And the shaming works, does it? Or is it a waste of time, tending to undermine your inference? Perhaps it works in shutting someone up, sometimes, although it seems not to have worked in this instance. But if shutting someone up, rather than educating them or any other reader with facts and logic, is a ‘win’ then I’m inclined to dismiss your alternative inference.
Perhaps the same folks (hint: no one) who said that anyone criticizing feminists were misogynists.
I took your inclusion of genital mutilation as a ‘women’s issue’, earlier, to indicate an ignorance of the issue of MGM, but perhaps I misunderstood your point?
Woman haters and right wingers, apparently, though you may have noticed she ‘criticised’ feminism herself, artfully blurring the various values of ‘criticise’. There’s a lot of that kind of dishonesty going on here, but that’s no surprise when ‘criticising’ a dishonest philosophy.
It occurs to me to wonder how many feminists accept that one can desire, and actively work towards, gender equality without being a feminist?
I generally prefer not to get into this line-by-line sniping exchanges, they’re rarely initiated with any intent of honest debate.
You do it, up there, and down there.
Yes, you did (and note that I never used the phrase “women’s issue”, these are human issues, which is my point!). To recap: LinusK repeated his hypothesis that “humans are genetically and evolutionarily conditioned to put the safety, concerns, and well-being of women above those of men.”
I listed a variety of aspects of human society which wouldn’t exist if his hypothesis were true. Among them was the cultural practice of mutilating female genitals, so as to deny them control of the their own sexuality.
Should I have included a footnote, to the effect that many males are subjected to a milder form of genital mutilation, which doesn’t impair functionality (barring infection and the like) and isn’t intended to, but is still objectionable? I don’t think so. The procedures are sufficiently distinct, and male circumcision sufficiently unrelated to my point.
What about suggesting that my opinions are uneducated, the result of “swallowing whole the ahistorical claims of feminists” and being unaware that women are capable of deceit? That I’m not “the sort to confuse [myself] with facts”?
What does that do for honest debate?
You’re mistaken.
Yeah, sometimes. Some people are as immune to shame as they are to facts, of course.
And some immune to shame while adherent to facts, of course. Some immune to facts but easily shamed, and so on. What a wonderfully diverse world we share. Meanwhile, if someone is actually ‘immune to facts [and logic]’ (rather than just disputing the ‘facts’ and arguing the ‘logic’, regardless of whether a feminist deployed them), what is the value you perceive in shutting them up through shaming?
(Some of) your opinions are uneducated. I would hope that pointing it out would improve honest debate by motivating you to educate yourself. The other comments you’ve collected fall into the same category.
I am not.
Gosh, your pointless and unsupported assertion (which does nothing for honest debate) has been skilfully countered by one exactly like it. You’ll excuse me if I refrain from getting tangled up with your arguments again.
That’d be more persuasive if you could point out any errors in what I wrote. Smugness isn’t a substitute for an argument.
Again, tell me the ahistorical claim in question. Am I supposed to be able to read your mind, or divine the answer, or what?
How exactly am I supposed to “support” my assertion that folks in this thread haven’t swallowed “ahistorical claims of feminists”, when I have no idea what claim you’re talking about?
In short: show me some of that honest debate you supposedly value.
Thank you.
I don’t know about the particular case you all are discussing, and I don’t have time to get into the facts of it right now.
But there is something that I think is often missing, when people talk about the issue of rape.
Sexual assault is a very serious allegation, perhaps the second most serious crime, after murder. In a case in the next county over from me, for example, a woman was sentenced to 23 years in prison, and lost custody of her children, after having sex with a teenage boy. In that particular case, she I’m pretty sure she was guilty. Aside from the fact that a jury found her guilty, she kept on writing love letters to the boy, from jail, while her case was pending. (Note to people in jail: yes, they do open your letters.) But the point is, the consequences of getting convicted are devastating. (Even the consequences of getting arrested are a living nightmare.)
Anyway, the bit that often seems to be missing is the US Constitution, which, among other things, guarantees a person the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to confront any witnesses against her, and requires the state (the prosecutor) to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. There is also a constitutional doctrine that says:
There is nothing, on the other hand, that says an accuser has the right to be believed, or the right not to be cross-examined, or the right **not **to be questioned about his or her story.
There are very good reasons behind these laws, one of which is the difficulty of proving a negative. In a criminal context, what that means is that it is very often difficult or impossible to prove you didn’t do something you didn’t do.
I haven’t studied the recent laws in NY and California, but from what little I’ve read of the news stories about them (which may or may not be accurate) they appear to be attempts to unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof to the defendant, and to violate the fundamental right of due process, which prohibits a law that is “so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application”.
It may be I’m wrong about that. If I am, I’ll happily retract what I’ve said about them.
But the demand to ensure that every actual rapist goes to prison is not a reason to fuck up the constitution, or to strip away the rights of the innocently accused.
As you are the one who appears to fail to grasp the facts, your non-answer is no better than his short one, except that it takes longer to read.
