Feminism

[Skybringr]

The simple fact of the matter is that minimal, appropriated FGM is no different then male circumcision.

Depending on the Islamic structure of a given place, the severity varies. In the worst cases, you hear the worst being done.

But a lot of the world is very feminist minded and anti-Islam, and so you get enough demonizing to fill a mack truck and thus FGM looks like some monstrosity that it simply is not.

Go over to the radical anti-circumcision circle and they will have a thousand health risks about missing foreskin that is all basically nonsense. The same is being done, in part, with FGM.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The simple fact of the matter is that minimal, appropriated FGM is no different then male circumcision.

Depending on the Islamic structure of a given place, the severity varies. In the worst cases, you hear the worst being done.

But a lot of the world is very feminist minded and anti-Islam, and so you get enough demonizing to fill a mack truck and thus FGM looks like some monstrosity that it simply is not.
We're just too bent on worshiping women and hating Islam, that's all it has and will ever be.

Er, bollocks.

:e4e:

 

[The 5 solas]

The simple fact of the matter is that minimal, appropriated FGM is no different then male circumcision.

Depending on the Islamic structure of a given place, the severity varies. In the worst cases, you hear the worst being done.

But a lot of the world is very feminist minded and anti-Islam, and so you get enough demonizing to fill a mack truck and thus FGM looks like some monstrosity that it simply is not.

Go over to the radical anti-circumcision circle and they will have a thousand health risks about missing foreskin that is all basically nonsense. The same is being done, in part, with FGM.

God ordained male circumcision, never female circumcision.

Removing the clitoris is VERY different from removing the foreskin. It is more like having the male glans removed, if you want to really compare. I am pretty darn sure no man is going to line up for that procedure.

Sounds like you are even arguing in favour of FGM, Sky....your anti-woman crusade seems to have no bounds.

 

[Skybringr]

God ordained male circumcision, never female circumcision.

Removing the clitoris is VERY different from removing the foreskin. It is more like having the male glans removed, if you want to really compare. I am pretty darn sure no man is going to line up for that procedure.

Sounds like you are even arguing in favour of FGM, Sky....your anti-woman crusade seems to have no bounds.

An estimated 160 million women have been circumcised, you only hear about the severe removals that take place within ~radical Islam~.

But if you want to be a sheep to a stupid society that worships women, then go ahead.
The feminism is what has no bounds.

 

[Spitfire]

The simple fact of the matter is that minimal, appropriated FGM is no different then male circumcision.

Ummmm... there is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. So, I'll just point out that the officially Catholic position is (and was even before hygiene standards advanced to the point where male circumcision became irrelevant even for health reasons) that it is better for men not to be circumcised because circumcision belongs to the old law and we have a new covenant with God through Jesus. I think we can infer that if it's no good for men it's no good for women either. (And, actually, we don't even have to infer - the Church has made public statements against female circumcision recently and any previous silence on the matter was probably because they never imagined Catholics would be crazy enough to believe that such a practice might represent God's will.)

 

[The 5 solas]

But if you want to be a sheep to a stupid society that worships women, then go ahead.
The feminism is what has no bounds.

Yes, I am sure I am known for my hardcore feminist stance around here. lol

 

[Eeset]

God ordained male circumcision, never female circumcision.

Years ago I was curious about this practice so I read about it in civilizations. Ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision long before the time of Moses and probably before the time of Abraham although those dates are in dispute. Aborigines in Australia practiced circumcision more than 6,000 years ago. I'm not sure what all that means but I suspect Moses instructed the Israelites to accept the practice by concocting the story about their ancestors. I also suspect that the ancient Egyptians circumcised for health reasons. Moses issued many "laws" that were based on health and sanitation. He was the Prince of Egypt for the first 40 years of his life and was trained in their science and medicine.

This does not mean that I do not believe the Bible. It simply means that I studied history to gain additional perspective.

