Fuck Sexism

[ZeaLitY]

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on surgical treatments for polydactylism?

Justified, of course. It restores functionality, not eliminates it.

I see you're still lacking the passion to obtain absolute victory, Z.

Oh, but it would be an affront for me to tread on ground that Dawkins and the others have covered so well.

[Thought]

Justified, of course. It restores functionality, not eliminates it.

Not at all; polydactylism is something that usually does not impede function.

EDIT: Ah, it occurs to me that you might be referring to the genetic problems that polydactylism can imply, which can indeed be a health concern, but which surgery does not actually address.

Oh, but it would be an affront for me to tread on ground that Dawkins and the others have covered so well.

Agreed, it would be an affront. Particularly since the ground Dawkins et. al. covered so well was salted so well by Collins et. al. It would seem that new ground is necessary.

EDIT AGAIN: I'm sorry, I realized that the meaning of this comment could be easily mistaken. Dawkins has primarily targeted two sets of beliefs; creationism and intelligent design. He has covered these topics quite well and shown conclusively that they're bunk. Collins also targets creationism and intelligent design. The difference between the two is the amount of time spent on the subjects, not their conclusions. Your snarky summary was one that would have been pointed at an ID claim; Collins and Dawkins are not at odds in that regard. However, Dawkins has (at least to date, and at least that I am aware of) said very little regarding Collins' concept of "biologos." There is where they disagree, and there is new ground that Dawkins has not covered.

I apologize if all that was perfectly clear and an explanation was unnecessary. And I apologize if all of that wasn't clear and the explanation was necessary. It should have been better stated.

[ZeaLitY]

Justified, of course. It restores functionality, not eliminates it.

Not at all; polydactylism is something that usually does not impede function.

EDIT: Ah, it occurs to me that you might be referring to the genetic problems that polydactylism can imply, which can indeed be a health concern, but which surgery does not actually address.

Even the cosmetic issues can be construed as impeding social functionality. The images I saw had messed up fingers and toes, so I assumed that a physical loss of function was part of it, too.

[ZaichikArky]

Z, are you referring to circumcision? How is it traumatic to the baby and how is it any different than circumcision at a hospital? The only difference is that at the brit, it's a ceremony and at the hospital, it's not. 50 % of male babies in the US get circumcised, and even though the number is at a decline, a lot of it isn't religious reasons.

I used to be pro-circumcision, but in more recent times, I've become more open to leaving it alone. I'm not sure what I'll do if I ever have a boy, but I'll probably ask what the father thinks. Most likely if the father is cut, he'll say that cutting it is the way to go, and if he's uncut, then he'll say not to cut it. I think that if the boy is taught to properly clean it, it should theoretically not be a problem. I disagree with those who say that being circumcised looses feeling, but you know it's really hard to compare these things. Even men can't really compare it...

Also, Thought. Comparing circumcision to polydactylism doesn't make any sense to me. It is a birth defect that needs surgery so that the person can have semi-functional hands, having a penis isn't a birth defect 0_o.

[Truthordeal]

having a penis isn't a birth defect 0_o.

Well, according to some people, that's debatable. 

[ZaichikArky]

^ lol speaking of feminism...

You should read Valerie Solonas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto .

[Shee]

Hmmm. If it WAS about circumcision, I would agree that today the majority of cases aren't at all religious, but hygenic.  If not, well then I guess I left the door open, didn't I?

Anyway, I was perusing a copy of "VAS: An Opera In Flatland" and found some good quotes in the section concerning human sterilization.

I wish very much that the many people could be prevented entirely from breeding...  The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed.
President Theodore Roosevelt


Whoever is not bodily and spiritually healthy and worthy shall not have the right to pass on his suffering in the body of his children.
Adolf Hitler


The rapid growth of the feeble-minded classes coupled as it is with steady reduction among all superior wstocks constitutes a race danger which should be cut off before another year has passed.
Winston Churchill


The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devestation of [Indian] settlements.  It will be essential to ruin their crops in the ground and prevent their planting more.
President George Washington
slave owner

Those are all taken straight from the book, which is a fantastic read if your head doesn't explode, even the "slave owner" after George Washington.  More food for the Thought Pot than anything else, really.

And Faust, if the Catholic Church were to "get with the times," wouldn't that be a destruction of their doctrine?  Or am I wrongeth about that?

[FaustWolf]

And Faust, if the Catholic Church were to "get with the times," wouldn't that be a destruction of their doctrine?  Or am I wrongeth about that?

Most definitely a question for a Catholic theologian, and I don't feel anywhere near prepared to answer that. Vatican II brought a number of changes in daily practice, but I should do more research to see if there were any doctrinal changes, however slight. I would offer that what could be done in Nicea I could be undone through the same means, but I'm not sure it's fair to call the Christian Church that gathered at Nicea the same body as the Catholic Church of today. Any change in doctrine would probably have to be based on that passage in the New Testament where Jesus says to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church," or something to that effect. Meaning that, since Jesus devolved huge godlike powers of scriptural interpretation unto the first Pope, all Popes (and Papessas/Popesses...?) thereafter should have the power of reform if only they are bold enough to exercise it.


