Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Things I Don't Quite Understand....

I've been watching Hulu these past weeks (online TV basically) and I've been reminded of why I don't usually watch TV...


Most of the time they make me shake my head, scoff, or grimace; but lately they've made me tilt my head in confusion or just get angry.

watch this video:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGsjb3NsFDY

It's for "Girls Inc." Girls Incorporated is a national nonprofit youth organization dedicated to inspiring all girls to be strong, smart, and bold. With roots dating to 1864, Girls Inc has provided vital educational programs to millions of American girls, particularly those in high-risk, underserved areas. Today, innovative programs help girls confront subtle societal messages about their value and potential, and prepare them to lead successful, independent, and fulfilling lives.

That's fine. I believe everyone should be strong, smart, and bold.

Did you catch that? EVERYONE. Where is Boys Inc? Where is the organization dedicated to helping boys lead successful, independent, and fulfilling lives? Why aren't boys encouraged to be strong, smart, or bold?

Oh yeah, thanks to feminism we've become a society that hates men. Not fair.

The other thing I don't understand:

One Laptop per child.

Mission Statement: To create educational opportunities for the world's poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning. When children have access to this type of tool they get engaged in their own education. They learn, share, create, and collaborate. They become connected to each other, to the world and to a brighter future.

Again, fine. Let's help poor countries. I have no problem with that...

But can these children eat the laptops? Can their laptops purify water? Can the laptop provide adequate medical services if necessary? No? Really? How stupid. These people don't need freaking laptops. I've NEVER owned a laptop and I'm doing okay. I did, however, have food and clean water. Hmm. Which is more important?

This is a point that just frustrates me: http://www.mgmbill.org/pressrelease19.htm

There have been people that want Congress to make circumcision illegal for boys. (It's already illegal for girls) They don't want it covered in the health bill. Fine, don't get your son circumcised. It's your call as a parent. I've read information on both sides and still come up confused. Both sides have fairly decent arguments. What I don't understand is why are so many people getting up in arms to keep circumcision out but it was okay to keep abortion? As a person that believes that by the time a woman finds out she's pregnant life has begun (there are nerve endings and a heartbeat for crying out loud) I don't understand why it's okay to have the choice to kill an innocent human being but it's not okay to have the choice to make a cosmetic change to your child. This makes NO SENSE to me.

And with this post, I'll probably lose a fair bit of my readers.


  1. Didnt lose a reader here!

    Heifer itnl confuses me too. Same idea as the laptops, give a huge animal for milk and then meat to a poor family but how are they supposed to feed and water a huge cow when they dont have food or water for themselves?!

    scratching my head at some of these things.

  2. Neh I hear you. I don't know if the world hates men, I think a lot of pple just think that women have been conditioned to take a back seat, so to speak. I am all for a boys inc though :)

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. sorry bout the delete had to fix it ;) you didn't loose me! I was thinkin the same thing about circ and abortion. Abortion angers and saddens me. As for circ..though it pains me to think of the process and the aftereffects, as it does all the loving mothers I know who chose this for their sons, I also see it as God does not command things that hurt our spirit. I know it is unnecessary to circumcise under the new convent. Jesus' blood washed our sin, we don't need to show our commitment in that way. But I can't see God's commandment to our ancesters in the past as an evil, terrible, wrongful act. God does NOT do wrong. As for female circumicion, God never comanded that as an act of worship, so there is NO reason that should ever be considered. It said noncirc on our birth plans but we had 2 girls. I do understand that there are ppl who feel so deeply in their hearts that circ is wrong enough to advocate against it, just as there are the same against abortion. One is higher priority in my heart but not the case for everyone. We each have our causes we feel deeply. <3

  5. Its tragic this topic isn't covered in Sunday school at Church. Every Christian should understand the circumcision done during Abraham's time period was a simple removal of the fenar band. Only the overhang was removed, hence the FOREskin. Radical removal of the prepuce is a result of the Rabbinitical Jewish revolt that occured in 132-140 AD. Jews were trying to restore their foreskin so they could participate in the Roman games. Exposure of the glans was prohibited because it is a sign of sexual arousal. An intact male will bare his glans when he is sexually aroused. Before the revolt, complete coverage of the glans could take 3 to 5 months. Now, it takes several years.