 

[Skybringr]

Ummmm... there is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. So, I'll just point out that the officially Catholic position is (and was even before hygiene standards advanced to the point where male circumcision became irrelevant even for health reasons) that it is better for men not to be circumcised because circumcision belongs to the old law and we have a new covenant with God through Jesus. I think we can infer that if it's no good for men it's no good for women either. (And, actually, we don't even have to infer - the Church has made public statements against female circumcision recently and any previous silence on the matter was probably because they never imagined Catholics would be crazy enough to believe that such a practice might represent God's will.)

Of course the Church is going to speak against female circumcision, because it was not practiced among the tribes of Issac.

Apparently, however, it is a mark of the tribes within Ishmael because the Quran condones it.

 

[The 5 solas]

Years ago I was curious about this practice so I read about it in civilizations. Ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision long before the time of Moses and probably before the time of Abraham although those dates are in dispute. Aborigines in Australia practiced circumcision more than 6,000 years ago. I'm not sure what all that means but I suspect Moses instructed the Israelites to accept the practice by concocting the story about their ancestors. I also suspect that the ancient Egyptians circumcised for health reasons. Moses issued many "laws" that were based on health and sanitation. He was the Prince of Egypt for the first 40 years of his life and was trained in their science and medicine.

This does not mean that I do not believe the Bible. It simply means that I studied history to gain additional perspective.

Oh I am sure it was not just a new fad. It was a sign of the covenant though for His people and their households and females did not have an equivalent....again another testimony to the headship of men, who carried the sign for their families.

 

[Skybringr]

Yes, I am sure I am known for my hardcore feminist stance around here. lol

Well buying into and spreading selective information to further the focus on so called injustices of women isn't exactly the best way to portray it.

Feminism has no bounds by the fact that many people unknowingly are feminist minded. That's the effect it has had in our culture. That's why simple facts are met with outrageous backlash when it comes to women in society- we should idolize all women because some women are brutalized.
Think about that; why do men not get this extraordinary convenience? There is no logical explanation other then feminism. Women even mock those that tell it because they know it's true and nobody is going to make them concede to it.

 

[The 5 solas]

Well buying into and spreading selective information to further the focus on so called injustices of women isn't exactly the best way to portray it.

Feminism has no bounds by the fact that many people unknowingly are feminist minded. That's the effect it has had in our culture. That's why simple facts are met with outrageous backlash when it comes to women in society.

:yawn: You are picking on the wrong girl. I do not fly that flag.

 

[Spitfire]

Of course the Church is going to speak against female circumcision, because it was not practiced among the tribes of Issac.

You seriously think that is the reason?

The tribes of Isaac also didn't eat pizzas. But I don't think any injunction against pizza-eating is forthcoming as result. Because, that's not really the issue here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well buying into and spreading selective information to further the focus on so called injustices of women isn't exactly the best way to portray it.

Feminism has no bounds by the fact that many people unknowingly are feminist minded. That's the effect it has had in our culture. That's why simple facts are met with outrageous backlash when it comes to women in society- we should idolize all women because some women are brutalized.
Think about that; why do men not get this extraordinary convenience? There is no logical explanation other then feminism. Women even mock those that tell it because they know it's true and nobody is going to make them concede to it.

'So called injustices of women'?

Before women had any sort of voice - and even since, there is and has been injustice towards them. Your 'argument' that men don't always get a fair deal is just a strawman.

 

[Skybringr]

You seriously think that is the reason?

The tribes of Isaac also didn't eat pizzas. But I don't think any injunction against pizza-eating is forthcoming as result. Because, that's not really the issue here.

The Church used to sanction the circumcision of converted women from 3rd world countries for health reasons.

She obviously doesn't see it as some grave immorality, just against it in relation to it not being of Isaac's tribe.

That's exactly what it is_
Society is just undergoing an unwarranted, overly reactionary response to FGM. It should rather be focused on the severity of it among certain Islamic groups- you know, the one's where a large amount of damage is ~actually~ done.