Circumcision may be argued for its pros and cons, however, your claim was that FGM was “on a par with” circumcision. This demonstrates a remarkable amount of ignorance. There is, generally, one form of circumcision that may be more or less traumatic depending on when it is performed and whether or not anesthesia is employed. FGM ranges across a an entire spectrum of actions from merely nicking a side of the vagina to draw a single drop of blood, (hardly “on a par” with circumcision), up to infibulation and citoridectomy that are definitely not “on a par” with circumcision.
If all you can do is try to chastise another poster without providing any serious information of your own, you are not really supporting the discussion and would do well to sit it out.
Cluttering up a thread with numerous short responses is really no different than the line-by-line posting style, except that it takes up more space to scroll through all the text.
If a person is going to continue making arguments that are counter to logic and facts, then at least one benefit of “shutting them up through shaming” is to keep them from continuing to spew ignorance all over the place.
It is its own reward.
You are mistaken. Here, some serious facts for you: Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: should there be a separate ethical discourse?
From that University of Oxford link:
"One frequent claim is that FGM is analogous to “castration” or a “total penectomy,” such that any sort of comparison between it and male circumcision is entirely inappropriate (see this paper for further discussion). Some other common arguments are these:
Female genital mutilation and male circumcision are totally different. FGM is necessarily barbaric and crippling (“always torture,” according to Tanya Gold), whereas male circumcision is no big deal. Male circumcision is a “minor” intervention that might even confer health benefits, whereas FGM is a drastic intervention with no health benefits, and only causes harm. The “prime motive” for FGM is to control women’s sexuality (cf. Shermer in the tweets above); it is inherently sexist and discriminatory and is an expression of male power and domination. Male circumcision, by contrast, has nothing to do with controlling male sexuality – it’s “just a snip” and in any case “men don’t complain.” FGM eliminates the enjoyment of sex, whereas male circumcision has no meaningful effects on sexual sensation or satisfaction. It is perfectly reasonable to oppose all forms of female genital cutting while at the same time accepting or even endorsing infant male circumcision.
Yet almost every one of these claims is untrue, or is severely misleading at best. Such views derive from a superficial understanding of both FGM and male circumcision; and they are inconsistent with the latest critical scholarship concerning these and related practices. Their constant repetition in popular discourse, therefore—including by those like Shermer with a large and loyal audience base—is unhelpful to advancing moral debate."
I believe my ‘numerous’ (more than one? what loaded words you choose) short responses that ‘clutter’ (are pro-feminist posters with as many or more posts also ‘cluttering’? what loaded words you choose…) the thread have been to different posters, or at worst different posts. It’s qualitatively different to the line-by-line style, as well as being more honest.
Sorry to ‘clutter’ up the place again, but I just realised you’d said:
Actually, or let us say, factually, my claim was “some MGM is as traumatic and dangerous as some FGM, and that most FGM is very much on a par with the routine circumcision of american male babies”.
I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to whether you misrepresented me intentionally or accidentally, nor would I stoop to asking you. Amusingly (at least to me), that very post continued with these words:
“but you don’t seem the sort to confuse yourself with facts.”
I did not misrepresent what you said. Your weasel words notwithstanding, your claim, was wrong and the article to which you linked to support your claim supported my observation, not yours. That the author has a personal objection to all of such actions and chooses to lump them all together on his personal scale of ethics does not actually put them on a par with each other in terms of physical actions. Until you provide the numbers for each type of action and the numbers for the conditions under which each is performed, you have no basis on which to claim most FGM is “on a par with” circumcision as practiced in North America. And, since you did not provide any facts to support your initial claim until called on it, my observation that your post was simply a long-winded version of the other poster’s stands.
San Diego State University.
University of California, San Diego.
University of California, Riverside.
San Diego Comic-Con.
Other regional science fiction conventions, including Westercon, Worldcon, North American Science Fiction Convention, the Fantasy Convention, etc.
San Diego County Democratic Club.
San Diego Museum and Zoo membership meetings.
Southern California is VERY richly represented with good people (also a few dipshits.)
Yes ya did, your weasel words notwithstanding. No it wasn’t. No it doesn’t. No he doesn’t and no he didn’t.
Is it your status as moderator that leads you to believe your reading of that article is more valid than mine? Or you just arguing for the sake of holding up the biased and fact-lite feminist position on genital mutilation?
I am impressed, though, with your ability to speed read a scholarly treatise and follow up all the links and references. Oh no, hang on, you clearly didn’t. You just threw up a quick and dirty ‘Nothing to see here!’ in case anybody else was tempted to educate themselves.
Your final point eludes me, but I’ve better things to do than endeavour to address what appears to be a claim that I heinously wrote something that was a bit like something someone else had said (I was certainly unaware of any stringent requirement to offer only wholly new content). You are right, though, that I didn’t ‘clutter’ my post with that entire article (would that even be permissible? It’s commonly not, in this sort of arena. I’m still struggling with the rules on ‘cluttering’ anyway). You’re also correct that I only posted the facts (thanks for that ;)) when asked for them. Do you have any facts supporting your claims?