I would propose liberally applied topic/thread bans for all “but what about the mens?” threadshits.
Err on the side of heavy handed and indiscriminate. There has been enough erring in the other direction.
There’s a middle ground between “hatred” of women and “sincere desire to protect children”. For example, I think a lot of men are just a lot more interested in thing that involve men than things that involve women. It’s like that person at work, that whenever you tell a story, they sorta nod their head and then launch into a tangentially related story about themselves, because they don’t give a shit about you or your story, but it reminded them about themselves and they think everything about themselves is the most interesting thing in the world to everyone. I’m reminded of a time I asked a member of the baseball team why it was the softball team was expected to go to the baseball games, but they boys never went and watched the girls. He said, utterly sincerely, that it was because the girls playing was “boring”. It made sense to him that the girls would want to watch the boys play–that was interesting–but no normal person would want to watch the girls play.
That’s how the FGM threads feel. It reminds men about their own dicks, and once it does, that’s what they want to talk about. FGM is only interesting as a variant on “normal” genital alteration. It’s not burning hatred of women, it’s just thoughtless indifference and dismissal. That’s also a type of misogyny.
Comparisons with male circumcision are unavoidable, because the defenders of FGM will inevitably bring up those comparisons to justify what they’re doing. Any meaningful anti-FGM strategy has to address those arguments instead of evading them.
The way to address them is to point out differences between the two, just like the way to address that animal-rights person would be to point out differences. Different differences, same strategy.
Your “but they’re the SAME!” argument is just gonna hijack.
So you’re just trying to improve the anti-FGM strategy by arguing that women who have had infibulation can still enjoy sex, so let’s talk about how to de-callus the male glans?
That’s very… Thoughtful of you.
True, rape affects more than just women. That said, a thread specifically about the subset of rapes that are men-raping-women, or even women-raping-woman, it entirely appropriate to deal with the issues specific to that group of victims. Likewise, a thread about rape in regards to just children or just men, is also entirely appropriate if handled in a way that acknowledges there’s a greater scope of the crime. I would be the first to say a woman barging into a thread specifically discussing the issues of male rape victims whining “WHAT ABOUT THE WYMYN!!!” would be off-topic, inappropriate, and should be taken to another thread.
Frankly, I think it would be of benefit to men specifically and society in general if there were MORE “safe spaces” for men to discuss the impact of sexual abuse/rape/etc. on them. It has been ignored far too long in our society. Such discussions should be guarded from trolling, jokes, insensitive assholes, and attempts to derail them as much as any other sensitive topic. It has to work both ways though - all groups that want to have a discussion of a specific issue need that safeguard.
Now, not all threads about rape start off so narrowly defined. If it’s a discussion about rape in general then yes, all victims should have a seat at the table.
Ditto racial topics - a discussion of prejudice against people of African descent does NOT need someone coming in to talk about prejudice against people of European descent. And vice versa.
Now, taking that to topics of genital mutilation - if the thread is about FGM in particular then no, beyond acknowledging that there is a topic called “male genital mutilation” it doesn’t belong there. And I, too, am getting tired of comparing infant male circumcision to the extreme forms of FGM because men (and women) should be able to discuss issues around IMC without other people barging in with posts about FGM. If you want to discuss how performing non-medically-necessary surgery on peoples’ genitals without their consent is a Very Bad Terrible Thing regardless of whether they’re male, female, or intersex then start a general topic thread.
The problem is that for this specific topic, some of the people hijacking are close to psychotic about their loss of foreskin and honestly can’t see it as less severe.
Here’s a little test for your all things should be equal: can you find a female poster on the board saying, “meh, my sex life is fine despite my FGM” like what happens every time when male circumcision is brought up? Or would you rather keep this all theoretical rather than discussing reality?
Indeed, in fact in reality there has never been one single defense of the FGM on this board ever, and there is zero reason on this board why the two subjects need cross discussion except for the overdone obsessions of certain owners of penises here who need to localize other problems to their penises.
close to psyochotic, yes.