    God commanded many things that made his people really upset. "GAL 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us."

    No one was suppose to want this for their babies!

    GAL. 5:1 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, do not let yourself be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."

    Abraham was also told to sacrifice his son Issac. I cannot imagine any abount of joy while prepping to kill my own son.

    Led by Grace Baptist Church, they will stand together in front of the largest, 78,000 sq ft abortion mill Monday Jan. 18 to oppose its opening. Money is the root of ALL KINDS OF EVIL!!! I plan on going to this! I hope to make it.

    I can't copy and paste links, bananas!

    I don't understand the whole lap top for children without clean water or food either.

    I'm all for programs to help build a child's self esteem, for girls and for boys.

  6. Thank you for clairfying the specifics Zenbuoyent. I have not looked into the specifics of any of that, this is not my battle to fight. I did, however, want to be clear that I never said anyone had joy in circumcision. I mereley said God is not wrong. So even in Abraham being asked to sacrafice his son Isaac, of course there was no joy, but there was obidence because he knew God was never wrong, God had the bigger plan, and his job was just to obey even though it tore his heart out. Sorry Kas...no more hijacking your blog ;)

  7. I don't consider it a hijack. I enjoy the discussion.
    Shine: Thank you for reminding me (and the readers that get this far) that God asked us to do this at some point. Therefore, if it really was mutilation and torture he wouldn't have commanded in the first place. The next son we have we're taking to a mohel (Jewish guy that does circ). I trust someone that does it for religious reasons more than I trust some random doctor, you know?
    Zenbuoyent: Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. Like I said, I've only done minimal research into the subject.

  8. I'm of the opinion that BOTH non-medically necessary abortion and non-medically necessary genital reduction surgery are gross violations of a child's human right to bodily integrity. However, male circumcision not only violates bodily integrity, it also violates the equal protection clause of our constitution since girls are protected from even the smallest pin prick, but boys can have what will become 20 square inches of nerve-dense, erogenous and functional tissue removed. At no other time do we amputate healthy tissue as preventative medicine, why should the (male) foreskin be any different? Amputation is always a last resort when more conservative treatment has proven ineffective with the exception of malignancy, frostbite, serious trauma and gangrene. Men's genitals tend to have less complications than women's genitals but the good news is that there are conservative treatments, that don't invove amputation, when things do go happen wrong. I'm so glad my gyno didn't offer a labiaplasty when I got vulvaritis.

    Since circumcision does not appear anywhere in the first bibles, I highly doubt it was a mandate from God. In fact it only started appearing about 500 years later when groups that practiced blood rituals appeared in the picture. Further, the bible also tells us to stone our woman and sacrifice animals and children. Thankfully the New Testament clears things up in Galatians, where it says that circumcision is not necessary and will profit you nothing!

  9. on the subject of genital cutting for religious reasons...

    What we now call 'circumcision' was not performed in the same manner in antiquity (or among many Jews the world over today). At that time it was a 'cutting of the blessing' - a very, very small slit made at the end of the penis to allow a few drops of blood to fall.

    "Cutting the Blessing" in antiquity was VERY different than today in modern U.S. culture where we amputate the entire prepuce organ. Hebrews and early Jews made a very tiny slit in the tip of the prepuce to allow for a few drops of blood to be shed as the blood sacrifice of the covenant. The Hebrew words used for the practice are "namal" and "muwl". In Hebrew, namal means 'to clip' - like one would clip the ends of our fingernails. Muwl means 'to curtail, to blunt'. Neither of these words mean "to cut" "to amputate" "to remove" "to cut off" etc. There were very different words in Hebrew to represent 'the cutting off' or 'the removal of'. The difference was obviously clear to people at the time.

    After all, you could not possibly amputate the prepuce organ in antiquity and expect the child to live! Even today we deal with a 1-in-3 rate of complications associated with prepuce amputation. At that time, babies would have hemorrhaged if this organ were removed, and if they lived through the blood loss, they would have died of disease.

