Janice always surprises me with her insightful perspective and informs me with arguments and evidence of which I was not aware. Sometimes I imagine I am up to speed, and then Janice goes shooting by, and I have to try to catch up. I am very grateful for her.
Philip, that is too much praise (but I will not reject it, ha ha). You are extremely informed on a variety of fronts. I've got my one, relatively narrow, interest/obsession. But thank you.
I like people who present perspectives and arguments from an angle that I had not been previously aware of. Also articulating in a manner that I am not able.
Philip! You are an Anthropologist?! I have a love for Anthropology largely due to the Anthropological research saving my butt and helping me understand the differences in the way men and women grieve. If you are interested there is a chapter online from my first book that describes this realization https://menaregood.com/swallowed-by-a-snake-chapter-nine/ It is in some ways the intersection of men's issues and Anthropology. <smile>
I was fortunately to be able to devote my professional life to anthropology. Wonderful field (for most of fifty years I taught--now, sadly, woke and corrupt). I carried out extensive field research among nomadic tribes of Baluchistan (s.e. Iran), herding casts of Rajasthan (India), and shepherds of Sardinia (Italy). Thanks for the link to your chapter; I look forward to reading it.
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 1, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
A great look at gynocentrism, how western society is tailored toward and focused on the needs of girls and women, not boys and men. Are you familiar with the blog, https://gynocentrism.com/ ? This blog is written by Peter Wright, who has authored some books. It all stems from Chivalry being the start of gynocentric behavior in the west, from 12th Century AD or somewhere thereabouts, as Peter Wright describes.
Also, the book, the Myth of Male Power, by Dr. Warren Farrell, explains how the average man is marginalized and just invisible.
Also, boys' bodies? Circumcision is MALE GENITAL MUTILATION. But, who cares? Even most men don't care because they are so emotionally shut down and afraid of being vulnerable, or afraid to feel at all.
There is a company, Foregen, https://www.foregen.org/ , that is nearly in phase 3 of 3 human trials which lasts for one year, starting on April 1st 2023 - where they will be regrowing foreskins, which is healthy, densely innervated erogenous tissue, 15 square inches, with mucosal lining, fine touch receptors, ridged band, Meisner's corpuscles, and other musculature...all with the patients own body cells.
The above is a link to the intro video of this biotech company that is currently in phase 2 of 3 animal trials and has received over $1.3 Million dollars of donations, and that number is many months old. All trials have been successful so far, and the underlying technology (ECM, extracellular matrix technology) is already FDA approved, they just need this particular application of this already approved technology to be approved!
I saw a post on Facebook from the Telegraph of a young man that was raped by a young woman, and there was 1000 laughing emojis, mostly from men! This is the link to the FB Page below - I can't get the direct link to the post for some reason:
We teach men to "be tough", and by that, we tell them to suppress emotion, unless it is anger, being crass, and making dark jokes of tragedy, being in touch with our grief isn't taught in western society - I've unlearned this with EMDR psychotherapy, and Somatic Experiencing, Psychedelic assisted psychotherapy, journaling, Holotropic Breathwork, etc. I feel alive. In high school, about 7 years ago, I was so numbed out, emotionally dumb, breathing in my chest, tired but wired, couldn't focus in school, got a 2.8 GPA, barely graduated. Then in college I kept a 4.0, got over $20,000 in scholarships... turned it all around. I got referred to the school psychologist once in high school, I can't remember what she even said, but they never spoke to me again...it wasn't until 4 or 5 years later that I found an EMDR therapist of my own accord after changing my diet, doing ice baths, infrared sauna etc. - most of my autoimmune symptoms were psychosomatic.
I digress - but, the boys really need help.
Back to male genital mutilation.
It's maddening to me that circumcision is a joke in crappy television and movies. It's so hurtful, and emotionally callous men make jokes about it, and so do women.
Foregen will remedy this, at least for those in the know.
The majority of nerve endings are in the foreskin, more than the head/glans of the penis! And it keeps the head of the penis soft and smooth and lubricated, instead of dried out and keratinized. Circumcisions reduces sexual pleasure for men and women.
Look at the documentary, The American Circumcision, by Brendon Marotta.
My parents know what they did was wrong, it happened to my dad, too. But, is in pretty deep denial about how negative the impact is, still.
The older generations are so numbed out, and much of that has to do with their upbringing and the birth/preverbal trauma of being trapped in incubators without human contact for months, the trauma that the hospital puts babies through. Hospitals have been routinely traumatizing and putting generations of American's in fight/flight/freeze mode for decades and decades.
The current medical establishment is not trauma informed.
Babies have nervous systems, you can put them in fight or flight, therefore, and they can, as a result, produce cortisol stress hormone and this stunts their development! Also, the more childhood trauma, the more autoimmune illness! Look at the San Diego Adverse Childhood Event (ACE) score study!
For more info on trauma, I work with a somatic practioner, Irene Lyon, who has a husband, Seth Lyon, and they both are knowledgeable about medical trauma, preverbal trauma, birth trauma, transgenerational trauma. All based on the work of Dr. Peter Levine, Dr. Bessel Van Der Kolk (The Body Keeps the Score), Dr. Moshe Feldenkrais, Kathy Kain, Dr. Gabor Mate.
Here is a quote from Seth Lyon:
"Underneath all that, I was circumcised – an incredibly traumatic experience which linked violence and violation with the sexual organs in the somatic unconscious, and also established an unconscious hatred of the feminine because my mother did not protect me from that experience, and was reinforced by my isolation and separation from her in an incubator due to being born six weeks premature."
Even Seth, in his blog post is a bit harsh on men and I feel he is shaming men's sexuality, a bit.
Ask any sex therapist, it is known that men have more trouble communicating what they like sexually than women. Women are thought to be exploring their body if they have sex toys, but men??? They're considered "Gross".
Look at the book, "Men in Love", by Nancy Friday - she discusses how most men have had their sexuality shamed growing up, so they develop masochistic sexual kinks, some of the men like to be called dirty, then after the men are shamed, like they were growing up, they feel they have earned sex.
It's so twisted.
We have shaped boys into treating themselves like crap.
We teach girls to have boundaries, to know how to say, "no". But boys? We don't teach boundaries, we teach them to be masochistic beasts of burden.
I am so fed up with the west.
I like Jordan Peterson, but he speaks from a gynocentric frame, still - where he insinuates men serving women, almost thoughtlessly, like we're sacrificial pawns.
AND - Peterson talks about how gender transitioning is mutiliation! But he is silent on circumcision! Gabor Mate, a Jewish man, is also silent on circumcision, but he acknowledges that trauma is trapped survival stress that can occur in the womb and at birth.....
I wish boys were treated with respect, loved and honored as much as girls were.
The somatic experiencing practices that I'm doing have helped to heal me so much more, but there is a deep anger and grief within me that I am gradually processing.
Here is Irene Lyon's free 3 part course on Trauma, the different types of trauma, the signs of trauma, how our nervous system is wired through coregulation with our parents, caregivers, etc.
Male genital mutilation is a failure of the generations of my father, my grandfather, and so on. All these quiet men, that lead quiet lives of desperation...
Saying nothing, suppressing your emotion, makes you numb and dumb. Trauma prevents you from being present, present with your loved one and with your work, etc.
Suppression is not strength. Mindfulness of the body and fully expressing and processing grief and anger, that is what is healthy. Holding it in leads to disassociation...
Jordan Peterson is with the Daily Wire, owned by Ben Shapiro, a Jewish man who thinks that circumcision is okay, but calls gender reassignment mutilation.
Above is a video of Ben Shapiro and Andrew Yang, where they both gloss over circumcision as being a human rights violation.
So many conservatives treat boys like garbage.
Liberals want to feminize boys, and conservatives want to make boys unfeeling macho men - no care as to whether they are mutilated or not, just be a self sacrificial pawn that serves your woman and your country, a masochistic beast of burden, a walking ATM machine, a human doing not a human being, a good tax payer.
I want to quibble with the notion that gynocentrism 'developed in the west' Gynocemtrism is our species survival strategy that developed a million or so years ago on the plains and mixed forests of Africa. Any tendency for wandering bands to have favored the wellbeing of women insured that this trait was passed on in greater numbers. In fact, a key tenet of feminism is the denial of gynocentrism, which is strong evidence of how deeply innate it is in all of us. Feminism has convinced spellcheck apps that gynocentrism isn't even a proper word
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 1, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I'll clarify. Gynocentrism goes back far before the 12th century AD turning point with Aquitaine of France (Ancient Rome, Ancient Greek temples to goddesses, etc.), as outlined by Peter Wright of gynocentrism.com - this moment in time does, however, appear to be a key point of it's rapid adoption of the chivalric courtly love, which C.S. Lewis tears apart elegantly in his book, The Allegory of Love. Feminism is repackaged chivalry.
As for it being a survival strategy, sure - it is beneficial for women. And women have a disproportionate influence on society in that mothers greatly affect children, impactfully and early on. The world of men, well a boy can forgo being initiated into the world of men, or go into it with trepidation - preferring to lounge in the psychological womb of his mother.
Yes, denying the beneficial sexism is necessary to keep it hidden, and therefore, preserved - it also is for women to not have the mental toll of cognitive dissonance of from the self awareness that they can be so influential and that they receive preferential treatment...how then could they feign helplessness to court beneficial sexism? Many women are not aware of this on purpose so they can convincingly plead innocence to themselves, it seems - so they can really believe that they truly are "powerless".
As for the timeline of a million years ago and the location of the plains and mixed forests of Africa - I have no remark about that in particular.
Anyways, the chivalric code is the cultural codification of the beginnings of feminism in the west. The aristocracy, the Duchess of Aquitaine, I believe, she hired poets and artists to write about how men should treat women in subservient ways - and the commoners follow what the aristocrats do. It was a way to more efficiently exploit men as masochistic beasts of burdens, pack mules. Some of the art of that time is very dehumanizing, showing men being led by women by the collar of their shirts...disgusting stuff. C.S. Lewis rips this apart in the book I previously mentioned, The Allegory of Love.