I haven't read anything by Solanas -- probably because the women's studies course I had in college was geared toward a moderate form of feminism in which both men and women could find common ground -- but I've at least heard the name and some references to her misandry. She has a right to her beliefs of course, but I imagine it would become counterproductive to take her line of thought mainstream; it's liable to give the "fear of knife-weilding women" variety of women-villifiers more fuel.


EDIT: Just read some of Solanas after finding the specific text Zaich suggested via Wikipedia. Interesting stuff to be sure -- it does serve a purpose, since it subjects the male reader to some of the psychological pressure African slaves and even African American citizens had to endure from whites, and arguments similar to what the Nazis flung at Jewish, Gypsy, and other groups. Women specifically have probably been subject to some of this trash as well, though I'm limited as to examples there (I'm sure they're out there, probably authored by militant men's groups, and "softer" critiques of femininity in this vein probably abound in historical literature). It's interesting to have the tables turned for once, though we (white) men are extremely fortunate to live in a society where Solanas' views are pretty much limited to herself and some other really fringe militant feminists, and don't have to deal with it in everyday life.

[ZeaLitY]

IIRC, the idea that circumcision reduced AIDs incidence in Africa was disproven, so circumcision is thankfully back on the "batshit insane religious mutilation" list.

[Shee]

Faust:  Indeed....

ZeaLitY:  Hm, didn't know that was the plan.  Don't really see how that would work, so I'm not surprised it didn't.  But I meant more of day-to-day hygene, I don't see any problem with circumcision in that regard.

[x_XTacTX_x]

IIRC, the idea that circumcision reduced AIDs incidence in Africa was disproven, so circumcision is thankfully back on the "batshit insane religious mutilation" list.

Even though it does still increase the chance of infection and smegma buildup (egh).

I never really understood the fight against circumcision. I've never met anyone who's complained about not having a foreskin, and I've never thought about it in a negative light. In fact, I think having a foreskin would be worse than being cut, something about it just kind of grosses me out.

Find me someone who wishes they weren't cut and maybe I'll change my mind.

[ZeaLitY]

It's fucking stupid. The foreskin is nerve-dense tissue that conducts pleasure like the rest of the organ, and not only are you fucking conceding it by virtue of some negligible hygiene benefit, but you're excusing entirely the reason it's performed, which is utter religious insanity. Idiot Christians can't even fucking argue it from a theological perspective because the New Testament says that both uncircumsized and circumsized people can receive the Lord. It's fucking stupid, stone age, Medieval-backwards, thoughtless, destructive ignorance. It also violates the human right to one's own body.

[Zephira]

On the subject of circumcision... I've always heard people say that it's better to circumcise at birth because the child won't feel it - he won't even cry! The thing is, this isn't true at all. He doesn't cry because he goes into shock. It's a lot more painful for a baby than it is for a grown man.
I never understood circumcision for religious reasons (god lives in your penis? What?), but it makes perfect sense for sanitary reasons (if you're too lazy to clean it). However, I think the person undergoing the operation should be given a choice instead of forced into it at birth. What until the boy is a little older, maybe in his teens, and ask him then. If he's fine with getting cut, then go ahead.

(EDIT: In fact, could someone please explain the religious reasoning behind circumcision? I honestly have no clue what the basis is here, aside from an old tradition that people uphold because their grandaddy did it too.)

And while we're in the sexism topic, I think we need to flip things around a little. So far it's only been sexism against women. But what about men? They lose most divorce or child custody cases and always end up as the ones paying child support, when they should have just as much right to their children as the wife. I'm not too versed in male sexism, but I know it's out there, I've heard people complain about it, and I know it's worth discussing. Let's see some equality here, people!

[x_XTacTX_x]

It's fucking stupid. The foreskin is nerve-dense tissue that conducts pleasure like the rest of the organ, and not only are you fucking conceding it by virtue of some negligible hygiene benefit, but you're excusing entirely the reason it's performed, which is utter religious insanity. Idiot Christians can't even fucking argue it from a theological perspective because the New Testament says that both uncircumsized and circumsized people can receive the Lord. It's fucking stupid, stone age, Medieval-backwards, thoughtless, destructive ignorance. It also violates the human right to one's own body.

But where's the real harm in it? I was cut, I think I've turned out okay. As for sexual pleasure, I think I'm getting along just fine, too. Besides, it's better than getting the job done when you'll be able to remember the experience if you get it done at all.

I think the parents have the right to decide if they want to circumcise their child or not. The mother hauled the thing around inside her for nine months, if she wants the child to be with/without a foreskin, she should damn well have the right to decide.

[x_XTacTX_x]

On the subject of circumcision... I've always heard people say that it's better to circumcise at birth because the child won't feel it - he won't even cry! The thing is, this isn't true at all. He doesn't cry because he goes into shock. It's a lot more painful for a baby than it is for a grown man.

It's not like you'll remember it. If I remembered the pain of circumcision, then yeah I'd most likely have a problem with it, but considering it's done before memory is developed, I don't see the big deal.