So I wasn’t planning on commenting on this mysterious little Men’s Rights protest that managed to draw a meager seven protestors, with only two signs amongst them, one of them impossible to read at a distance. I mean, despite the poor turnout, they’re actually making an effort to do something in the real world, right? And that’s something, even if the person posting this picture didn’t bother to tell us when this happened or who organized it or even what the protest was about. (Circumcision? Or Men’s Rights generally?) But, hey, baby steps, right?
But then I saw this little exchange in the Men’s Rights subreddit about it:
Feminists: Everything everywhere is always their fault.
Hey Pecunium, we totally were more than halfway to an MRA-sized protest going last week! If I’d known, I would have brought my Disapproving Rabbits sign.
Huh? Wha? I’m surfing the net on lunch break from a weekend long art salon my husband and I are featured in, sorry. Did someone say something about me being unfullfilled after 25, or without having kids?
Oh! I get it! Scented candles might make our gallery area smell good! Thanks for the tip, shieldmaiden! (why does that sound like a colloquialism for a dental dam?)
/humblebrag
@morkais
it’s not an either/or
Serious question: I don’t believe in circumcision (male or female, or coercively-reconstructed intersex genitalia), but I know that in the west, circumcision is partially a religious thing, so where does bodily integrity go in relation to religious freedom? I mean I’d like to think that parents wouldn’t be allowed to have a procedure performed on their children, but I know there’s also a time frame that’s kind of important, so… what? What do you do with that?
Sharculese: Fair point.
@gingersnaps
in the us, the test for these kinds of situations is ‘facially neutral law of general applicability’. that means if a law targets a particular social good or ill unrelated to religion (like bodily integrity) and isnt directed at a particular group of people, it’s not a violation of your first amendment freedom of religion.
that said, that test was developed in a case where people fired for cause after they ingested peyote in traditional native american ceremonies were denied unemployment benefits. it’s hard to imagine it would go over so well if applied to ritual circumcision. but it’s also hard to imagine such a law getting passed without a religious exemption a mile wide
Sharculese: Yes, and no. Look at how marriage was dealt with in Utah. It’s interesting that some of the basis for the ruling (social strife caused by an imbalance of women in the territory) isn’t quite the same. It’s arguable that the disparity still isn’t redressed, because there aren’t more women than men. On the flip side, female agency is more widely accepted.
But Mormons have, institutionally†, decided they don’t like polygamy, and the idea that non-Mormons might be allowed to be polygamous is not to be borne.
†I have a lot of Mormon friends, and they have different personal views on polygamy; most holding that it’s either completely daft, or that three is the right number of wives. The theory being they can’t gang up on the man, and they won’t, permanently, gang up on each other.
Poly, of course, as practiced by “Gentiles” is seen as an evil sin marking the total breakdown of civilisation. If it’s not in “The Church” it’s one man/one woman.
@pecunium
i want to respond but i’m not sure which part of what i wrote youre addressing. could you clarify?
That was a “yes and no to the religious exemption”, i.e. I can see it being crafted in way which only allows certain religions to practise it.
Well, it’s a dramatic improvement on the last photographed MRA get together:
http://manboobz.com/2012/02/19/mens-rights-in-the-real-world-no-one-showed-up-to-the-event-but-organizers-say-the-lack-of-attendance-is-not-due-to-a-lack-of-interest/
And who can forget “Sink Misandry” – when the MRM started “taking it to the streets”.