Anyways, that 12th AD movement from the Duchess, who was like a Jezebel to her Ahab husband who was well, a timid, subservient, boy....this began the chivalric code which spread like wildfire among Europe.
I hope this clarification is sufficient.
gynocentrism.com does a great job of explaining it, a blog written by Peter Wright.
I'm inclined to agree. Of course our western view of Islam or Hindu customs tends to reflect a view that the women are "repressed" for some bad reason. Yet for those cultures the explanation advanced for those practices in custom and holy writings are as protections for females, or at least females of the tribe/group/ nation. In the UK many of the "patriarchal" laws passed that a century later were seen as "oppressive", were in fact passed to protect women. Making Male relatives guarantors of loans protected women from debtors goals while excluding women from coal mining, steel working and other hazardous occupations clearly intended to protect women. Indeed there were powerful female lobby groups behind all these. Why not take at face value the Islamic and other cultures stated belief that their customs and laws too protect girls and women from potential harm?
The function doesn't allow me to 'Like' your comment. My friend David Shackleton edited a book called *Daughters of Feminism,* which has at least one essay by a woman who lived in the Arab world with her husband and noticed the many privileges women had there. It was certainly an eye-opener for me.
Thank you that sounds interesting. I have often mused on the contradiction in those who pontificate about the evils of culturally superior imperialism, then proceed to lecture others about how wrong they are. Personally I do believe that the long painful development of the cultural beliefs and institutions of the "west" have great value. However it seems much of the hectoring, often about ideas that are very recent innovations in our countries, is mis placed.
On the practical front I have often wondered about the effectiveness of diplomacy if the opening gambit to the rulers is to tell them "we think you are a backward bunch of woman hating brutes who abuse your spouses and children". It strikes me thereafter they wont be well disposed to be helpful.
Wow, interesting. I have had that one in my Amazon, "Save for Later" section - I'll have to check that out!
I admit, I have no idea what the accurate gauge/sentiment among women is in the Arab world in regard to their perceived privilege - or in India, either. Although I have seen throngs of Indian women beating up men in the streets, so...and I read a stat that said 74% of rape accusations made by women against men in India ending up being false - either the woman recanted or for other reasons.
Anyways, thanks for the good information, all of you.
I see that Hindu and Muslim people make claims of their customs and practices in regard to women are for their protection. Some of them are even sincere about it, but it seems like a lot of them might be using those customs to sublimate their desire to be domineering, perhaps. We see this in the West, too. Someone says they're doing something for your own good, but really, they are just unknowingly sublimating, satiating an unconscious desire to be improperly controlling.
Further, there is the theoretical proposition of particular law or custom meant to protect women, but how that law is actually implemented, how it is used, genuinely or not, and what the affects are...that's another story.
As for the UK/Western "patriarchal" laws - it's easier for me to see that they were to protect women, and I also do see women viewing them as oppressive much later.
Another example is sexually active women being excluded from medical/clinical trials after the Thalidomide drug scare, that gave women's babies terrible birth defects. After that, a law was set in place that if you were a woman that was even sexually active, they would not allow you into a clinical trial. Then Vox, the left leaning, very feminist YouTube Channel/Website said that all medicine is based on white men - and that they excluded women, but they just make assumptions of the oppressive patriarchy and never look into the "why". It's appalling.
Yes, the fact that there were female lobby groups that wanted to protect women with these "patriarchal laws" is fantastic - I like to bring this up often. Even for the vote, too. Being in the draft, being in the fire brigade, all necessary to have the vote - so many women wanted to forgo that - but, they ended up getting to have their cake and eat it, too. Over half of the population can vote in a way that leads us into war, and they don't have to pay the price for it - men will die for them. No skin in the game. Also, according to numerous surveys, women have far less interest in international affairs and politics than men do - and that interest becomes more disparate as men and women age.
I really enjoy Ernest Belfort Bax, "an English barrister, journalist, philosopher, men's rights advocate, socialist, and historian." Born: July 23, 1854 - Died: November 26, 1926. He wrote, "The Fraud of Feminism", and saw all of this feminist anti-male treatment at the time. His analyses are very illuminating.
"Why not take at face value the Islamic and other cultures stated belief that their customs and laws too protect girls and women from potential harm?" - I believe that the intentions are there, and that their customs and laws can be used this way - it's just, I'm not sure how well these customs and laws are implemented and enacted, out of love...or something less than that? I'm at the edge of my knowledge in this regard, perhaps I am just siding with what is familiar to me - the West.
Perhaps, if writing like Ms. Fiamengo's was more widely disseminated, then many young men and women would understand themselves, and the other sex, better.
Maturity and the development of maturity is crucial. Not identifying with our beliefs. What can change about us, is not us. I can change my clothes, I am not my clothes, etc. But, we get so embroiled and stubborn, tribalistic even, that we refuse to even attempt to falsify our beliefs in service of the pursuit of Truth.
If we could understand our strengths and weaknesses, and then have grace for each other - that would be grand.
All I can do is form myself into a mature, understanding, capable man - following what destiny I believe is placed on my heart - and that I will attract someone of similar caliber. People of similar maturity levels attract each other.
A man that objectifies women as sex objects attracts a women that sees men purely as success objects, human doings not human beings. It's kind of poetic, they relive the same traumas and dramas, until they get tired of that old dance and try to transcend it by observing themselves and really trying to figure it all out - the pursuit of Truth.
Unfortunately, modern society does not only not incentivize maturity, it actively disincentivizes maturity.
." If we could understand our strengths and weaknesses, and then have grace for each other - that would be grand " Grand indeed. And to be honest generally I find most people, men and women, are not at all the cardboard cut outs that the ideologues want us to believe in.
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 1, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Update:
I just became a subscriber to you less than a minute ago - you're the second person I donate to. The first organization I ever donated to was and still is, Foregen.
You mean a lot to me - I've told my friends about you, hell - even people I don't really know.
Thank you for what you do!
I do need to maintain some anonymity for work/career purposes - so please enjoy my profile picture of Dumbledore...
EDIT EDIT: changed my profile picture to Edmond Dantès. More apt. The story of a naïve, well-intentioned boy, that has no street smarts that gets betrayed, then becomes isolated, and gets mentored by a wise sage archetype, then seeks revenge...yep, that's how I feel...
I look forward to increasing my support to you as I advance my finances.
Thank you very much. Yes, I do know most of the sources you mentioned with the exception of Foregen, though I have benefited from anti-circumcision presentations at various ICMIs. Most of what I advocate is taken from truly original thinkers like Farrell, Collins, and Wright and the many other founding men and women of the men's issues movement. Over the past 8 months I have begun to assemble a history of feminism to demonstrate that from its beginnings in the late 18th or early 19th century, it was always female supremacist and deeply contemptuous of men.
Melanie Philip's book published at the end of the last century makes the point that feminism is an ideology attractive to adolescents, and many adherents become perpetual adolescents. It does seem to me that it reflects the lives of very comfortably off women. Both now and historically women benefitying from the labour of other less affluent women and from the generosity of affluent husbands/partners. Rather like adolescents there is a rich vein of petulant envy of affluent men and a deep contempt from the lowly men (and women) who actually work to build and run our societies many conveniences. Frankly there is a lot of snobbery ( and being British I think I can claim to know snobbery when I see it).
Apr 28, 2023·edited Apr 28, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I don't know if you've read Belfort Bax's work. If you haven't, then I highly recommend his two short books on feminism in the late 1800s and early 1900s: "The Legal Subjection of Men" and "The Fraud of Feminism." It mostly applies to the UK but there's also some things about the US. As for the late 1700s and early 1800s, when the industrial revolution was just starting to get off the ground, my conception was that gender relations was still largely dominated by renaissance feminism (from the French and Italian Renaissances) which basically amounted to constant and widespread quarreling and nagging about women's supposedly inferior social and legal status (so pretty much the same as today). I haven't found any books on it so my understanding is very limited. I'd appreciate any book recommendations on the subject.
Also the book "The Privileged Sex" by Martin van Creveld along with "Replacing Misandry" by Nathan and Katherine are two of the most eye-opening reads on the entire history of gender relations. Martin actually does a full accounting of all rights, privileges, and immunities along with the corresponding obligations, duties, and liabilities of men and women throughout the millennia. It made me realize that women's movements have completely fictionalized the past by purposefully engaging in partial accounting.
Thank you very much for this great comment. I do know Bax's work quite well and have been in awe of Nathanson and Young for YEARS ("I am not worthy!"). I have Creveld's book on my shelf but must confess that I haven't read it yet. Will remedy that deficiency soon.
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 1, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Thank you for the added clarification. I'm glad you now know of Foregen! Next year, the very first men will have their mutilation, 100% reversed with a lab grown male prepuce (foreskin), with their own body cells, using an extracellular matrix - not like restoration methods, which don't give back the nerve endings, mucosal lining, musculature, etc.
Exciting stuff - they can't ignore us for much longer!
I'm not familiar with Collins (I think), may I ask their first name?
Your video series is extremely enlightening and has incited within me the desire to collect the source materials of the suffragette letters, pamphlets, etc.
Please, have a fantastic weekend!
Edit: A fantastic video series on health masculine expression/maturity - an analysis of King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, from "Like Stories of Old".
Emotional avoidance is sometime necessary in the short term if you're in acute danger or someone else is, for example - long term, it is weakness to be emotionally avoidant because you become addicted to coping mechanisms like alcohol, porn, food (overeating, eating your emotions) - this is slavery to these coping mecahnisms/resources, resourcing is sometimes good and necessary, but some resources/coping is destructive and life sapping.
Being the stone faced, flattened affect, wounded animal, lone wolf is not healthy, long term. You might need to be reserved and hold back for temporary reasons, but never do this chronically.
