What rule is this one
@Imari?
That's just an example of Prisonermonkeys 101: I've got an opinion, let me cherry pick data to support it.
When you say "do this", what "this" are you specifically referring to? I mentioned three things in that post that you could be referring to.
Whichever one you are referring to, you haven't refuted the point. Get onto any "men's rights" forum - just Google it; you'll get a dozen hits, all valid - and you'll see what I mean. "Men's rights groups" aren't interested in equality.
Here we go. Prisonermonkeys again asserting that something he claims is simply widely available instead of doing the sensible thing and just linking to a source.
Besides, suggesting that "MRA doesn't argue for equality the way feminists do" assumes that all feminists are arguing for equality. Which is exactly the point that led to MRA groups, there are a non-trivial number of extremist feminist groups that will do things like campaign for the removal of a film they disagree with. That sort of oppression is exactly the sort of thing real feminists are against, because it's what was done to women for so long and continues to happen to women today.
The problem is in the name, because it suggests that men have certain rights that are under threat, when that isn't the case at all.
You should probably pay more attention to the world. It's not that there are rights under threat. It's that as we go through and try to remove the systematic biases against women from our society, it's that sometimes we find that there are also systematic biases against men. They're rarer, it's true, but they shouldn't be ignored or accepted any more than the biases against women should.
It's true that it's absolutely taboo in Western countries, but just because it's not a Western issue doesn't mean it's not an issue we can address. You're right though, it was a false equivalency.
But it's something that is attempting to be addressed. There has to be dozens of groups advocating and fundraising against FGM in all countries. It's a big thing, and very few westerners will come out in support of it.
On the other hand, male circumcision is so widespread that few speak out against it. Even in somewhere like the US, where unless I'm reading it wrong the circumcision rate is well over 50% pretty much everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
But they're being done for different reasons. FGM removes the clitoris to take the pleasure out of sex; it's believed that by making sex less pleasurable, a woman will be less promiscuous. Circumcision removes the foreskin for hygiene reasons; the extra skin can trap semen, urine or dirt, which can lead to a pretty serious infection.
...
You can do better than this. Not only are you misrepresenting FGM as
only removal of the clitoris, the health benefits of removing the foreskin are pretty trivial compared to the risks of cutting it off in the first place. We're not in the dark ages any more where people went for months without washing. We have showers and soap, and it's really not that hard to wash the end of your wee fella every so often.