Well of course there is not any person here to report that from the side of women, although on the side of the men there has been indeed the direct and near-direct reports.
But then I am the closest to this, as it is probable to be the only person with the actual close girlfriends in the real world and not mere internet board talking and posturing who have this experienced, of two senegalese friends of mine who I am close to.
of course if only the mildest form of the female circumcision was the issue, it would never have gotten the attention the anti-FGM has gotten. The reason the movement of the anti-FGM has indeed attracted attention is indeed in a certain zone in the Africa - the Sahel to the Nile to the NE Africa there is indeed a high prevalence of nasty, extreme forms, forms that only by some mentally disturbed lack of balance can be compared in the informed way to the male circumcision.
If a man spoke up about having been raped on an SDMB thread on sexual assault, any attempts to silence him would most likely come from those who regularly doubt and dismiss claims of sexual assault by women. The number of men who’ve been sexually assaulted is quite small compared to the number of female victims, but the doubts and derision they have to face is just as appalling. Many of those doubts come from those who mistakenly believe that the only way a person of* either gender* could possibly be raped is to be overpowered while struggling–and even then, there’d better be a crowd of male and female witnesses.
I certainly hope you’re not trying to characterize those women who come forward about experiencing sexual assault or those Dopers who support them as vicious and blinded by misandry. Naturally those of us who’ve seen accounts of sexual assault mischaracterized, belittled, and dismissed are angry. To distort that justifiable and understandable outrage into misandrous fury would be a particularly disturbing form of misogyny.
Why are you responding to someone who isn’t allowed to post any further in this thread? Doesn’t seem cricket, to me.
I’m curious, how would the OP respond if an intersex individual who had their genitals altered as a baby joined the FGM discussion? Would they be asked to leave and start their own separate thread?
In the FGM pit thread, comparisons with male circumcision dominated the first 16 posts without any defenders of FGM springing up. See post 47.
I’d prefer to direct posters to start their own thread.
I did notice and now that Steophan has started his own thread I request that you post it there. Speaking as a poster. Seriously, let’s set up a quarantine.
Was it part of a ritual traditionally associated with FGM? No? Then start your own thread. Yes? Knock yourself out.
I have low vision, so it takes me a long time to complete a post. I started my reply before the mod imposed the thread-ban. Hope this clears up the confusion.
The best analogy I’ve heard was “Male circumcision is to female genital mutilation as permanently removing a guy’s fingernails vs lopping of a woman’s hands at the wrist.”
Czar and I rarely, if ever, agree. But the constant stupid hijacks deliberately attempting to confuse circumcision with FGM is getting annoying and I support Czar’s proposition to ban these trolls. Even in the Pit, there’s an unspoken rule to stay on topic, however vaguely*
*The recipe treatment being the exception.
:rolleyes:
No–it would be like, in a thread about women who are beheaded, a man comes into complains that their parents gave them a treatment as an infant that left them permanently bald.
If you start castrating and…um…depenising(?) guys, THEN we have a non-stupid basis for comparison with FGM
Can we clarify what is actually being asked? The FGM thread in the Pit isn’t my cuppa tea, but from reading this thread, it seems folks are asking for tighter restrictions on threads being derailed in the Pit? Is that right?
Hoo-boy: that’s a good question.
My take is that folks are asking for tighter restrictions on misogynistic derailments in the Pit. I don’t think Pit thread derailment is a big problem on its own.
Either that, or we’re going to make special rules regarding male circumcision in belated honor of he-who-must-not-be-named-and-I-don’t-mean-Voldomort. I’m referring to the former poster who justly earned this board’s first topic ban.
We’re asking for no more misogynistic derailments, PERIOD. Not just in the Pit.
Also, quite a number of current and former posters have topic bans, so perhaps you’ll be more specific? (JDT?)