Another good source: The book, "Wild at Heart" by John Eldredge.
True masculinity is mature, spiritual, feeling, wise, self-disciplined, and able to be present. If you have trapped survival stress (trauma), this prevents you from being present and entering flow state, that blissful state of timelessness you spend while working on your passion, or spending time with your partner. This claim is from Dr. Peter Levine of Somatic Experiencing, trauma prevents you from being present/mindful. More trauma, more addiction. Reducing trauma through somatic work, reduces the hold addictions have on you, then you become more free and expressive - the kind of energy that envelops you and spurns you to sing in the shower!
I'd like to add the fact that American boys that remain sexually intact are also sexually traumatized. A boy that escaped forced circumcision will likely be subject to a painful retracting/defusing of his foreskin to have his inner foreskin and penile glans scrubbed every day because "he's dirty and needs to be cleaned." This is why intact American boys tend to have a lot of problems with their penile development. There's no doubt that if we defused the clitoral hood of infant and toddler girls everyday to scrub their inner clitoral hood and clitoral glans (anatomically homologous structures to the foreskin and penile glans), that they would have a lot of problems. They would also be crying and screaming like boys do when they have their undeveloped glans scrubbed, but those cries and screams would actually be heard.
So the lives of infant and toddler boys are lives of sexual battery regardless if they are circumcised. And as you've discerned, that's just the very beginning of a life in a society that will relentlessly mock, ridicule, criminalize, and abuse the defining feature of his maleness. I too am fed up with this shit.
You've worded this particular issue in a way that I've not seen it worded before. I've printed your comment for future reference and added it to my folders.
Thank you for the input. It's been a while since I've made this comment, so I can't recall if I made mention of the remark you have made - I know I have mentioned it before.
Thank you. I've not heard it stated that way before - with the daily cleaning because of the false American perception of "dirtiness".
This really is a deep rabbit hole that has deeply troubled me, but I'd rather know than go back to being ignorant.
I'm doing Somatic Experiencing with Irene Lyon to address trauma and I will soon be using other somatic modalities to address trapped survival stress (trauma), like Myofascial Release, rolfing, and more.
This, paired with Foregen - to physically heal - I aim to go past "normal" to exceptional.
I hope other men will, too. I have told my entire family, and have managed to save a handful of boys from this outcome.
That being said, to make a great point.
I came across a woman that was trying to clean underneath her boys foreskin with soap...she has stopped since we spoke.
This whole ordeal is really painful. It feels so dehumanizing to have one's natural anatomy derided and jokes about, to so flippantly hear dumb jokes about circumcision.
Society cares much more about girls and women and even derides men for being ignorant of the female anatomy - but, look at how ignorant society is about men's anatomy.
Somatic experiencing has been very helpful for me. I've discovered a lot of anger and grief through the neurosensory practices.
Thank you for your comment. I have physically printed it and placed it in my folders because you've stated things in a way I've not seen before.
I'm repeating myself, now.
I really appreciate it your comment.
Again, thank you.
With the lawsuits, greater awareness, Foregen, psychological societies starting to speak about circumcision being an ACE, Adverse Childhood Event - and more.... This has got to be banned, and these medical workers that don't know any better ought to be trained in the proper way to work with the natural male anatomy. I'm starting to see a few positive cultural references to the male foreskin. There is an entire website dedicated to all of the misandrist anti male anti foreskin jokes of television of movies - most of them American, of course....
It's one of my primary drivers for building wealth and donating to causes like Foregen.
Regrowing foreskin? That's some dystopian nightmare right there. I think people have legitimate reason to be concern about the constant advancement of technology.
About teaching men to be tough, I'm still sceptical of that, I was never taught to be tough but it precipitated out of natural competition among boys. Unless you consider that to be a problem.
I think it will also become problematic if you make men overly emotional, women are not attracted to such men. They even lose respect for such men.
Further, there are studies on pair-bonding - it shows that primates that have more nerves in the foreskin versus their head of the penis, have coitus for longer, and this set's the two primates up for stronger pair bonding and more monogamous arrangements. Human men have more nerve endings in the foreskin than the head of the penis...which leads to more pair bonding.
Primates with more nerve endings in the head of the penis compared to the foreskin, ejaculated quicker, less coitus time, less pair bonding, the species was more polygamous.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I - I think it was this presentation, "Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital by Professor R. McAllister", that had the pair bonding studies with the primates.
Circumcised men are 20% more likely to get divorced...reduced pair bonding...source: the book: Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, by Dr. Ronald Goldman. And yes, the USA has a much higher divorce rate compared to regions of the world where male genital mutilation is not practiced.
Women feel more vaginal pain with circumcised men because of the excessive friction without the slack tissue of the foreskin and also the keratinized, dried out head of the penis that adds more friction. A woman that associates sex with her husband with pain...that's not something that brings a couple together, but drives them apart. Circumcised men tend to thrust harder, they're less gentle - another abrasive factor. Foregen has more information on the 16+ functions of the male prepuce covering that 6500+ species of mammals have...it's not a mistake.
Your concern about dystopian nightmares should be aimed at the fact that our American society and other parts of the world routinely mutilate the genitals of boys - taking away the MOST pleasurable part of their anatomy.
It's medical indoctrination - circumcision is the most common procedure in the USA, it's a big money maker, and foreskins are SOLD to companies like Skinmedica to put in FACE CREAMS for women like OPRAH and SANDRA BULLOCK.
And guess what? Companies can test their cosmetic products on HFF, human foreskin fibroblast, which comes from unconsenting baby boys, and they get to call their products as "cruelty free" because they didn't test it on animals!
What a joke! Animals are more valued than boys and the men they grow up into!
You also know that skin gun they use on burn victims? Yep, they use HFF, there, too! From BABY BOYS.
They make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a YEAR!
THAT IS YOUR DYSTOPIAN NIGHTMARE!
Men regenerating the most pleasurable part of their anatomy, regaining body autonomy and sexual integrity, while being able to be living examples of someone that is sexually healed that can definitively say that being intact is immeasurably better - we can end MALE GENITAL MUTILATION.
If men don't respect themselves, we will always be treated like garbage.
How you treat yourself is how you train other people to treat you. And you treat yourself the way your parents treated you growing up.
Awareness, contemplation - the pursuit of Truth - this is Masculinity in its fullness.
Women give birth to men, men give birth to civilization - civilization that is founded upon Truth, pursued through a relationship with the Divine - and women benefit from that, all propser. Only when men continually pursue what is the Truth, what is Sacred. It's a Spiritual pursuit, really. The King Archetype outlines this. Matriarchies do not have electricity, plumbing, or much prosperity at all. This is easy to research.
Additional addendum - American Christians have failed to read their NEW TESTAMENT where Christ compared circumcision to an injury when Christ was criticized for healing a man. "Why do you chastise me for healing a man, when you circumcise one on the Sabbath"...I'm paraphrasing - The Mosaic law is a burden, circumcision is a part of Mosaic law meant only for Jewish people for that specific time - therefore, circumcision is a burden.
The book of Galatians - Apostle Paul calls circumcision, "MUTILATION" - and he wished that the Judiasers who were trying to persuade new Christians to mutilate themselves that they (the Judiasers) would mutilate themselves, instead of trying to trip up new Christians. These Judiasers were following Apostle Paul around, since they couldn't kill him because he was outside of Isreal - they just tried to deceive those he was spreading the gospel to.
European Christians know, that circumcisions is disgusting and wrong - every theologian of note states this.
American Christians have failed on this big time. A huge disappointment.
Also, biblical circumcision is different than modern circumcision.
Here's a drawing showing the difference. The modern version made it so that Jews could not hide among gentiles by pulling down their foreskin.
In other words the best solution is prevention not cure. You don't need go in depth with the negative consequences of circumcision, I'm well aware. It's worth noting the circumcision is a Jewish custom.
Prevention is optimal. Regenerative medicine is the next best thing.
The negative consequences are important.
Circumcision in Biblical times is different than modern day circumcision, which is far more severe - I've already outlined that in a different comment.
Who cares if it is Jewish? They do it in parts of Africa, the Phillipines, South Korea - a lot of that is because the USA has taken it to other parts of the world and spread it there - which is disgusting.
It should be federally banned, no exceptions. Jail time for anyone that does this. Just like how girls' genitals are federally protected, it's a sexist double standard to not protect boys.
Just because someonone is Jewish, doesn't mean that their son wants to be Jewish. Boys don't even have religious freedom.
There is a group called, "Jews Against Circumcision", they opt for a naming ceremony, not a genital mutilation ceremony - they're not anti-semetic, they don't hate themselves. Dr. Ronald Goldman, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, is Jewish.
Who cares if it is a Jewish custom? Muslims like to mutilate girls and boys, by that logic should we let muslims cut on girls, too?
Moot point.
Federally ban it for all minors. It's normalized sexual violence.
At least if you are raped, you have all of your body parts still.
They actually can't perform circumcisions on flaccid penises, so they stroke the baby boy's penis to get it erect before inflicting massive pain on it (disgusting) - after they tie him down to a circumstraint board.
It's pure torture.
Here are the affects on the brain - more likely to be autistic and/or have alexthymia - that's what huge surges of cortisol stress hormone and massive fear in the amygdala do! One reason why there is more Autism in boys, among other factors.
"Results: Early-circumcised men reported lower attachment security and lower emotional stability while no differences in empathy or trust were found. Early circumcision was also associated with stronger sexual drive and less restricted socio-sexuality along with higher perceived stress and sensation seeking."
"People who sustain damage to the amygdala have social behaviors reminiscent of autism, such as avoiding eye contact and having difficulty judging facial expressions, but they do not meet diagnostic criteria for the condition. Altered amygdala structure or function has been linked to nearly every neuropsychiatric condition, from anxiety and bipolar disorder to schizophrenia, making it difficult to say how the region might uniquely explain autism traits."
