409
Arby’s. We have the meats! (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago by [B] to c/funny@sh.itjust.works
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 36 points 2 months ago (22 children)

While I tend to agree, it's absolutely mostly pointless.

I have an elderly friend that had to get a late circumcision around age 65 or so, as well as have a cyst removed from the head of his penis..

There are valid medical reasons, but tradition/religious reasons are indeed bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago* (19 children)

    I wonder if it's one of those things that became religious because of early medical or pseudo medical procedures.

    It's like, the "no pork" or "no shellfish" in the Bible probably had a real event of rotten meat or common seafood allergies in a population. But, evolved into people stoning someone for mixing cotton and wool fabrics together.

    I'm just bull shitting. But I like to think silly religious things actually had some initial reason in a population before they were just silly beliefs.

    The "no men sleeping with men" part was obviously patriarchal constructs. But it would be funny if it was just some jealous leader that realized he was gay after getting married "if I can't suck other guys dick no one can! Thus sayeth the Lord!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Circumcision in America also has more to do with quacks like Harvey Kellogg.

    He's not the primary reason. There were groups of influential people in the late 19th century pushing wild ideas. However, circumcision wasn't as widespread until the early 20th century.

    That's not that long ago, but long enough to fuck up generations of boys and force them to think it's normal to be mutilated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I forgot about the Kellogg guy. But you're right. Unfortunately, I think the anti circumcision movement in the US is entirely captured by people that are more concerned with enforcing patriarchal constructs. They are unable to see circumcision as a negative result of patriarchal history that boys are hurt by and instead focus on it as "men having it worse" while ignoring the bigger picture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    What? I don't see that at all. Acknowledging a hypocrisy regarding genital mutilation attitudes doesn't diminish a recognition of the myriad inequities faced by women.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    Are you disagreeing or are you asking for sources on the subject?

    The "popular" MRA (mens rights activist) organizations use this very clearly barbaric practice as a pipeline. The people advocating against it in MRA are not pointing to the vast majority of feminist organizations that are against it. They are using it as a "wedge" issue and pretending that it is feminist themselves that are ignoring or even causing it.

    Its similar to how many MRA people will say "woman need to be a part of the draft too". Instead of siding with the leftist and feminist organizations that want to abolish the draft altogether.

    These organizations are rarely looking to improve mens rights; but pointing to issues like these as means to maintain patriarchal constructs. It is a means to keep men focused on the issues that impact them; but keep them from organizing or finding solidarity with the leftist movements that address others issues as well.

    The vast majority of men are hurt in some way by the patriarchal structures of our society. But, instead of rightfully realizing that these issues are a RESULT of patriarchy they instead focus on them as a reason for why patriarchy doesn't exist.

    It's because they think (maybe you included?) that patriarchy is just a measure of the "fairness" or "equality" between men and women. When it is not this at all. It is a interwoven with class structures, racial structures, and gender roles. "Intersectionality" if you will. The liberation from these structures would free men as well. But, the majority of them do not want to acknowledge the areas in their lives that they benefit from from patriarchy. They just want to maintain the status quo and remove or "make equal" a couple things that they don't like: parental rights, genital mutilation, the draft.

    Which is why MRA groups are not taken seriously by the left. Not because the issues they have are not real. But because they do not acknowledge the issues of others within the same system that causes the MRA issues. It's not that leftist and feminist don't care about these issues. It's that these issues have been captured by the right to cause division.

    It's very easy to look in your own bowl and see what is missing. But it's much more difficult to look in your neighbors bowl and see what you have that they do not. MRA movements are largely focused on what is missing from their bowl and in the extreme are looking to take from others bowls to fill theirs. "Women should be in the draft" is the obvious one. They want MORE class oppression as a means of "increasing equality". When we on the left realize that the draft is a result of class structures and not just patriarchy.

    And, again, these groups don't actually want women in the draft. They just use this issue to capture men that feel powerless. Why do you think the right wing fascist want only men in the military? The military represents power. The draft for men and boys IS a structure of patriarchy that pulls in men with the promise of "power of women" and exploits the working class as labor for the war machine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Disagreeing as well as asking for sources because I've truly never encountered anything about people being anti-circumcision that's felt anything beyond "that's a messed up thing to do to a baby".

    Totally on board with the things you've said against mras, with the added note that they also make it harder for people to actually discuss real issues that do effect men in a way that isn't immediately assumed to be an angry wounded machismo thing. Patriarchy hurts men too, and men have some social issues that it can be helpful for them to seek support on, and the work of shitty mra groups framing that as so closely associated with antifeminism or misogyny actively hurts men by creating an association that caring about or having male specific issues makes someone a misogynistic ass by default.

    Reasonable people are feminists, and don't get hung up on the origin of the word.

    I purely mean I have literally never heard anyone blame feminism or any feminist group for circumcision. I think the closest I've heard is people arguing against individuals who're saying female circumcision is worse, and therefore we shouldn't dilute the conversation by bringing male circumcision up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Oh, you just meant personally you never encountered it in real life. Yeah, people don't start talking about male oppression in a coffee shop. They sound insane. I meant it's more a "starting" point for men that get sucked into the right wing pipeline online. The MRA groups aren't that influential themselves because they are usually just a small step into right wing politics. The average person looks into them and realizes what they are (totally inadequate in defining or solving the problem). But more often then not these men will move RIGHT from there. You'll still see major right wingers like Nick Fuentes, Asmondgold, or Joe Rogan talk about MRA issues as something that only "the right" cares about.

