type female genital mutilation and infibulation into any search engine and it will give you the info.
FGM has several different versions of it and when discussing it in the past, I have found that identifying what people are actually talking about is helpful. FI the removal of a clitoris, while bad in itself, has nowhere near the effects of a total infibulation.
I just want to mention that the onion article made me fall out of my chair laughing:).
Peace,
Well, I won’t pursue the point anymore about whether or not you were ranting. Clearly, ranting is in the eye of the beholder, and as I noted, we all rant now and then. (I am sure the regulars here have seen my SUV rant before.)
But, I guess I still don’t understand this “feminazi” term. I mean, I know there are a few extreme feminists out there who are truly hostile to men, but I think these are few and far between. (Sort of like right-wing militia types, only probably far rarer.) But, what I often detect in the use of this term is a much more general broadbrushing of whole groups and organizations of people, like Gloria Steinham, NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc. And, it makes me wonder what positions of these people you oppose so vehemently that you not only disagree with them but equate them with Nazis? I mean, I don’t even equate Bork and Rehnquist and company with Nazis, even though the thought of these people in power scares the living shit out of me.
the really thing is that Steinem and NOW are actually quite middle of the road WRT feminism so to see them described as feminazis is a touch bizarre.
::shrug:: Is it a meeting of true minds with peace and grienspace?
Yeah, that was sorta my impression. Hell, I was a member of NOW for a while and am a member of and big contributor to Planned Parenthood still. Does this make me a self-hating male? 
So, does a “feminazi” want to send men to the gas chambers?
Or is it just a term used by people who’d rather not bother with thinking?
Prima, tx. For the life of me, I do not understand the rational behind infibulation: penetration prevention can be achieved through less (non) mutilating procedures. But be as it may, I declared my point of view: we can’t fight the wrong in the world by offering asylum to the victims. Or by invading their countries and showing to them how the things are done. When we did not like our oppressors, we did not flee to Sudan…
Jshore, I guess Prima answered your question. I do not like to call anyone -nazis. I do not think the analogy is here and I do not hate them (if I used the word “hate”, it was a figure of speech). I dislike them and do not approve of their tactics. I do not think that even Rush Limbaugh thinks of them as of Nazis; it is just a catchy term with alliteration ring to it. “Femicookoos” is fine by me, by no ring…
Well, nice rings are one thing…but Nazi is a pretty loaded term. And, I guess my question still stands even with your toned down nickname…What specifically makes Gloria Steinham, or NOW, or Planned Parenthood cookoo (assuming you put each these into that class)?
I’ll probably have to catch your reply after the hoildays. Have a happy one, y’all!!
Jshore, since I said cookoo, I assume that you ask me, although I’d appreciate a salutation, even P for Peace. So I definitely know that my balls are twisted. And what do you mean “toned down nickname”?
Peace
< Stepping out of the way so I don’t accidentally get hit in the barrage that’s about to come peace’s way from the many “fragile” women out there. >
Peace
::yawn::
DNFTT
Okay, hold your horses, everybody, I think I detected the kernel of an actual debate topic here.
It seems to me that perhaps ultimately this is his point, and that all the extra stuff about feminists being too quick to jump on the bandwagon is just the icing on the cake. Does anybody want to debate this?
Maybe something like: “We were far too quick to offer this Ghanaian woman asylum, just because she was (a) female, (b) black, and © was using a bizarre sex-related excuse to get into the country. Just because her native culture has things in it she doesn’t like, is no reason we should be so quick to allow her in. We don’t allow other non-black, non-female, non-potentially-bizarrely-sexually mutilated people in nearly so fast.”
Is that it? I’m losing track–is this two topics?
Heaven only knows why I read this thread in the first place, but I did and (as you well know) here is what I found…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by peace *
For instance, I do not believe that woman’s place is in the battlefield.
[QUOTE]
Is this an egg-nog-induced delusion, thought I? A deja-vu? Or has Peace not had enough joy yet defending his deranged views on testacles and race in the Pit thread?
***"But if some tomboy wants to spend her live in baggy uniform among males, I say OK! I’d look the other way. ***
Gosh, I said, that’s awfully big of him.
***“But battlefield or firefighting are male fields. Not because I am arrogant and I do not women to share the glamour. Because it is my nature. I will not start a barfight, but I will hit back any man who hits me. I will never hit back any woman who hits me. [etc. etc.]” ***
Hmmmmmm, I pondered. Could it be that Peace has not yet heard that women have been serving in the military, in fire departments all over the country, and on police forces for more than a decade now?
I wracked my fragile brains in vain. Finally, struck by a tidal wave of feminine intuition, it dawned on me! Peace’s self-styled “nature” was unveiled to me.
<clears throat…>
Peace, my dear, you may well believe that you are a Real Man ™: ruled by chromosomes, dripping in testoterone, and hard-wired not to lift a hand against an axe-wielding drunkard with a clitoris. But the truth is, Peace, this is nothing but a front. What I truly believe is that you are basically a masochist looking for free thrills under the cover of intellectual debate.
Your typical MO is to join in a thread about genitalia (any sex will do) and then provoke people into verbally abusing you. If people do not bite (ignoring your attempts at PC-baiting), you up the ante with sure-fire hooks such as “Feminazi” and–that old Victorian standby–“a woman’s place.” As the repartee ensues your typing becomes increasingly incoherent, forcing me to wonder what exactly you are doing. (Please don’t say.)
Peace, I’m pretty tolerant when it comes to human sexuality; the Internet is full of people with far stranger predilections than yours. But as a feminist with many vigorous political interests I dislike wasting my energy with someone who could easily be reading a magazine.
DDG may well be right. Somewhere behind your “Please abuse me” pattern there may well be a bona fide interest in US asylum policy. But what I see is a salacious love of mentioning genitals mixed with the worst case of hoof-in-mouth disease in cyberspace. This cannot be a coincidence, IMO.
Duck, your post looks to me like you propose: “Let’s create separate laws for blacks and whites, for males and females, for FSM escapees and other mutilation escapees, for strait and gay people…” What are your other categories? I suggested discussing the entire asylum problem, without ever mentioning categories, other than political vs. non-political. Sex, race, etc., were introduced by you. I suspect that you would like to see separate laws for U.S. women, but I can’t act on my suspicions. I’ll wait till you say it out loud.
Mandelstam:For instance, I do not believe that woman’s place is in the battlefield.
Is this an egg-nog-induced delusion, thought I?
No, that is not. It is called “belief”. A “delusion” is something different. I believe that you are intelligent enough to look up the difference yourself.
I tried to explain my reasons (although beliefs, by definition, do not have to be reasoned. I can do more explaining, if anyone is interested.
Hmmmmmm, I pondered. Could it be that Peace has not yet heard that women have been serving in the military, in fire departments all over the country, and on police forces for more than a decade now?
I have, but that is a very strange and irrational way to argue. The fact that something was accepted, does not make it right in and by itself. E.g., the Prohibition was the law for many years and it was then repealed.
I am not for legally prohibiting women to be soldiers or firefighters. I am against double standards and double sets of laws: one for men and one for women. Right now, there is not a single law written specifically for men and women. I cannot quote all laws to prove it. I will quote one:http://law.richmond.edu/linc/adact.htm, which is the ADA. If you know of any, please quote. There is no law prohibiting women to do anything they want to. If FD regulations say that no one is admitted who cannot do 25 pushups, it is not because women are to be excluded. It is because the authorities want only strong individuals there, capable of handling ladders, etc. All disqualified men are not admitted either.