And the Jewish people are known for having higher rates of schizophrenia...this is one of those reasons...one contributory factor.
Further, there are studies on pair-bonding - it shows that primates that have more nerves in the foreskin versus their head of the penis, have coitus for longer, and this set's the two primates up for stronger pair bonding and more monogamous arrangements. Human men have more nerve endings in the foreskin than the head of the penis...which leads to more pair bonding.
Primates with more nerve endings in the head of the penis compared to the foreskin, ejacultaed quicker, less coitus time, less pair bonding, the species was more polygamous.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I - I think it was this presentation, "Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital by Professor R. McAllister", that had the pair bonding studies with the primates.
Circumcised men are 20% more likely to get divorced...reduced pair bonding...source: the book: Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, by Dr. Ronald Goldman.
Women feel more vaginal pain with circumcised men because of the excessive friction without the slack tissue of the foreskin and also the keratinized, dried out head of the penis that adds more friction. A woman that associates sex with her husband with pain...that's not something that brings a couple together, but drives them apart. Circumcised men tend to thrust harder, they're less gentle - another abrasive factor. Foregen has more information on the 16+ functions of the male prepuce covering that 6500+ species of mammals have...it's not a mistake.
Your concern about dystopian nightmares should be aimed at the fact that our American society and other parts of the world routinely mutilate the genitals of boys - taking away the MOST pleasurable part of their anatomy.
It's medical indoctrination - circumcision is the most common procedure in the USA, it's a big money maker, and foreskins are SOLD to companies like Skinmedica to put in FACE CREAMS for women like OPRAH and SANDRA BULLOCK.
And guess what? Companies can test their cosmetic products on HFF, human foreskin fibroblast, which comes from unconsenting baby boys, and they get to call their products as "cruelty free" because they didn't test it on animals!
What a joke! Animals are more valued than boys and the men they grow up into!
You also know that skin gun they use on burn victims? Yep, they use HFF, there, too! From BABY BOYS.
They make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a YEAR!
THAT IS YOUR DYSTOPIAN NIGHTMARE!
Men regenerating the most pleasurable part of their anatomy, regaining body autonomy and sexual integrity, while being able to be living examples of someone that is sexually healed that can definitively say that being intact is immeasurably better - we can end MALE GENITAL MUTILATION.
If men don't respect themselves, we will always be treated like garbage.
How you treat yourself is how you train other people to treat you. And you treat yourself the way your parents treated you growing up.
Awareness, contemplation - the pursuit of Truth - this is Masculinity in its fullness.
The kind of man I describe whose ego can balance the four archetypes without being fully possessed by any one of their shadow forms or identifying with one of the archetypes in their fullness which leads to grandiosity and pride can be summarized in this video series.
This is a well integrated man. To get ever closer and closer to integrating these parts of the psyche requires the attitude of the student, where reality, God himself, the Maker, is your teacher.
The men depicted in these videos experience emotion and express themselves along their developmental pathways. Look at the characters in the Bible.
A boy answers the Call to Adventure, and goes on the Hero's Journey (Joseph Campbell).
He gets initiated, becomes wiser, gets the help of a mentor/sage.
Look at the book/movie, "The Count of Monte Cristo".
You have to go to your limits, to where you do experience intense emotion, the emotion that was always inside of you. Anger, grief, even other very uncomfortable emotions need to be integrated, like murderous rage - because if someone is trying to kill you - you react with deadly force - there is no moral deliberation in the face of actual life or death threat.
You cannot become a health, mature man, if you refuse to feel. Suppression is avoidance, avoidance is weakness.
The video series is great - please consider taking a look at it.
How is regenerative medicine, that gives men back the most sensitive and erogenous zones of their penis - there are five regions on the foreskin that are more sensitive than on the circumcised penis - a dystopian nightmare?
If a woman had the tip of her clitoris removed, would a regenerative technique that grew that part of her clitoris back in a lab environment with her own body cells - would you consider that a dystopian nightmare?
I always flip the situation by swapping man and woman, because most people have more empathy for women.
Do you feel the same way?
We want our choice back.
It's not the family penis, where you parents or society can just go ahead and slice and dice your private, sexual organs.
This is important.
Men don't even have basic body autonomy or sexual integrity.
Dystopian nightmare??
This doesn't involve stem cells from aborted fetuses, if that's what you think...?
What is needed is a donor extracellular collagen matrix as scaffolding that comes from cadavers of adult intact men that are tissue donors - then your body cells repopulate the collagen matrix.
Many men want their sexual function back.
Sources:
"The foreskin has important sexual nerve receptors that are removed during circumcision.[9][1][15][27] Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.[28]"
Also, nothing I said ever asserts that men need to be emotionally incontinent. Also, some women do not understand that men need to grieve - those women that are turned off by grieving men had overbearing fathers or mothers that had an authortarian style of parenting. When a woman cannot have solid boundaries because they never developed due to an overbearing father or mother, they need to use the man's boundaries, so she needs you to continually be vigilant to the point of hypervigilance, you need to be unwavering and make her feel safe in a codependent way. You are supposed to maintain her boundaries because she isn't mature enough to.
Those women put men on pedestals as gods, and gods can't make mistakes, so you can never confide in her, or get comfort from her.
These women are dysfunctional and they're looking for a father figure.
Do you want a father-daughter relationship? It's unhealthy.
Women that want men of stone are the women that are frightened of the world, like scared mouses, they need you to be their father and basically a meat shield that takes on the full abuse of the world and meets her needs as if she were your daughter.
A man that needs to grieve but refuses to, becomes numb.
If you block and avoid grief through being a workaholic or an alcoholic, etc. - you also block yourself off from joy, and become numb. Then you are more likely to have an affair with a different woman to get a nice distraction and to feel more alive...
I've seen this countless times, and am very well read in the literature.
Test my claims, you need not blindly believe me.
Look at the work of Gabot Mate, Peter Levine, Bessel Van Der Kolk, Kathy Kain, Irene Lyon. There is nothing about what they say that has a feminist agenda that seeks to make men into "feminized wussies". They talk about the physiology of trauma is stored in the nervous system and how the body physically releases emotion. They don't talk about politics, ideologies, etc. It's all the science of trauma and how it dysregulates our nervous system which produces disease, and the practices on how to bring the nervous system back into regulation.
Also, your second comment, I don't find competition to be problematic at all. I'm a proponent of men and women learning how to be physically capable, how to be a monster, but a controlled monster - that way when an emergency strikes, you're not useless, but useful. I'm a proponent of people learning how to fight and have concealed carry licenses to defend themselves and the people they love. I'm not promoting that men become emotionally incontent and useless, defanged, etc. Be a monster, but know how to control it - in order to control your newfound ability to fight, you need to have compassion and to have skin in the game (a family, a life worth living), so you don't act like a hothead looking for fights, like you have a chip on your shoulder and you need to beat people up to prove you are a man, same thing for men who are skirt chasers, seeking to get laid by anyone so they can get external validation. It's all a falsehood. This is why compassion and being emotionally intelligent while be a force to contend with physically, psychologically (having psychological boundaries, being able to say no) is important.
Your 4th paragraph, yes, feminism and Jewishness - I wasn't totally conscious of the link, but you're right - also a lot of Jewish people seem to lean liberal, which is more likely to have a feminist leaning, it seems - thanks for concretizing this for me.
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 1, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Well, would you want to feel empathy for a tranny to want to be able to grow a penis in substitution for a vagina? What if this experiment go in the wrong way? We've already seeing this with hormone therapy. Do you express sympathy for those or is that a dystopian nightmare for you. Road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
For women, yes I would consider it a nightmare. What's done is done.
I will argue that people have more empathy for women because it's genetic. Women bear the civilisation's future generations, it's why they've been the protected group and men play the role of sacrifice.
The answer is curtail on women's freedom and get rid of equality. No civilisation was built on equality. Then again, the west is dying anyway (largely thanks to equality). Whites are becoming the minority in North America and Western Europe is being Islamified, they're literally allowed to build mosque there, 50 years ago it was unthinkable. Whites are already the minority in London.
I've heard some excellent arguments, mostly forgotten, that gynocentrism makes more sense as matricentrism (is that the right word? the privileging of motherhood, protection of mothers) but that western culture's gynocentrism is a perverted version. (I should go back to Peter Wright's work.) We even protect and affirm women who want to destroy their children and prevent children from being born. We protect and affirm women who kill men and seek to fatally weaken our civilization. I get that there is an instinctual component (though I don't think I have it in me, maybe it's just deeply repressed) but there should also be an instinctual revulsion against bad women; and it doesn't seem that it is able to be expressed in our culture.
Matricentrism. Yes that does make more sense. After all fir most of human history we lived in comparatively small clan communities, often at quite a distance from other similar communities. Given the high infant mortality and fragility of life in general mothers would indeed be incredibly valuable and valued by the clan, for its continuation and future. It is hard to remember how very recent it is that humanity is so numerous and so much in command of tte environment that many of it's most deep cultural developments have simply not "caught up". When one looks at the privileges accorded to women, and indeed the protections that came to be seen as "oppression", it easy to see how they would fundamentally be about protecting the future. Of course it is also hard to turn back the clock to the times when the mechanics of our reproduction were very imperfectly understood. As you say the idea that preventing conception and preventing the birth of children by killing them is a bizarre recent innovation that would have been invoncievable not that long ago.
You're talking about an entirely different issue - a trans person wanting to grow the opposite genitalia? I don't even care to discuss that. Why bring it up?
What if the experiment goes wrong? The technology is already FDA approved, only this novel application need be approved - they've already had successful animal trials - human trials are next, the last phase. They're being careful and systematic. What if it goes right? It's going to be each man's choice, whether they want to do this or not. This is a fantastic opportunity - asking what if it goes wrong is a moot point.
Hormone therapy is not comparable to this. You don't understand the technology.
Your trans statement, your questioning of whether the experiment could go wrong (that's what the testing and trials are for...), and the false comparison to hormone therapy is all useless.