    I think we largely agree. I think I'm just talking about how right wing propaganda works. And you're just being practical and saying it's not really a controversial topic when brought up by itself in a vacuum. Which you're right. It's not.

    In a way, a lot of the men that are pure MRA guys are noticing a problem that they see isn't being addressed, are unwilling to accept that feminist are actually their best ally, but, also unwilling to accept the further right propaganda of the far right saying "women shouldn't vote" etc. So you get this small group of men that exist as "true" MRA that have no hope of solving the problems they care about but at the same time serve as a door to further right politics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Oh, I was incredulous because I've never even heard something like that online, where people will share some truly out there opinions.

    We seem to otherwise agree on stuff.

    Your last paragraph kinda highlights my bonus reason for disliking mras. They've made it nearly impossible to think of a space where you can discuss mens issues that isn't at a baseline antifeminism.
    Patriarchy hurts men as well as women. Addressing how it hurts men has the opportunity to help prevent future harm, like by helping people figure out a definition of manhood that isn't everything wrong with modern masculinity, which can be hard if you have next to no examples to show you it's even possible.
    It's not feminists as allies, it's feminists talking about a different part of the conversation.
    Mras are so toxic that it's become legitimately difficult to convey "I'm concerned with how society messes up men" without people thinking you're about to segue into some misogynistic awfulness.

    All that to say, blaming feminists for circumcision is a type of delusion so far out there that I have trouble even conceiving how you would do that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    There's theories that the pork ban was because of having to feed them grains and so it's not efficient as humans could just eat grain directly. This applies in desert-y areas where pigs can't be scavengers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I like to think silly religious things actually had some initial reason

    why?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    Because a belief system that tells people to avoid doing certain things can actually be beneficial to the overall population.

    Like not eating pork or shellfish. Not only is the allergy thing a potential factor in saving lives but if these meats aren't cooked properly they can straight up kill you.

    Or things like banning homosexuality (I'm not homophobic by any means this is me trying to explain it in the basest way I can). If you're gay you're not gonna be having children of your own (most of the time, I know gay people who are closeted can and will have children to hide their sexuality) which could potentially end a bloodline which could end a population.

    Not every part of a belief system is based on stuff like this but a lot of them are. They were used as a method of keeping the human population as strong as possible especially during times of crisis.

    With all this said imho religion needs to die. We're no longer apes hiding in caves with no way of understanding what's happening around us. They were useful when humanity was in it's early stages of development but hold no value in the modern age

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    i mean you can tell everyone don't eat the poison mushrooms without making a whole fucking religion around that,,,but whatever\

    yes, religion needs to die

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I agree with you but with things like nuclear waste dump sites scientists have thought about creating a religious style belief system to prevent future generations from digging in those areas.

    Unfortunately religions can span for millennia so a religion that includes staying away from dangerous radioactive waste is a potential way of keeping future humans from giving themselves/each other radiation poisoning/cancer.

    The point being religions usually have good teachings that keep humans alive. They just get muddled by bullshit because people want control.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Having read Signs of Danger by Wyck and come across the "use religion as a tool" method, my conclusion was and still is, that it's not worth the cost. You don't need to use fairy tales or tales of the boogeymen because the target audience aren't fucking children.

    Authoritative religiosity has killed, kills, and will continue to kill far more than a future unlucky tribe, scientist, or archaeologist digging up some nuclear waste because present society couldn't bury it deep enough or give a bigger fk to fund a generationally self-perpetuating warning system (because that'd actually give independent power to science and rationality instead of politicians).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    Well, I think they came from some material event. "The water was making people sick so anyone that doesn't boil their water is an 'abomination' in the eyes of the Lord". That kind of reasoning.

    Not that the entire premise was correct. But more that the conclusion was beneficial for the conditions of the time and was never revised based on new material circumstances. It became dogma instead.

    I guess quoting me like that I do sound silly. But, I had hoped my comment in context implied what I meant.

    I was also joking at the end about the homophobic shit if that wasn't obvious too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Nope. Most of those are just people projecting modern knowledge and beliefs onto people from thousands of years ago.

    The origin of the pork taboo for example. We connect it to our current knowledge of trichinosis, but we know the actual reason from antiquity.
    It has to do with ancient Judaism and a political dispute they had both internally and with the Babylonians. Essentially, the surviving faction of the conflict hated Babylon, and Babylon ate a lot of pork because pigs are easier to maintain in a more urbanized setting. So they had developed the belief that "fuck that, people who eat like those fuckers are also fuckers". They also decided to use the Babylonians gods as bad guy gods, and give them names like, roughly, the stinky poop god. Aka, baelzebub.

    It's always risky to project modern beliefs and knowledge onto people from so long ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Best theory I've seen is undeveloped foreskin is a birth defect that is a lot more common with inbreeding. Ancient Egypt started doing circumcision in the upper class at a time when their royals were very inbred, so it's like how Europeans all started wearing wigs because France had a bald king.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •