasure. Are you seriously claiming equivalence between a *possible* reduction in a man’s sexual pleasure, to the complete inability of a woman to have sex (in cases if full FGM, including infibulation), or the complete, or almost complete, inability to experience orgasm (If only clitoridectomy is performed) in women? If so, that’s pretty serious misogyny right there - a possible reduction in some sexual pleasure for a man completely outweighing the ability to have sex at all for a woman. Wow. I never thought I’d hear such an argument from someone professing to support feminism. 
 

[Prudence V]

On 7/30/2020 at 10:31 PM, pepperbird said:

I'm no world expert, but I don'[t know of many cultures anymore where adult men or even boys are routinely circumcised

Then allow me to enlighten you. Jewish boys are still routinely circumcised, by licensed moyls, in very sanitary conditions. Muslim boys likewise. 
 

Quote

Globally, 30% of men are circumcised, mostly for religious reasons. In many African societies, male circumcision is carried out for cultural reasons, particularly as an initiation ritual and a rite of passage into manhood. The procedure herein referred to as traditional male circumcision is usually performed in a non-clinical setting by a traditional provider with no formal medical training. When carried out as a rite of passage into manhood, traditional male circumcision is mainly performed on adolescents or young men. The self-reported prevalence of traditional male circumcision varies greatly between eastern and southern Africa, from 20% in Uganda and southern African countries to more than 80% in Kenya.

from https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/09-072985/en/

 

[pepperbird]

4 hours ago, Prudence V said:

Then allow me to enlighten you. Jewish boys are still routinely circumcised, by licensed moyls, in very sanitary conditions. Muslim boys likewise. 
 

from https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/12/09-072985/en/

 

again, that could be a function of where you're from.
 

[pepperbird]

4 hours ago, Prudence V said:

Actually, it doesn’t refute any of my points. 

It makes the claim that the studies that evidence a reduction of 50-60% in female-to-male HIV transmission have not been able to be reproduced - but the “evidence” it links to support this is a “site not found” cobweb link, ie no evidence. 
 

It makes claims that there have been complications in infants who have been circumcised - again, I have nowhere claimed that *any* non-essential procedures should be carried out on infants, or non-consenting adults, nor that such procedures never carry any risks. So insofar as this “refutes” anything, it refutes points I didn’t make, so is at best irrelevant. 
 

It claims that the removal of the foreskin may reduce men’s sexual pleasure. Are you seriously claiming equivalence between a *possible* reduction in a man’s sexual pleasure, to the complete inability of a woman to have sex (in cases if full FGM, including infibulation), or the complete, or almost complete, inability to experience orgasm (If only clitoridectomy is performed) in women? If so, that’s pretty serious misogyny right there - a possible reduction in some sexual pleasure for a man completely outweighing the ability to have sex at all for a woman. Wow. I never thought I’d hear such an argument from someone professing to support feminism. 
 

never mind. you and I won't see eye to eye on this.