"For women, yes I would consider it a nightmare. What's done is done." - wow, that is ignorant. People that get sexually mutilated want to be whole - there are surgeries to help women who are victims of female genital mutilation regain sexual function, and they are thankful.
It's not your choice to "consider it a nightmare" on someone's behalf.
They teach people in kindergarten to keep your hands to yourself...Americans just can't get a grip on this concept, I suppose.
All of your "criticisms" of regenerative medicine healing men and women, whom it is their own personal choice, are weak, tangential red herrings.
Your last two paragraphs, I somewhat agree with - but don't want to expound upon and belabor these points - for sake of time and energy.
Covid vaccine was FDA approved that failed abysmally. Thalidomide was also FDA approved and looked at the birth defects it has caused. FDA doesn't guarantee your safety. I could go through a whole history of medical mishaps and corruptions.
"You don't understand the technology" Said the person who projects.
Yes, it cruel I said it, but so is nature. Nature is vindictive, cold, callous and uncaring and it's certainly not evil. That's nature.
Much of the West seem to failed to keep their hands to themselves not just Americans. Hence the collapse of the West.
Actually, no. They do accelerate dysgenics. Most of modern medicines aren't cures, they're treatments. Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, we've started producing more dysgenic people. We now have an infant mortality rate of 1%. Previously it was 50%, this was natural selection.
The technology has already successfully been used with other body parts.
I am aware that 300,000 people are killed each year due to medical malpractice in the USA. The third leading cause of death each year, if I recall from memory correctly.
Your feelings of nature are projection, as well. We cannot move away from our biases, and those that think they have no blindspot, most certainly do.
I spend the time to be informed with this company, Foregen. The concept of informed consent is important. Many of those injured by medicine were not properly informed. I suggest to people that it is their own personal imperative to inform themselves.
I am very aware of the corrupt nature of western allopathic medicine and of the massive failure of the mRNA injection, and all of the hiding of the adverse events, etc. It's a debacle of large magnitude.
Most modern medicine is a treatment on purpose. Look at the kind of healthcare that the wealthy get, not covered by insurance. It gets closer to first principles healing. So much healing technology and treatments have been suppressed.
People like Dave Asprey, Dr. Mercola, and others within their circle actually know of the methods of healing that the mainstream calls quackery and even dangerous, they do this just to protect their profits.
IFM, Integrative Functional Medicine, is far better than regular MD allopathic practices, especially when it comes to chronic illnesses.
Modern medicine makes people sick. Government dietary guidelines are illness producing. I could go on.
If you look at Dave Asprey's podcast and read his books and the books of his guests - you would have a different perspective.
You've no doubt seen this with the ivermectin drug, very safe for humans, get dragged through the mud by the mainstream that is funded by big pharma.
This has been happening for decades! With male genital mutilation, statins, root canals, etc....
As for dysgenics - take a look at Bruce Lipton, he talks of epigenetics, we can change the state of our nervous system with things like Somatic Experiencing, to change gene expression, and change the health of our offspring for the better.
Also, just saying something MIGHT not work, is not helpful. Experimentation and feedback from experimentation is crucial.
Regardless of what you think is or is not possible - this regenerative medicine is very meaningful to many people, and well within the realm of possibility. They've already implanted vaginas in biological women that had vaginal birth defects....back around 2012...
There are many war veterans that have damage genitals, that want to experience this regenerative method.
We want to be able to provide this to people. I care, anyways.
You sound like you view the human race like an alien or something. I understand the evolutionary world view and the selective pressures, but...I don't let it make me so clinical and unfeeling.
I'll take a look at the name you dropped, Theodore.
Without doubt the empathy gap is very real, even to the point of the humanity of males being downgraded. Was it in 2013 that posters declaring “men’s rights are human rights” were defaced with words like “false”? I invited you to consider the implied logical corollary.
The “Genderbread” graphic illustrates how these ideologies – feminism or trans – are promoting mental ill-health. Not content with atomising society by dividing us as individuals, this presentation of the nature of a single individual even divides our own being into fragments. One might define mental, emotional and spiritual maturity as being the harmonious unity of brain, heart and genitalia – not their presentation as independent and unrelated. (See CS Lewis, Men Without Chests).
It is distressing that even conservatives who might talk sense on many issues are so blind to feminism’s true nature and implications. But that is because the traditional world was just as gynocentric as this one.
What these attitudes betray, whether of feminists or traditional conservatives, is an implicit status hierarchy. A male wishing to transition is analogous to some working class oik in the Victorian era attempting to pass himself off as something socially superior. It is simply not to be tolerated.
Indeed I do think the demise of the Tavistock clinic shows this. Had the universal assumption in public debate, that this was mainly about boys wanting to be girls, been confirmed by the stats on referral. Then I'm sure the clinic would not have been subjected to the scrutiny it has. I recall a Professor writing about the "worrying" increase in girls being referred. Indicating the previously higher number of boys in the previous decade was not bothersome.
One of the things I didn't mention about Shrier's short video and her interview with Owens (and by the way, I do not particularly blame these women; I quite like them in many ways, but their blindspot is typical) was that she mentioned that until fairly recently, the trans phenomenon was mainly confined to young boys. She cleary said that when a phenomenon has been mainly experienced by one sex and suddenly starts being experienced by the other sex, 'something is going on.' Her concern, though, was not at all with the sex that had previously been experiencing it.
In an era of change in 1970s working class Manchester I and my friends simply assumed girls and women were "better". In the sense of morally good and "mature". We were taught never to hit or shout, to help and support and aspire to be good husbands and fathers on the assumption that our "natures" made us rough and uncouth without careful control. Hence the acceptance that we'd be blamed and more severely punished and rarely get the fulsome praise showered on female contemporaries. I very much doubt "feminism" had much influence on any of this. As I have seen my children grow up to adulthood their experience (two boys and a girl) were not that different with "feminist" ideas really simply piggy backing the existing "man up" culture. And of course there is the irony on the huge numbers of supposedly "silenced" women in the media pontificating about "men" while apparently having as little to do with the beasts as they can! Perhaps the "experiment" that is LGBT plus particularly exposed this deeply held empathy gap and gynocentricity precisely because it takes feminism beyond the usual "women and children first" to actual messing about with sex and "gender".
Sometimes I think the fact that mens wear and work has changed little for over a century reflects that so much is a sort of debate between different groups of women with men still "taking care of business" back stage. Which in a way is the conclusion of Norah Vincent.
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 8, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Thanks for bringing attention to this issue of imbalanced display of empathy for MtF transpeople, Janice. As you say, most MtF have other things going on in their lives than the aim of raping or patriarchal domination of natal women - as feminists would have us believe. I'm reminded of the example of a 3 year old 'gender dysphoric' boy who said to researchers, “I hate myself. I don’t want to be me. I want to be somebody else. I want to be a girl.” [Source of quote: Sonia Marantz and Susan Coates, Mothers of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder: A Comparison of Matched Controls (1991)]
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 1, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
She had problems prior to her "experiment" so I'm not sure her death related to the episodes of mental ill health after her time as Ned. However her book is indeed a real "eye opener" for those so convinced males live charmed lives. As far as I know no one else has done such an experiment for so long.
I cant remember a programme out coincidentally at about the time of her book there was a couple of programmes where British actors and actresses spend a day passing as the opposite sex. I always recall a youngish attractive actress remarking how shocked she was at how "invisible" she was in her Male guise. As she said she was completely ignored and expected to just "get on with it". It is no wonder women spend so much time and treasure on creating a "look at me" image, if the alternative is to be as invisible as a man is.
I've read articles by trans men about their surprise at how unfriendly people were to them generally once they were able to present as male in the world, as compared to their female experience. Far fewer smiles, no 'Let me help you's,' fewer shared chuckles in the grocery line-up.
It's quite an intellectual trick to simultaneously enforce the notion that women are equal in every way with men and also to systematically remove all agency from women and girls whose action are simply the result of societal pressure, fashion magazines, and other oppressive, probably patriarchal, forces which overwhelm the morally superior sex
Indeed, it is quite the intellectual trick--and they do it every time. Even back in the 19th century, you can see it at work. Have you read Ernest Belfort Bax's books (The Legal Subjection of Men and The Fraud of Feminism)? He highlighted those very contradictions: women were "equal" in every way (or even better than men); but they were also more vulnerable, and needed many special protections, privileges, and excuses. Even back in those bad old days, women were immune to prosecution for many crimes for which men were harshly punished. He details these.
I've only come to know about Bax through your YT essays. Listening to you introduce Bax, I thought of Esther Vilar's book, The Manipulated Man, which deserves as much reexamination as those of Bax
Yes, Vilar is brilliant too. Steve and I discussed her in a livestream, and Steve once did a video about her, but we should do another. Thanks for the reminder. I loved that book.
