CIN (Circumcision Information Network) 1:20

Journal  Circumcision Information Network, Volume 1, Issue 20. Wednesday, 23 November 1994.

Richard Angell

Introduction
This weekly bulletin is a project of CIN, the Circumcision Information Network (formerly CIN CompuBulletin). The purpose of this weekly bulletin is to educate the public about and to protect children and other non-consenting persons from genital mutilation. Readers are encouraged to copy and redistribute it, and to contribute written material.
--Rich Angell, Editor.


CHILDHOOD "PHIMOSIS"
CIN has receive several letters from worried parents of very young boys
who have unretractable foreskins, and one from a reader who has a "cure"
for childhood phimosis.  More on that in a future CompuBulletin, but let
it be known that although the great majority of boys can retract their
foreskins by the age of three, the inability to do so up to the age of 17
or so is not unheard of, and is not a source of concern as long as there
is no pain. Furthermore, it is reversible by simple stretching techniques. 
No one should be allowed to retract a boy's foreskin against his will. 
You wouldn't force open the vagina of your daughter, would you?  Read on
for an authority on this subject: 
 
"The Childbirth Education Foundation has responded to hundreds of such
concerns over the these past years.  We are regarded as authorities on
care of the young uncircumcised child. 
 
"Contact me.  We can refer a doctor who will not resort to foreskin
amputation at the first sign of trouble. 
  
"It is most unlikely that a three year old would have a 'phimosis' problem
requiring treatment so drastic as need for circumcision. This would never
be the course of treatment for an uncircumcised child in Europe. Obviously
then, there is a much better more conservative approach to a solution to
this concern, if indeed it is even a justified medical concern. Extreme
caution is needed when dealing with a urologist recommending
circumcision.
 
"I can be reached on Internet or by calling me at:  (215) 357-2792.  If I
am out leave a number and I will immediately get back to you." 
 
Jim Peron: E-mail= jperon@delphi.com
 
Childbirth Education Foundation
P.O. Box 5 Richboro, PA 18954
Phone: (215) 357-2792

A KINDER, MORE GENITAL NATION!
Following is an excerpt from an article by Fred Hayward of Men's Rights,
Inc., which has appeared in several bold publications:

The traditional message that it is unmanly to complain blends nicely with
the feminist message that men don't deserve to complain.  The traditional
message that men must protect women blends nicely with the feminist
message that helping men is equivalent to hurting women.  The effect of
this blend is that men feel uncomfortable just thinking about men's
issues, let alone talking about them. 

Men are the victims of virtually all violence in comedy.  Male pain is the
only pain which actually brings laughter and applause.  Moreover, attacks
on male sexuality are the "funniest" of all.  If a kick to the groin is a
guaranteed formula for laughter, is it so surprising that a scalpel to the
groin does not arouse mass sympathy? 
 
I was once talking with a stranger in a hotel lobby.  I told him that I
was in town to speak about circumcision, and gave him a little preview of
my talk.  He became agitated, exclaiming, "How can we do this to our own
children!?!"  I reminded him that we don't do it to our "children". We do
it to our boys.  There's a big difference. 

Charities that want you to sponsor children overseas show twice as many
little girls as little boys in their ads.  They know that people rush to
the aid of girls, but don't respond as readily to the plight of little
boys. 
 
A third factor keeping us from confronting circumcision is opposition by
the very movement which is supposed to demand attention to gender issues. 
Like the archetypical southern sheriff who left a victimized black with
nowhere to turn because the sheriff himself was a racist, the Equal Rights
enforcement industry leaves us with nowhere to turn because it itself is
sexist. 
 
One professional feminist, knowledgeable about research into the learning
process of preborns (let alone newborns) and a read advocate against
sexual abuse, tried to squirm her way out of the issue by suggesting: 
"How do we really know that there is any long-term memory of this?"  Yet,
this woman would be the first to prosecute a dentist who fondled an
unconscious patient, or, even worse, a man who masturbated into the face
of an infant girl.  The whole issue of "memory" is a red herring. 
 
While being solicited by a recruiter for a children's rights group, I
engaged her in a conversation about circumcision.  She blandly said that
she didn't really care about it, since it hadn't happened to her.  So much
for the sexist stereotype, proclaimed by traditionalists and feminists
alike, that women are more empathetic than men. 
 
Men are not taught the same sense of sovereignty over our bodies which
women learn. Beginning when most of us are strapped down and circumcised
to inaugurate our own lives, through childhhood when we are deprived of
the same rights of privacy in bathrooms and locker-rooms that are granted
to our female schoolmates, and culminating in the ritual end of boyhood
when we march our bodies to the post office and register them with the
Selective Service System, American males are continually reminded that our
bodies do not have the same rights enjoyed by the female body. 

Girls are taught that a gentle caress might be legitimate grounds for
complaint, while boys are taught that an occasional unwanted punch in the
face is to be accepted. 
 
Circumcision is not just violence toward men; it is violence toward the
penis.  While "penis envy" is now a cliche, "penis hatred" is rarely
mentioned, yet is at least as significant. Even before the current war
against male sexuality, men were getting negative messages about the
penis.  Women were told that public nudity is a no-no because men are so
attracted to the female body that naked women would incite uncontrollable
mobs of eager men.  Men, on the other hand, were told that the law
prohibits public nudity because the sight of their bodies incites horror
and disgust in women. 
 
There are few concepts more damaging to self image than learning that your
body is terrifying and revolting.  Men's Rights, Inc., was once contacted
by a Missouri man who had a radio program an men's issues.  He called
because he wanted to do a show on the penis (in literature, health issues,
self-image, etc.) but his boss would not permit it.  The penis is
offensive, the station manager opined. 
 
The man had mentioned his disappointment to women at the station, who
volunteered that their women's shows often speak about the vagina and
clitoris.  He had returned to the station manager and asked why talk about
the vagina and clitoris was allowed, but talk about the penis was
forbidden.  While the vagina and clitoris are not offensive, the penis is
offensive, the station manager explained. 
 
Our friend then mentioned his latest disappointment to his female
colleagues, who told him that they talk about the penis on their own
shows.  He questioned the manager about his newest double standard, and
was informed that the penis is offensive when a man talks about it, but
not necessarily when a woman talks about it.
 
Men's Rights, Inc. can be reached at POB 163180, Sacramento, CA 95816, (916)
484-7333.
Citation:

Back to CIN Overview Back to the CIN Overview page.

Back to News 1994 Back to the News 1994 page.


The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.

Top  © CIRP.org 1996-2024 | Filetree | Please visit our sponsor and host:  External link IntactiWiki.