    I will be writing an article on this subject that gets more in depth into the topic (and why Baby Jesus was always painted in what we would see as an intact fashion) on drmomma.org. Jesus was, of course, born to Jewish parents and would have been subject to the 'namal' on his 8th day of life. Again, this means a tiny slit would have been made in the end of his prepuce to allow for the shedding drops of blood as a part of the covenant his parents had with YHVH [Yahweh]. If we (with our modern Western eyes) pour over these paintings of a naked baby Jesus, we would think that he was INTACT!! Why? Because the prepuce was NOT removed! It was not amputated. It was never 'cut off'.

    Ancient peoples never dreamed of doing away with an organ that was so useful, so important. The prepuce was regarded with such honor that it was thee organ seen as being most GOD-LIKE. Hence the reason it was the organ 'slit' for the blood letting as a sign that YHVH is the one "I" am trusting in -- not my own 'god-like' member.

    When Jews in antiquity wanted to exorcise in the gymnasium (which was often done in the nude) they had to appear intact. Greeks only allowed intact men to participate in activities there. So, the prepuce was pulled down over the glans (head) of the penis, before going in. There were even little devices made to cover the scar from the slit in the prepuce end so that no one would be the wiser. None of this would have been possible if the entire prepuce were removed.

    'Circumcision' as we know it today began in the United States in an effort to curtail masturbation among boys and sexual exploits of our soldiers traveling overseas. Kellogg and Graham -- 2 of the big proponents of the 'new circumcision' methods knew that if you amputated the entire prepuce organ, it would remove a great deal of a man's sexuality and forever change his sexual experience (and greatly reduce pleasure). Somehow over the decades their technique continued, but parents who choose to do this to their sons are grossly unaware of where this prepuce amputation originated, or why.

    Prepuce amputation (circumcision) is NOT recommended by ANY medical or health organization in the entire world.

    Today many Jews (especially those in N. America) are opting for a Brit Shalom instead of harmfully amputating the prepuce of their newborn.

    [cont below]

  10. [cont from above]

    Interestingly, a large percentage of the active intactivists (those who believe that all human beings deserve their basic right to bodily and genital integrity) are Jewish men and women. Including the Jewish physician who wrote the book, "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision":


    More about this subject, with videos from other Jewish pediatricians, mothers, and fathers at the links under "Judaism & Circumcision":


    For more information on religion and circumcision - look into Christianity & Circumcision (circumcision was always banned/forbidden or discouraged among Christians):


    BTW - genital cutting of the penis was being done before, and outside of, Judaism in history. A fairly detailed account of this can be found in the book, "A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis"


    Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon is the Jewish filmmaker (with an orthodox rabbi father) of the highly informative documentary, "CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision". (Watch/Buy Here: www.cutthefilm.com) After spending years researching this topic and studying with some of the ‘experts’ in the fields of human sexuality, human health, religion, history, and genital cutting, he concluded, “Circumcision was a cure in search of a disease. When you look through history, you see that whatever the scary disease of the generation was, that was the one that circumcision would help prevent. So in the early 20th century it was syphilis, a scary disease that there was no cure for then. Later, it was cancer. Then UTIs, and now HIV.” As a Jewish man, strong in his faith, Ungar-Sargon chose NOT to cut his son.

    Male circumcision as we know it, and female circumcision in the United States actually share a VERY similar history. All the myths we now toss around concerning MGM, we once held about FGM. www.drmomma.org/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html

    I wholeheartedly agree with what others (and Ungar-Sargon) have said — genital cutting and the amputation of a healthy, functioning body organ from a non-consenting human being is a severe violation of human rights. If we did such a thing to a dog, we would be charged with animal abuse. And what we do to babies due to our own ignorance is certainly more criminal than that.

    BTW - we have banned all forms of genital cutting of baby girls in the United States since the 1990s with our FGM Bill. This includes any genital cutting done for religious reasons on a non-consenting person. Don't baby boys deserve the same protection? This is what our MGM Bill would do (www.mgmbill.org).

    There are many reasons that a large percentage of the developed world today has a ban on ALL forms of genital mutilation on non-consenting persons - no matter the reason. No human being is less valuable, or less deserving of basic human rights, simply because they were born with a larger prepuce organ.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...