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 1, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Here in the UK "the Tavistock" a NHS mental health clinic for children and adult has just been closed. To cut a longer story short, because an inquiry found it was all to ready to give "puberty blockers" and other medical interventions to pre -teens and teens. Now this story began about 4 years ago when an earlier report highlighted that the majority of children and teens referred to the Tavistock were in fact female. I remember this in the headlines of the day and thinking that this was the beginning of the end for the then highly fashionable support for "trans" ideology. For of course since at least the 1960s to my knowledge the public perception and debate had always been about men transitioning to women. So in my teenage years I was aware my favourite travel writer Jan Morris, had been James Morris, and there were still jokes about "going to Casablanca" because the rather rudimentary surgery then used as "treatment " was not available in the UK. Throughout the carefree 70s, the rather less carefree 80s and the arrival of irresponsibility from the mid 90s the general story was that it was all about men taking a few steps further than cross dressing or drag acts. So it wasn't any surprise it continued in much the same vein in the early 21st Century. As such the adoption of the ideology by LGBT organisations such as Stonewall boosted their image as cutting edge and continued the idea of it being just one of a range of strange behaviours of males. Then came the controversy abot the Tavistock and referrals from schools and the massive tanker started to turn, because rather than being a modish Male pursuit of their "feminine side" that only boring old fashioned prudes would oppose ; the penny started to drop that it also affected girls and women. Actually following this suddenly women and feminists caught wind that not only was it something that affected females in "treatment" but that allowing people to simply "be" rather than wait til, their bits were chopped off, rather undermined a few privileges women rather liked after all. And so feminists roundly turned on their former "allies" in the LGBT etc. Camp. Explicitly laying bare in the process that its women who have extra "rights" based on sex (I have yet to see anyone protest about mens privacy or "sex based rights" either Male or female, because there are non to protect). I notice that this turn around has engendered (ha ha) feminist campaigns against "drag acts" and other forms of entertainment where men "impersonate " women. Of course there again no one is the least bit bothered about women dressing as men nor impersonating them as entertainment. Even the God like Harry Styles has hit some buffers for his effimate fashions and make up (hardly "cutting edge" to those once fans of "glam rock" and "gender bending" David Bowie). Because all of a sudden finding your feminine side is usurping female "rights".
As you say what does this illustrate ? Well that in the UK at least, the thing that most derails the great contradictions and damages of "woke" ideologies is that most deeply rooted and universal animus to protect females. I think I can confidently say that had the furore about the Tavistock not laid bare the reality that it wasn't all about chopping boys bits off, we'd still gave all our public services and institutions of education blithely insisting is all totally fine and "modern".
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 2, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Timely insight. It made me recall in a parallel to the Tavistock closure that one of the turningpoint legal decisions that opened the floodgates to state legislatures codifying same sex marriage was the case of a widowed lesbian who was not fully entitled by law to the property of her, then soidisant, lifetime partner. It's clear that a gay male partnership in the exact same circumstance would not have generated a fraction of the public sympathy
Yes it ironic isn't it? For in the UK the repeal of "sexist" laws and indeed the equality legislation of the 1960s and 70s were passed by institutions 90% Male. Certainly in the UK it is only since the Blair years and "devolution " that a significant proportion of females have any prospect of claiming to have taken such decisions. Just as many legislative moves to protect women were pushed by christian women's groups influencing Male decision makers in the mid Victorian era. Indeed later Oscar Wilde fell foul of this as he was prosecuted not "for the love that dares not speak its name" but for entertaining rent boys in London hotel rooms under legislation newly minted against prostitution, lobbied for vociferously for almost the preceding decade by prominent spouses of MPs and peers and women's religious groups. All of it dutifully enacted by men.
There can be no true understanding of the sexes until we understand how difficult it has been to shine an empathetic light on men and boys. The double standard not only remains, it remains all but entirely unquestioned.
Sure, I see that, and she seems like a good person overall. She's just an example, and not a malicious one, of our society's general inability to care as much about boys as about girls.
Although this may be tangential a recent documentary on a supposed "epidemic" of "Tourettes syndrome" amongst British teenagers. Needless to say the concern was about the rapid increases in girls. Now what was interesting was in following the stories of the selected girls. It was clear that their mothers (fathers it seems were either absent or irrelevant) and schools took a distinctly indulgent attitude. For behaviours which would certainly end up with "exclusion " from school and referral to special schools or behavioural units (something I know about from a previous job). The programme ended with an evidently exasperated NHS Consultant pinning the blame for this sudden explosion on social media sites. Interestingly all of the subjects in the documentary were "cured" as their tourettes vanished on it's own.
What struck me was the very different attitude of mothers and schools to the actual behaviours, which would have been viewed very differently and with very different consequences for boys. The reluctance to admit the obvious, that in each case the behaviour gained attention, and positive at that, at a time the girls has a stress (changing school, falling out with a friend, bad exam results) and passed as the stress abated.
Though I take the point about boys and young men and suicide, I do suspect the general lack of indulgence of boys teenage difficulties and high expectation they'll sort themselves out may actually contribute to the comparatively small number of boys who suffer from anxiety disorders and "poor mental health" compared to their female contemporaries. I think in general the boys and men who eventually present with acute distress have very real and immediate needs. But in general something seems to act as a "protective" to men and boys who are such a minority in the "walking worried" at all ages. Nature or nurture , probably a bit of both.
Janice always surprises me with her insightful perspective and informs me with arguments and evidence of which I was not aware. Sometimes I imagine I am up to speed, and then Janice goes shooting by, and I have to try to catch up. I am very grateful for her.
Philip, that is too much praise (but I will not reject it, ha ha). You are extremely informed on a variety of fronts. I've got my one, relatively narrow, interest/obsession. But thank you.
Most commentators have much to be modest about. But you do not.
I like people who present perspectives and arguments from an angle that I had not been previously aware of. Also articulating in a manner that I am not able.
Thank you Philip for speaking just what I was thinking!
Philip! You are an Anthropologist?! I have a love for Anthropology largely due to the Anthropological research saving my butt and helping me understand the differences in the way men and women grieve. If you are interested there is a chapter online from my first book that describes this realization https://menaregood.com/swallowed-by-a-snake-chapter-nine/ It is in some ways the intersection of men's issues and Anthropology. <smile>
I was fortunately to be able to devote my professional life to anthropology. Wonderful field (for most of fifty years I taught--now, sadly, woke and corrupt). I carried out extensive field research among nomadic tribes of Baluchistan (s.e. Iran), herding casts of Rajasthan (India), and shepherds of Sardinia (Italy). Thanks for the link to your chapter; I look forward to reading it.
I am loving your writing on minding the campus! Thank you for standing up and telling the truth.
I am fascinated by nomadic people. I know so little about them. Makes me wonder what sort of grief rituals they might have given their movements.
A great look at gynocentrism, how western society is tailored toward and focused on the needs of girls and women, not boys and men. Are you familiar with the blog, https://gynocentrism.com/ ? This blog is written by Peter Wright, who has authored some books. It all stems from Chivalry being the start of gynocentric behavior in the west, from 12th Century AD or somewhere thereabouts, as Peter Wright describes.
Also, the book, the Myth of Male Power, by Dr. Warren Farrell, explains how the average man is marginalized and just invisible.
Further, the book, "The Empathy Gap", by William Collins... http://empathygap.uk/
Also, boys' bodies? Circumcision is MALE GENITAL MUTILATION. But, who cares? Even most men don't care because they are so emotionally shut down and afraid of being vulnerable, or afraid to feel at all.
There is a company, Foregen, https://www.foregen.org/ , that is nearly in phase 3 of 3 human trials which lasts for one year, starting on April 1st 2023 - where they will be regrowing foreskins, which is healthy, densely innervated erogenous tissue, 15 square inches, with mucosal lining, fine touch receptors, ridged band, Meisner's corpuscles, and other musculature...all with the patients own body cells.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ0rDhoTjmA
The above is a link to the intro video of this biotech company that is currently in phase 2 of 3 animal trials and has received over $1.3 Million dollars of donations, and that number is many months old. All trials have been successful so far, and the underlying technology (ECM, extracellular matrix technology) is already FDA approved, they just need this particular application of this already approved technology to be approved!
I saw a post on Facebook from the Telegraph of a young man that was raped by a young woman, and there was 1000 laughing emojis, mostly from men! This is the link to the FB Page below - I can't get the direct link to the post for some reason:
https://www.facebook.com/domesticviolenceawarenessaustralia
We teach men to "be tough", and by that, we tell them to suppress emotion, unless it is anger, being crass, and making dark jokes of tragedy, being in touch with our grief isn't taught in western society - I've unlearned this with EMDR psychotherapy, and Somatic Experiencing, Psychedelic assisted psychotherapy, journaling, Holotropic Breathwork, etc. I feel alive. In high school, about 7 years ago, I was so numbed out, emotionally dumb, breathing in my chest, tired but wired, couldn't focus in school, got a 2.8 GPA, barely graduated. Then in college I kept a 4.0, got over $20,000 in scholarships... turned it all around. I got referred to the school psychologist once in high school, I can't remember what she even said, but they never spoke to me again...it wasn't until 4 or 5 years later that I found an EMDR therapist of my own accord after changing my diet, doing ice baths, infrared sauna etc. - most of my autoimmune symptoms were psychosomatic.
I digress - but, the boys really need help.
Back to male genital mutilation.
It's maddening to me that circumcision is a joke in crappy television and movies. It's so hurtful, and emotionally callous men make jokes about it, and so do women.
Foregen will remedy this, at least for those in the know.
The majority of nerve endings are in the foreskin, more than the head/glans of the penis! And it keeps the head of the penis soft and smooth and lubricated, instead of dried out and keratinized. Circumcisions reduces sexual pleasure for men and women.
Look at the documentary, The American Circumcision, by Brendon Marotta.
https://www.amazon.com/American-Circumcision-Marilyn-Milos/dp/B07DWBSFH4/ref=tmm_aiv_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
and the book: Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma
https://www.amazon.com/Circumcision-Hidden-Trauma-American-Ultimately/dp/0964489538/ref=d_pd_sim_sccl_2_2/135-1436324-7681556?pd_rd_w=nsJ2N&content-id=amzn1.sym.9125e5ab-ea95-44ef-9958-112d5f0f26f0&pf_rd_p=9125e5ab-ea95-44ef-9958-112d5f0f26f0&pf_rd_r=KEERXBY5CZY6M5NHN1NR&pd_rd_wg=JP9Uj&pd_rd_r=436aa4ff-bd6f-41b9-ab27-d5415b67de49&pd_rd_i=0964489538&psc=1
My parents know what they did was wrong, it happened to my dad, too. But, is in pretty deep denial about how negative the impact is, still.
The older generations are so numbed out, and much of that has to do with their upbringing and the birth/preverbal trauma of being trapped in incubators without human contact for months, the trauma that the hospital puts babies through. Hospitals have been routinely traumatizing and putting generations of American's in fight/flight/freeze mode for decades and decades.
