and Kristen, if you can’t tell the difference between feminism and humanism, I don’t especially want you on my side

Ah…now I understand. Feminism is your movement.

FYI, the humanist philosophy has many layers (sciencific vs. supernatural; Truth vs. truth; etc) but what all humanists agree on is the fundamental principle that with reason, open-minded discourse, and tolerance we can create a world where every individual (not just men, not just women, not just the transgendered, but each person on their own terms) can live with dignity.

Explain to me how this fundamental principle is contrary to your vision of feminism? Is it just that only women are worthy in your view of respect?

That men have served in opposition to many women is undoubtedly true. Just as it is undoubtedly true that men had served in opposition to other men, women have served in opposition to women, women have served in opposition to men, adults have served in opposition to children, whites have served in opposition to, well, basically everyone, etc. Your view is too narrow for me. The problem is not Men. The problem is opposition.

To think of feminism as a theory focused solely on creating yet another class of people to be completely unconcerned with the harms to a separate, related class of people is to make feminism no better than any other separatist philosophy.

Gender equality is not just about women. It’s about giving each individual person the ability to make choices based on their gendered preferences and not based on social expectation.

Of course, and telling someone that they must discuss a topic in a feminist space is wrong. When someone does set aside space in a feminist forum to discuss it, though, I don’t see how that is wrong. No one said Jill had to do this, or that people had to read and comment on this particular thread. This thread existing has not stopped the other threads here from existing, and since the space was created by a person with the right to create that space, why is it necessary to say that the topic should never have been given space in the first place? I, for one, think feminist ethics can and should be applied to everything possible in our society.

I feel like somebody needs to jump in and demand to know, “But what about the women?!” in repayment of all the threads the “But wht about the MENZ?!” people have disrupted. Why, exactly, is this a feminist issue? Why give in? You think MRAs are going to grant equal space to womens’ issues, too?

I don’t think it is giving in. I didn’t create this thread simply because there was a demand for a male circumcision thread; I created it for the same reason I create most threads, which is simply that it’s a subject I’m interested in.

I don’t think MRAs are going to grant equal space to women’s issues, but I don’t really think that’s relevant. I’d rather feminsm weren’t the female version of men’s rights activism. I also don’t think one thread about male circumcision is “equal space.”

As others have said, I view male circumcision as a human rights and bodily autonomy issue, both of which are not only relevant to feminism, but of personal interest to me. Women, as parents, also have to face the question of circumcising their sons, so it is an issue that is very important to many women. And, as Zuzu said, I’m hoping that this thread and others like it can create spaces to talk about issues that primarily affect men so that conversations about women aren’t thoroughly derailed.

And also, I’m not sure the MRAs should be the standard by which we judge ourselves. Just sayin’…

I feel that raising the issue is sufficient cause to nuke the comment.

Definitely. Obfuscating about FGM on an FGM thread by bringing in male circumcision is trolling.

Why, exactly, is this a feminist issue?

Wow, so being concerned for human rights isn’t a feminist issue? I didn’t realize that feminism required me to not give a flying f*ck about the way patriarchal systems harm non-conformist men. I guess gender equality only matters to the extent women are harmed, but not to any extent that men are harmed.

Good to know.

*Turns in her feminist card.*

Anyone got a humanist card around here?

After all I’ve read about it, I have no doubt that it is as patriarchal as you can get. That’s enough for me. But here I leave you a couple of links:

http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/women.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm

I have no time to do more research or to discuss it further right now, but I believe it deserves some consideration. Anyway, as so many times during this thread, what JackGoff said.

Wow, yeah, it;s late, and I need to go to bed, obviously. This should read: “nor that it should be discussed in a feminist forum.”

That would be “every”.

that the ethical violation of another person’s bodily autonomy as represented by circumcision is okay

Should be “is not okay”

Personally, I think of the feminist philosophy as including the idea of bodily autonomy for ever human, and I reject the argument of people who say that children do not have the right to not be subjected to unnecessary and unethical surgery, as represented by circumcision. It is horrible that threads about FGM get trolled in that way, but that doesn’t actually change the fact, for me, that the ethical violation of another person’s bodily autonomy as represented by circumcision is okay, and that it should not be discussed in a feminist forum.

Also, this is Jill’s space, so implying that she cannot use it as she pleases negates her own right to do as she pleases with her blog space, and how is that feminist?