The Student Room Group

AMA! I'm an anti-feminist, meat eating, atheist

Scroll to see replies

Original post by sw651
Listen, I think we've had this argument before. I am not anti-woman, I'm against the ideology, and for the rights of everyone

Sure...

I think you just say whatever makes you feel tough but you don't really understand the implications.
Original post by Steliata
Couldn't have put it better myself. This should be put on a giant poster and displayed all over the Internet :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile


Thank you so much, this means a lot, I put a lot of thought into this! :biggrin:

I think it's really important that we make it clear what feminism is actually about. Things have been getting pretty tense in the world at the moment and we're far stronger unified than divided:h: (to avoid any confusion, by 'we' I mean humans:wink:)
Original post by nverjvlev
*"I'm an attention-seeking, rep-hungry slaughterer of animals who doesn't believe in equality AMA!!!"


Shut up. Anyone who eats meat is a "slaughterer of animals"? Must be difficult to maintain your moral high ground.
Original post by Little Popcorns
Sure...

I think you just say whatever makes you feel tough but you don't really understand the implications.


Triggered.
Original post by Retired_Messiah
Any reason as to why one is mutilation while the other is not, when both are effectively similar (unnecessary damage to genitalia)?

If you spot a difference between that and circumcision lemme know

As to the second point, when I ask if the issue is sexism I see that women are allowed to join the army nowadays so my understanding of it is that women are getting privileges for no discernible reason, as if we're allowing them to join voluntarily then clearly we believe they're perfectly capable of fighting wars on the reg.


To the person who evidently doesn't understand what FGM is:

(taken from a very informative website on what FGM is: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ )
ProceduresFemale genital mutilation is classified into four major types.

Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).

Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).

Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

No health benefits, only harmFGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies.Immediate complications can include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage (bleeding), tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and injury to nearby genital tissue.Long-term consequences can include:

- recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;

- cysts;

- infertility;

- an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths;

- the need for later surgeries. For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth. Sometimes it is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing and repeating both immediate and long-term risks.

Who is at risk?Procedures are mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15, and occasionally on adult women. In Africa, more than three million girls have been estimated to be at risk for FGM annually.More than 125 million girls and women alive today have been cut in the 29 countries in Africa and Middle East where FGM is concentrated (1).The practice is most common in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and among migrants from these areas.Cultural, religious and social causesThe causes of female genital mutilation include a mix of cultural, religious and social factors within families and communities.

- Where FGM is a social convention, the social pressure to conform to what others do and have been doing is a strong motivation to perpetuate the practice.

- FGM is often considered a necessary part of raising a girl properly, and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage.

- FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. - FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido and therefore believed to help her resist "illicit" sexual acts. When a vaginal opening is covered or narrowed (type 3 above), the fear of the pain of opening it, and the fear that this will be found out, is expected to further discourage "illicit" sexual intercourse among women with this type of FGM.

- FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are “clean” and "beautiful" after removal of body parts that are considered "male" or "unclean".

- Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support.

- Religious leaders take varying positions with regard to FGM: some promote it, some consider it irrelevant to religion, and others contribute to its elimination.

- Local structures of power and authority, such as community leaders, religious leaders, circumcisers, and even some medical personnel can contribute to upholding the practice.

- In most societies, FGM is considered a cultural tradition, which is often used as an argument for its continuation.

- In some societies, recent adoption of the practice is linked to copying the traditions of neighbouring groups. Sometimes it has started as part of a wider religious or traditional revival movement.

In some societies, FGM is practised by new groups when they move into areas where the local population practice FGM.

IN COMPARISON TO THE RISKS OF CIRCUMCISION:

(sourced from http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision)What are the risks of circumcision?Like any surgical procedure, there are risks associated with circumcision. However, this risk is low. Problems associated with circumcision include:

Pain

Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision

Irritation of the glans

Increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)

Risk of injury to the penis

--

I'm not trying to belittle the fact that genital mutilation regardless of gender is wrong- but when you compare the risk factors, there is obviously a higher health risk with FGM. At least circumcision won't directly kill you, whereas FGM can.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
When you come into contact with a feminist do you both annihilate?


PRSOM
Reply 126
Original post by Drunk Punx
I'm pretty sure one of the many near-synonyms for "fair" is "equal".

After all, it's not equal, how can it be fair?


Original post by bibliophile09
I'm not trying to belittle the fact that genital mutilation regardless of gender is wrong- but when you compare the risk factors, there is obviously a higher health risk with FGM. At least circumcision won't directly kill you, whereas FGM can.