The current medical establishment is not trauma informed.
Babies have nervous systems, you can put them in fight or flight, therefore, and they can, as a result, produce cortisol stress hormone and this stunts their development! Also, the more childhood trauma, the more autoimmune illness! Look at the San Diego Adverse Childhood Event (ACE) score study!
For more info on trauma, I work with a somatic practioner, Irene Lyon, who has a husband, Seth Lyon, and they both are knowledgeable about medical trauma, preverbal trauma, birth trauma, transgenerational trauma. All based on the work of Dr. Peter Levine, Dr. Bessel Van Der Kolk (The Body Keeps the Score), Dr. Moshe Feldenkrais, Kathy Kain, Dr. Gabor Mate.
Here is a quote from Seth Lyon:
"Underneath all that, I was circumcised – an incredibly traumatic experience which linked violence and violation with the sexual organs in the somatic unconscious, and also established an unconscious hatred of the feminine because my mother did not protect me from that experience, and was reinforced by my isolation and separation from her in an incubator due to being born six weeks premature."
Source: https://www.sethlyon.com/powerful-roots-porn-addiction-can/
Even Seth, in his blog post is a bit harsh on men and I feel he is shaming men's sexuality, a bit.
Ask any sex therapist, it is known that men have more trouble communicating what they like sexually than women. Women are thought to be exploring their body if they have sex toys, but men??? They're considered "Gross".
Look at the book, "Men in Love", by Nancy Friday - she discusses how most men have had their sexuality shamed growing up, so they develop masochistic sexual kinks, some of the men like to be called dirty, then after the men are shamed, like they were growing up, they feel they have earned sex.
It's so twisted.
We have shaped boys into treating themselves like crap.
We teach girls to have boundaries, to know how to say, "no". But boys? We don't teach boundaries, we teach them to be masochistic beasts of burden.
I am so fed up with the west.
I like Jordan Peterson, but he speaks from a gynocentric frame, still - where he insinuates men serving women, almost thoughtlessly, like we're sacrificial pawns.
AND - Peterson talks about how gender transitioning is mutiliation! But he is silent on circumcision! Gabor Mate, a Jewish man, is also silent on circumcision, but he acknowledges that trauma is trapped survival stress that can occur in the womb and at birth.....
An Intactivist calls out this hypocrisy, denial and blind spot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXu6crUTIOY&t=106s
I wish boys were treated with respect, loved and honored as much as girls were.
The somatic experiencing practices that I'm doing have helped to heal me so much more, but there is a deep anger and grief within me that I am gradually processing.
Here is Irene Lyon's free 3 part course on Trauma, the different types of trauma, the signs of trauma, how our nervous system is wired through coregulation with our parents, caregivers, etc.
https://irenelyon.com/healing-trauma-freeresources/
Male genital mutilation is a failure of the generations of my father, my grandfather, and so on. All these quiet men, that lead quiet lives of desperation...
Saying nothing, suppressing your emotion, makes you numb and dumb. Trauma prevents you from being present, present with your loved one and with your work, etc.
Suppression is not strength. Mindfulness of the body and fully expressing and processing grief and anger, that is what is healthy. Holding it in leads to disassociation...
Jordan Peterson is with the Daily Wire, owned by Ben Shapiro, a Jewish man who thinks that circumcision is okay, but calls gender reassignment mutilation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ccf3T5AxeU&t=35s
Above is a video of Ben Shapiro and Andrew Yang, where they both gloss over circumcision as being a human rights violation.
So many conservatives treat boys like garbage.
Liberals want to feminize boys, and conservatives want to make boys unfeeling macho men - no care as to whether they are mutilated or not, just be a self sacrificial pawn that serves your woman and your country, a masochistic beast of burden, a walking ATM machine, a human doing not a human being, a good tax payer.
Fed up with this shit, I am.
I could say way more.
Keep up the good work, Ms. Janice Fiamengo!
Please excuse any typos.
Thanks for letting me get all this out.
I want to quibble with the notion that gynocentrism 'developed in the west' Gynocemtrism is our species survival strategy that developed a million or so years ago on the plains and mixed forests of Africa. Any tendency for wandering bands to have favored the wellbeing of women insured that this trait was passed on in greater numbers. In fact, a key tenet of feminism is the denial of gynocentrism, which is strong evidence of how deeply innate it is in all of us. Feminism has convinced spellcheck apps that gynocentrism isn't even a proper word
I'll clarify. Gynocentrism goes back far before the 12th century AD turning point with Aquitaine of France (Ancient Rome, Ancient Greek temples to goddesses, etc.), as outlined by Peter Wright of gynocentrism.com - this moment in time does, however, appear to be a key point of it's rapid adoption of the chivalric courtly love, which C.S. Lewis tears apart elegantly in his book, The Allegory of Love. Feminism is repackaged chivalry.
As for it being a survival strategy, sure - it is beneficial for women. And women have a disproportionate influence on society in that mothers greatly affect children, impactfully and early on. The world of men, well a boy can forgo being initiated into the world of men, or go into it with trepidation - preferring to lounge in the psychological womb of his mother.
Yes, denying the beneficial sexism is necessary to keep it hidden, and therefore, preserved - it also is for women to not have the mental toll of cognitive dissonance of from the self awareness that they can be so influential and that they receive preferential treatment...how then could they feign helplessness to court beneficial sexism? Many women are not aware of this on purpose so they can convincingly plead innocence to themselves, it seems - so they can really believe that they truly are "powerless".
As for the timeline of a million years ago and the location of the plains and mixed forests of Africa - I have no remark about that in particular.
Anyways, the chivalric code is the cultural codification of the beginnings of feminism in the west. The aristocracy, the Duchess of Aquitaine, I believe, she hired poets and artists to write about how men should treat women in subservient ways - and the commoners follow what the aristocrats do. It was a way to more efficiently exploit men as masochistic beasts of burdens, pack mules. Some of the art of that time is very dehumanizing, showing men being led by women by the collar of their shirts...disgusting stuff. C.S. Lewis rips this apart in the book I previously mentioned, The Allegory of Love.
Anyways, that 12th AD movement from the Duchess, who was like a Jezebel to her Ahab husband who was well, a timid, subservient, boy....this began the chivalric code which spread like wildfire among Europe.
I hope this clarification is sufficient.
gynocentrism.com does a great job of explaining it, a blog written by Peter Wright.
I'm inclined to agree. Of course our western view of Islam or Hindu customs tends to reflect a view that the women are "repressed" for some bad reason. Yet for those cultures the explanation advanced for those practices in custom and holy writings are as protections for females, or at least females of the tribe/group/ nation. In the UK many of the "patriarchal" laws passed that a century later were seen as "oppressive", were in fact passed to protect women. Making Male relatives guarantors of loans protected women from debtors goals while excluding women from coal mining, steel working and other hazardous occupations clearly intended to protect women. Indeed there were powerful female lobby groups behind all these. Why not take at face value the Islamic and other cultures stated belief that their customs and laws too protect girls and women from potential harm?
The function doesn't allow me to 'Like' your comment. My friend David Shackleton edited a book called *Daughters of Feminism,* which has at least one essay by a woman who lived in the Arab world with her husband and noticed the many privileges women had there. It was certainly an eye-opener for me.
Thank you that sounds interesting. I have often mused on the contradiction in those who pontificate about the evils of culturally superior imperialism, then proceed to lecture others about how wrong they are. Personally I do believe that the long painful development of the cultural beliefs and institutions of the "west" have great value. However it seems much of the hectoring, often about ideas that are very recent innovations in our countries, is mis placed.
On the practical front I have often wondered about the effectiveness of diplomacy if the opening gambit to the rulers is to tell them "we think you are a backward bunch of woman hating brutes who abuse your spouses and children". It strikes me thereafter they wont be well disposed to be helpful.
Wow, interesting. I have had that one in my Amazon, "Save for Later" section - I'll have to check that out!
I admit, I have no idea what the accurate gauge/sentiment among women is in the Arab world in regard to their perceived privilege - or in India, either. Although I have seen throngs of Indian women beating up men in the streets, so...and I read a stat that said 74% of rape accusations made by women against men in India ending up being false - either the woman recanted or for other reasons.
Anyways, thanks for the good information, all of you.
I see that Hindu and Muslim people make claims of their customs and practices in regard to women are for their protection. Some of them are even sincere about it, but it seems like a lot of them might be using those customs to sublimate their desire to be domineering, perhaps. We see this in the West, too. Someone says they're doing something for your own good, but really, they are just unknowingly sublimating, satiating an unconscious desire to be improperly controlling.
Further, there is the theoretical proposition of particular law or custom meant to protect women, but how that law is actually implemented, how it is used, genuinely or not, and what the affects are...that's another story.
As for the UK/Western "patriarchal" laws - it's easier for me to see that they were to protect women, and I also do see women viewing them as oppressive much later.
Another example is sexually active women being excluded from medical/clinical trials after the Thalidomide drug scare, that gave women's babies terrible birth defects. After that, a law was set in place that if you were a woman that was even sexually active, they would not allow you into a clinical trial. Then Vox, the left leaning, very feminist YouTube Channel/Website said that all medicine is based on white men - and that they excluded women, but they just make assumptions of the oppressive patriarchy and never look into the "why". It's appalling.
Yes, the fact that there were female lobby groups that wanted to protect women with these "patriarchal laws" is fantastic - I like to bring this up often. Even for the vote, too. Being in the draft, being in the fire brigade, all necessary to have the vote - so many women wanted to forgo that - but, they ended up getting to have their cake and eat it, too. Over half of the population can vote in a way that leads us into war, and they don't have to pay the price for it - men will die for them. No skin in the game. Also, according to numerous surveys, women have far less interest in international affairs and politics than men do - and that interest becomes more disparate as men and women age.
