Speaking of kick-em-while-they're-down Republican legislation you've probably already noticed the only thing more important to them than mollycoddling the super wealthy and driving the economy into the dirt is doing anything and everything to punch the hippies? No matter how petty, stupid, socially counterproductive, or, especially, fiscally irresponsible. Like, for instance, ditching paper for styrofoam cups in the Congressional cafeterias. And, of course, directing the IRS to start digging into women's underpants to see if they've used tax dollars, or tax deductions, to pay for an abortion.
Well, for those of you keeping track at home, one of the biggest victories for anti-circumcision activists (I'm a moderate activist myself) was persuading insurance companies to stop routinely paying for them as part of standard labor and delivery coverage.
Turns out that vast numbers of parents who would routinely say yes, they wanted their infant sons circumcised changed their minds when told they'd have to pay out of pocket. (Which only goes to show how little conviction, and how much cultural inertia has been behind the completely unnecessary procedure!)
But since routine, secular, non-religiously-mandated circumcision has been "traditional" for the last 150 years or so, and since the initial motivation was to discourage masturbation,* and since its the sort of thing at would just appeal to hippie-punchers I'm curious now which one of those aching Republican rectal tears is going to introduce a bill requiring insurers to automatically cover circumcision again?
And don't think they won't do it just because it's something that happens to me. It's a catastrophic error to imagine they have any less contempt for men than they have for women.
I'd just add one more point**: such a bill would literally be no skin off their cocks because...
Q: Why are Republicans never circumcised?
A: Because there's just no end to those pricks.
* It doesn't.
** This one's for occasional commenter tu quoque who, like me and many other MRAs and feminists is genuinely and correctly interested in ending routine, ritual genital mutilation of children of any sort for any reason.
I'm not seeing the usefulness
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Sat, 2011-03-19 12:02.I'm not seeing the usefulness of this post. Circumcision is a serious issue that shouldn't be used to crassly score points for one's political party. Rush Limbaugh tried to smear Barack Obama by claiming that he would try to mandate male circumcision. Obviously he wouldn't have used that particular procedure if he thought republicans in general were in favor of circumcising infant boys. Yet, I'm not aware of any strong push by republicans to ban it. That's the maddening thing about this "tradition"; most people are able to understand intellectually why it's wrong, but they simply don't care enough to do anything about it. What's not helping is circumcision being used as a wedge issue. It takes focus away from the morality of the issue and how it affects real people and puts it instead on tired political rivalries.
And, no offense, but I would prefer not to have that joke dedicated to me. I'm not republican, but my dad is and not only is he one of the most anti-circumcision people I know, he's the reason I'm not circumcised myself.
Also, I thought you removed the joke from the other post, which I appreciated, to prevent triggering. How is that going to help when it's back again?
I very much would like to ally with other anti-circumcision activists, but the purpose of this post is...unclear.
First I'm saying it because I
Submitted by figleaf on Sat, 2011-03-19 15:22.First I'm saying it because I think they'll do it, at least the Huckabee/Robertson wing will, because for conservative-protestant reasons it's "traditional" in America to cut up little boys' penises. And because anything that smacks of "natural," especially when it comes to matters sexual, pisses them off.
Second I'm saying it because I think it's equivalent to siccing the fucking IRS on women. And while, yeah, most of the shit they've been ladling out has been aimed at women, I believe they're no less misandrists than misogynists.
And finally I brought it up because their whole goalpost-moving tendency reminds me of toxic tendencies in movement-based ideologies where movement itself becomes more important than actual objectives. Such that you end up with fucking conservative Republicans actually celebrating proposed employment of their most symbolically-hated agencies. As a big fan of Hannah Arendt (who's first major work was Origins of Totalitarianism) I think this trend of rejecting their own positions once their opponents take them up on it (e.g. applauding Romney 10 years ago and excoriating Obama for the same thing) is extremely disturbing and needs to be called out and, if possible, stopped.
And finally, I'm angry enough about it to effectively violate the circumcision equivalent of Godwins Law on them. Which is where the joke comes in. I took it out in earnest in the previous post, but by the end of this one felt it was appropriate here exactly because it's *not* an appropriate joke.
Finally, I know an awful lot of people who imagined themselves to be lifelong conservative Republicans who are now shocked to find themselves anathema to their own party. Since I actually don't want them to start mandating circumcision again I hope your dad's able to stay on their good side on the anti-circumcision front. But based on the experiences of others it'll be pretty dislocating for him if or when they do because they've been moving very quickly lately.
fl
"First I'm saying it because
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Sun, 2011-03-20 23:26."First I'm saying it because I think they'll do it, at least the Huckabee/Robertson wing will, because for conservative-protestant reasons it's "traditional" in America to cut up little boys' penises. And because anything that smacks of "natural," especially when it comes to matters sexual, pisses them off."
This doesn't make any sense, at all. In fact, it's the opposite of the case. Religious conservatives constantly use the naturalistic fallacy to argue their positions on sexual matters, most notably with regards to homosexuality. Also, jews practice circumcision out of adherence to traditions. Where's your anger against them? Would such anger even be useful considering there are jewish intactivist groups that could possibly be alienated by such anger?
"But based on the experiences of others it'll be pretty dislocating for him if or when they do because they've been moving very quickly lately."
Where is your evidence that Republicans in general have taken up circumcision as one of their key causes, because I never hear either party heads really touching on the issue. In fact, Rush Limbaugh warning his listeners that Obama would mandate male circumcision was the last time I really heard it discussed. Why would he do that if Republicans in general favored circumcision?
"And finally, I'm angry enough about it to effectively violate the circumcision equivalent of Godwins Law on them."
Huh? So your willing to risk triggering people in order to express your anger against conservatives? How is that helping anyone? That makes it seem like you care more about party allegiances than the fact that there are actual victims created by the acceptance of this useless procedure.
Sorry. Can someone explain to
Submitted by Thaddeus (not verified) on Mon, 2011-03-21 09:11.Sorry. Can someone explain to me - using perr-reviewed science, please - how a circumcision joke ends up creating some sort of life and/or wellness threatening psychological incident in a person?
Here's Blanchette's Law, to go along with Godwin's:
"Given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by claiming it triggers their PTSD."
Do you not believe in rape
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Mon, 2011-03-21 21:25.Do you not believe in rape triggers?
Do you really believe that not being an asshole is such a mysterious modality of interaction that it requires peer-reviewed science in order to figure it out?