I was never suggesting that FGM was the same as circumcision in terms of severity (although it may have been implied by my wording. oops), merely in terms of semantics and definitions and such. Passing one as completely 100% acceptable and common and the other as the worst thing ever when both a similar act (despite carrying quite different risks) is quite daft to me.
Original post by Retired_Messiah
I was never suggesting that FGM was the same as circumcision in terms of severity (although it may have been implied by my wording. oops), merely in terms of semantics and definitions and such. Passing one as completely 100% acceptable and common and the other as the worst thing ever when both a similar act (despite carrying quite different risks) is quite daft to me.


I'm not sure I understand what it is that you're trying to say here- all I'm saying is that to me a priority would be to focus on trying to fight against FGM as this has greater health risks for its victims, in the same way that a researcher would prioritise trying to find the solution to a more deadly disease.

Also, yes the semantics are similar, but there is a substantial difference between the two.

e.g. (from http://www.path.org/files/FGM-The-Facts.htm)

"The practice of FGM is often called "female circumcision" (FC), implying that it is similar to male circumcision. However, the degree of cutting is much more extensive, often impairing a woman's sexual and reproductive functions."

I'm not saying that male circumcision is "100% okay", but as far I'm concerned (whilst not the worst), FGM is definitely a terrible thing and it shouldn't be dismissed/taken lightly. Indeed, victims of FGM are twice as likely to die in childbirth.

To be frank, it's unfair to put them in the same category just because they both involve genitals. I get where you're coming from on a moral basis, but on a biological basis there's no comparison really.
The problem is, "feminists", is that modern feminism has nothing to do with equality.

99% of the first world population are fully pro-equality. However the majority of us (seems to have a certain IQ requirement) realise that feminism is not what it used to be anymore.

Feminists these days are just bigoted man haters, meaning the focus goes on much lesser issues.

Quick example:
The majority of modern feminists' main point of campaign is rape, and how it's not the victims faults.
- Ignores possiblity of men getting raped, or women being rapists.... "Teach men not to rape" etc
- Ignorantly believes that it can not possibly be of anyone's fault but the rapists'
- An anology - Why do we keep locks on doors? Theft is illegal, we teach people not to steal. But guess what, they still do. And guess what else, people tend to go for value when stealing something. It's not out of malice, it's out of their own selfish needs, what they choose to steal.... Rape is the same scenario. Yes rape is horrible, and rapists are horrible beings, but just because it isn't 100% the victims fault, doesn't mean precautions shouldn't be taken to try to reduce the risks? Same as you wouldn't go confront a murderer and piss them off a ton in a private area. Common sense people, common sense.

Of course, with all things, we are still left with reasonable feminists scattered about. They still have the rediculous views, but they're much more willing to listen, and be educated. Which is nice.

And there's nothing wrong with eating meat, since it's been prepared and placed on a shelf already.
(edited 8 years ago)


What a poorly constructed image.

- Fences are meant to keep people out of games that they haven't paid to get in for. If it really was justice, then wouldn't security be giving them a moral lecture on how they should be paying to get in if they want to watch the game?

- Disregarding the above, the fence is the obstruction here. If it was justice, then wouldn't the fence get removed so that everyone can see in (in a, y'know, equal manner)?

If you can provide an acceptable retort to what I said then I welcome it, but using an inane picture with buzzwords attached isn't cutting the mustard here.
Reply 131
Original post by Drunk Punx
What a poorly constructed image.

- Fences are meant to keep people out of games that they haven't paid to get in for. If it really was justice, then wouldn't security be giving them a moral lecture on how they should be paying to get in if they want to watch the game?

- Disregarding the above, the fence is the obstruction here. If it was justice, then wouldn't the fence get removed so that everyone can see in (in a, y'know, equal manner)?

If you can provide an acceptable retort to what I said then I welcome it, but using an inane picture with buzzwords attached isn't cutting the mustard here.


God, how pedantic of you.
Reply 132
Original post by sw651
God, how pedantic of you.


PRSOM
Original post by sw651
God, how pedantic of you.


Not really. Equal isn't always synonymous with justice. In fact, both terms can be used subjectively. I knew that before he posted the picture. What I wanted to know, if memory serves, is how "equal" differs from "fair".

A much better example would've been the female tennis players that want to get paid the same as the men despite playing less sets (although that too would be the wrong thing to use as an example, given that the work put in wouldn't be equal and therefore it wouldn't be fair, it still would've been the better thing to say instead of posting a ******** picture).

Original post by Kyx
PRSOM


Seeing as you don't have a retort to the initial point I made, I can only assume that I'm right and you're wrong. Otherwise you would've given an actual answer by now.

Quick Reply

Latest