But no, instead it's ~poor ol women~. As per usual.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Church used to sanction the circumcision of converted women from 3rd world countries for health reasons.

She obviously doesn't see it as some grave immorality, just against it in relation to it not being of Isaac's tribe.

That's exactly what it is_
Society is just undergoing an unwarranted, overly reactionary response to FGM. It should rather be focused on the severity of it among certain Islamic groups- you know, the one's where a large amount of damage is ~actually~ done.

But no, instead it's ~poor ol women~. As per usual.

Well, considering you don't seem to consider rape that big of a deal it's no wonder you're banging on the same ole drum...

:yawn:

 

[Spitfire]

The Church used to sanction the circumcision of converted women from 3rd world countries for health reasons.

I've certainly never heard about this. Tell me more. Though in any case now that we know it's not conducive to hygiene and actually causes a plethora of health problems there's no reason why any Catholic should support or defend the practice.

 

[Skybringr]

I've certainly never heard about this. Tell me more. Though in any case now that we know it's not conducive to hygiene and actually causes a plethora of health problems there's no reason why any Catholic should support or defend the practice.

It's also not the 17th century, when the Church was sanctioning it. Also, why don't you go look up the plethora of so called 'health problems' among circumcised men.
And notice many men in America, circumcised, are all fine.

And
There's no reason anyone should be minding what Islamic culture does within itself. The world does not belong to you. If that's how they mark their tribe, then that's the way it is.

 

[Spitfire]

It's also not the 17th century, when the Church was sanctioning it. Also, why don't you go look up the plethora of so called 'health problems' among circumcised men.
And notice many men in America, circumcised, are all fine.

Apparently, Catholic missionaries at first tried to stop female circumcision in some parts of Africa, but had to give up when no one there would become or remain Catholic without it. They had to make up the flimsy justification that it was a medical necessity, but it was really a matter of priorities. Fact of the matter remains, the default Catholic position is that it is evil, contrary to God's will, and in no way beneficial. Unless you're dealing with people for whom reality would come completely undone without it, there is no reason why a Catholic ought to condone female circumcision and there's certainly no reason why a Catholic should ever actually defend it.

There's no reason anyone should minding what Islamic culture does within itself. The world does not belong to you. If that's how they mark their tribe, then that's the way it is.

Christians must understand that it is harmful and contrary to God's will according to what their own churches teach lest they start to agree that it might be a good way to keep women modest and under control. This may sound ridiculously implausible, but actually has happened in the past and is already similar to the arguments that some modern Christians still make in favor of male circumcision.

 

[Skybringr]

Apparently, Catholic missionaries at first tried to stop female circumcision in some parts of Africa, but had to give up when no one there would become or remain Catholic without it. They had to make up the flimsy justification that it was a medical necessity, but it was really a matter of priorities. Fact of the matter remains, the default Catholic position is that it is evil, contrary to God's will, and in no way beneficial. Unless you're dealing with people for whom reality would come completely undone without it, there is no reason why a Catholic ought to condone female circumcision and there's certainly no reason why a Catholic should ever actually defend it.

That's just a bunch of dumb, desperate nonsense.

Male circumcision is all good, but female circumcision is 'evil'?
Seriously, the feminist mind is ridiculous.

Make no mistake, that is what makes you and others think the way you all think on this matter, it has nothing really to do with morality.

~Don't put words in the Church's mouth~
The health concerns you hear about are from the severe circumcisions, not the normal ones. They are no more an issue then normal male circumcision, which have laughable, bogus 'health concerns' which ~who would've known~ 90% of American men have..
right?
No_

~You don't have 160 million cases of fgm injuries either~

 

[Rusha]

An estimated 160 million women have been circumcised, you only hear about the severe removals that take place within ~radical Islam~.

But if you want to be a sheep to a stupid society that worships women, then go ahead.
The feminism is what has no bounds.

Oh ... being against female circumcision is now part of the feminist worship of women? Just when I thought you couldn't slither any lower, you start defending the practice of FGM.