Yet you and your ilk want everyone to be equal, but then you want separate rules for women, i.e. you want them to be more equal. Surprisingly, I **believe[/b/ that women are more equal. For instance, they may need larger bathrooms that those prickly men. I do not think, though, that it is a legislative issue. Larger women’s departments are already in place in all department stores. I never heard of men protesting violation of their rights, although it costs them plenty (literally).
Peace, my dear, you may well believe that you are a Real Man ™:
Your typical MO is to join in a thread about genitalia (any sex will do) and then provoke people into verbally abusing you
This thread looks to you like it is about genitalia. You saw “clitoral” and entered. I started this thread as an expose’ of a snafu. Then I was asked to explain my views on political asylum, FGM, feminism, Hillarious, S. Sarandon. The mods did not mind, and I did. Now I am accused of what I did at public’s request. “The public”, in the meantime, ranted, yawned and shrugged (at least, Primaflora did) but did not debate my points. Except this: Grienpiece introduced “feminazi” and I am accused of using it. After I said that I did not like the moniker myself.
Outraged Peace
First of all I want to apologize for introducing the “F” word to this thread. Rather than using this word as a derogotory insult, which I never considered as such, I thought the exageration would lend it self to some levity in the spirit that I took the openning post to be. Furthermore’ I wanted to ingratiate myself to Peace with a politically incorrect phrase before refocusing on what I believed was a serious problem. I agree with Mandelstam’s assessment of Peace’s motivation but I also believe that Peace’s biggest problem is with political correctness with which I agree also.
I was surprised at the reaction that the “f” word got, but amused by the way respondants continually attributed this word to Peace. Although from the very beginning, Peace subtly disavowed introducing the word, no one seemed to pay attention. I was somewhat embarrassed but noticed that until his last post he did nothing more to set the record straight.
Thank you, Grienspace! You are not responsible for SDoppers confusion: after all, they are against me a priori and many of them are drinking…
That Femi*&%# episode confirms two things:
Frustrated, but satisfied Peace
No. That is NOT what I was proposing. The meaning of my post was, “This is what I think Peace wants to debate.” I was trying to summarize what I thought you were trying to say.
I do NOT agree with ANY of the statements above. I do NOT want to see separate laws, etc. I do not particularly care about the subject of this thread, other than trying to clear up a TON of confusion.
What exactly is it that you want to debate? This is your thread.
And what in the world do the Jews have to do with this? 
Peace, darling, I don’t know if it’s even possible to take you seriously. Every time I turn around, in whatever thread, post after post you escalate the lunacy with strange statements, non sequiters, and incoherent sentences. “Bake a cake with isopropyl alcohol,” you say. “Now you see why Jews are blamed for all sins.” What?!? I might be able to dig a decent point or two out of your posts if I really went searching, but I’m not really sure what you’re trying to debate. You relate so many broad issues into one discussion, with no clear unifying question.
As for the thread at hand, no, the U.S. can’t harbor every single victim of atrocities in the world. There isn’t room for that many people. The issue of the U.S.'s global role is a sticky one. Is that what you are debating? Or is it something about feminists and firefighters?
Well, considering all you did was link to an article and say, in essence, “Let’s debate,” such ambiguity is to be expected.
OK, Ducky, let’s clear the confusion.
Again, initially, I posted the press release to show how dangerous political myopia might become. Where totals mistrust of the government might lead. How important it is to first check and recheck one’s facts before bringing serious accusations. Etc., etc., etc. There are many lessons to be learned, by anyone. Admittedly, it was not a major piece, but I do not like that group and wanted that mishap to be known.
Fellow SDopers, yourself included, brought many peripheral points, including general political asylum issues. You accused me of something I never said and believed in. To give you an example:
If I learn that some Scottish boys were admitted to this country because they faced penile knotting practiced in Scotland by religious fanatics to prevent masturbation, I’d said: I am sympathetic with Scottish boys, and with Ghanaian girls, but we cannot admit them all sufferers in the world. Let these peoples take care of themselves.
If you want to discuss non-political asylum, open a new thread, and invite me.
Peace