I really enjoy Ernest Belfort Bax, "an English barrister, journalist, philosopher, men's rights advocate, socialist, and historian." Born: July 23, 1854 - Died: November 26, 1926. He wrote, "The Fraud of Feminism", and saw all of this feminist anti-male treatment at the time. His analyses are very illuminating.
"Why not take at face value the Islamic and other cultures stated belief that their customs and laws too protect girls and women from potential harm?" - I believe that the intentions are there, and that their customs and laws can be used this way - it's just, I'm not sure how well these customs and laws are implemented and enacted, out of love...or something less than that? I'm at the edge of my knowledge in this regard, perhaps I am just siding with what is familiar to me - the West.
Perhaps, if writing like Ms. Fiamengo's was more widely disseminated, then many young men and women would understand themselves, and the other sex, better.
Maturity and the development of maturity is crucial. Not identifying with our beliefs. What can change about us, is not us. I can change my clothes, I am not my clothes, etc. But, we get so embroiled and stubborn, tribalistic even, that we refuse to even attempt to falsify our beliefs in service of the pursuit of Truth.
If we could understand our strengths and weaknesses, and then have grace for each other - that would be grand.
All I can do is form myself into a mature, understanding, capable man - following what destiny I believe is placed on my heart - and that I will attract someone of similar caliber. People of similar maturity levels attract each other.
A man that objectifies women as sex objects attracts a women that sees men purely as success objects, human doings not human beings. It's kind of poetic, they relive the same traumas and dramas, until they get tired of that old dance and try to transcend it by observing themselves and really trying to figure it all out - the pursuit of Truth.
Unfortunately, modern society does not only not incentivize maturity, it actively disincentivizes maturity.
I digress - now I'm rambling.
." If we could understand our strengths and weaknesses, and then have grace for each other - that would be grand " Grand indeed. And to be honest generally I find most people, men and women, are not at all the cardboard cut outs that the ideologues want us to believe in.
Update:
I just became a subscriber to you less than a minute ago - you're the second person I donate to. The first organization I ever donated to was and still is, Foregen.
You mean a lot to me - I've told my friends about you, hell - even people I don't really know.
Thank you for what you do!
I do need to maintain some anonymity for work/career purposes - so please enjoy my profile picture of Dumbledore...
EDIT EDIT: changed my profile picture to Edmond Dantès. More apt. The story of a naïve, well-intentioned boy, that has no street smarts that gets betrayed, then becomes isolated, and gets mentored by a wise sage archetype, then seeks revenge...yep, that's how I feel...
I look forward to increasing my support to you as I advance my finances.
Thank you very much. Yes, I do know most of the sources you mentioned with the exception of Foregen, though I have benefited from anti-circumcision presentations at various ICMIs. Most of what I advocate is taken from truly original thinkers like Farrell, Collins, and Wright and the many other founding men and women of the men's issues movement. Over the past 8 months I have begun to assemble a history of feminism to demonstrate that from its beginnings in the late 18th or early 19th century, it was always female supremacist and deeply contemptuous of men.
Melanie Philip's book published at the end of the last century makes the point that feminism is an ideology attractive to adolescents, and many adherents become perpetual adolescents. It does seem to me that it reflects the lives of very comfortably off women. Both now and historically women benefitying from the labour of other less affluent women and from the generosity of affluent husbands/partners. Rather like adolescents there is a rich vein of petulant envy of affluent men and a deep contempt from the lowly men (and women) who actually work to build and run our societies many conveniences. Frankly there is a lot of snobbery ( and being British I think I can claim to know snobbery when I see it).
I don't know if you've read Belfort Bax's work. If you haven't, then I highly recommend his two short books on feminism in the late 1800s and early 1900s: "The Legal Subjection of Men" and "The Fraud of Feminism." It mostly applies to the UK but there's also some things about the US. As for the late 1700s and early 1800s, when the industrial revolution was just starting to get off the ground, my conception was that gender relations was still largely dominated by renaissance feminism (from the French and Italian Renaissances) which basically amounted to constant and widespread quarreling and nagging about women's supposedly inferior social and legal status (so pretty much the same as today). I haven't found any books on it so my understanding is very limited. I'd appreciate any book recommendations on the subject.
Also the book "The Privileged Sex" by Martin van Creveld along with "Replacing Misandry" by Nathan and Katherine are two of the most eye-opening reads on the entire history of gender relations. Martin actually does a full accounting of all rights, privileges, and immunities along with the corresponding obligations, duties, and liabilities of men and women throughout the millennia. It made me realize that women's movements have completely fictionalized the past by purposefully engaging in partial accounting.
Thank you very much for this great comment. I do know Bax's work quite well and have been in awe of Nathanson and Young for YEARS ("I am not worthy!"). I have Creveld's book on my shelf but must confess that I haven't read it yet. Will remedy that deficiency soon.
Thank you for the added clarification. I'm glad you now know of Foregen! Next year, the very first men will have their mutilation, 100% reversed with a lab grown male prepuce (foreskin), with their own body cells, using an extracellular matrix - not like restoration methods, which don't give back the nerve endings, mucosal lining, musculature, etc.
Exciting stuff - they can't ignore us for much longer!
I'm not familiar with Collins (I think), may I ask their first name?
Your video series is extremely enlightening and has incited within me the desire to collect the source materials of the suffragette letters, pamphlets, etc.
Please, have a fantastic weekend!
Edit: A fantastic video series on health masculine expression/maturity - an analysis of King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, from "Like Stories of Old".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pOnHjRK7BU&list=PLNwwHxpB-dkzeeyLTJKco49tokvT25dt3
Emotional avoidance is sometime necessary in the short term if you're in acute danger or someone else is, for example - long term, it is weakness to be emotionally avoidant because you become addicted to coping mechanisms like alcohol, porn, food (overeating, eating your emotions) - this is slavery to these coping mecahnisms/resources, resourcing is sometimes good and necessary, but some resources/coping is destructive and life sapping.
Being the stone faced, flattened affect, wounded animal, lone wolf is not healthy, long term. You might need to be reserved and hold back for temporary reasons, but never do this chronically.
Another good source: The book, "Wild at Heart" by John Eldredge.
True masculinity is mature, spiritual, feeling, wise, self-disciplined, and able to be present. If you have trapped survival stress (trauma), this prevents you from being present and entering flow state, that blissful state of timelessness you spend while working on your passion, or spending time with your partner. This claim is from Dr. Peter Levine of Somatic Experiencing, trauma prevents you from being present/mindful. More trauma, more addiction. Reducing trauma through somatic work, reduces the hold addictions have on you, then you become more free and expressive - the kind of energy that envelops you and spurns you to sing in the shower!
Great comment, Edmond.
I'd like to add the fact that American boys that remain sexually intact are also sexually traumatized. A boy that escaped forced circumcision will likely be subject to a painful retracting/defusing of his foreskin to have his inner foreskin and penile glans scrubbed every day because "he's dirty and needs to be cleaned." This is why intact American boys tend to have a lot of problems with their penile development. There's no doubt that if we defused the clitoral hood of infant and toddler girls everyday to scrub their inner clitoral hood and clitoral glans (anatomically homologous structures to the foreskin and penile glans), that they would have a lot of problems. They would also be crying and screaming like boys do when they have their undeveloped glans scrubbed, but those cries and screams would actually be heard.
So the lives of infant and toddler boys are lives of sexual battery regardless if they are circumcised. And as you've discerned, that's just the very beginning of a life in a society that will relentlessly mock, ridicule, criminalize, and abuse the defining feature of his maleness. I too am fed up with this shit.
You've worded this particular issue in a way that I've not seen it worded before. I've printed your comment for future reference and added it to my folders.
Thank you for the input. It's been a while since I've made this comment, so I can't recall if I made mention of the remark you have made - I know I have mentioned it before.
Thank you. I've not heard it stated that way before - with the daily cleaning because of the false American perception of "dirtiness".
This really is a deep rabbit hole that has deeply troubled me, but I'd rather know than go back to being ignorant.
I'm doing Somatic Experiencing with Irene Lyon to address trauma and I will soon be using other somatic modalities to address trapped survival stress (trauma), like Myofascial Release, rolfing, and more.
This, paired with Foregen - to physically heal - I aim to go past "normal" to exceptional.
I hope other men will, too. I have told my entire family, and have managed to save a handful of boys from this outcome.
That being said, to make a great point.
I came across a woman that was trying to clean underneath her boys foreskin with soap...she has stopped since we spoke.
This whole ordeal is really painful. It feels so dehumanizing to have one's natural anatomy derided and jokes about, to so flippantly hear dumb jokes about circumcision.
Society cares much more about girls and women and even derides men for being ignorant of the female anatomy - but, look at how ignorant society is about men's anatomy.
Somatic experiencing has been very helpful for me. I've discovered a lot of anger and grief through the neurosensory practices.
Thank you for your comment. I have physically printed it and placed it in my folders because you've stated things in a way I've not seen before.
I'm repeating myself, now.
I really appreciate it your comment.
Again, thank you.
With the lawsuits, greater awareness, Foregen, psychological societies starting to speak about circumcision being an ACE, Adverse Childhood Event - and more.... This has got to be banned, and these medical workers that don't know any better ought to be trained in the proper way to work with the natural male anatomy. I'm starting to see a few positive cultural references to the male foreskin. There is an entire website dedicated to all of the misandrist anti male anti foreskin jokes of television of movies - most of them American, of course....
It's one of my primary drivers for building wealth and donating to causes like Foregen.
Anyways, please take care of yourself :)
I appreciate your comment!
Regrowing foreskin? That's some dystopian nightmare right there. I think people have legitimate reason to be concern about the constant advancement of technology.
About teaching men to be tough, I'm still sceptical of that, I was never taught to be tough but it precipitated out of natural competition among boys. Unless you consider that to be a problem.
I think it will also become problematic if you make men overly emotional, women are not attracted to such men. They even lose respect for such men.
(((Ben Shapiro))) BTW feminism is Jewish.
Further, there are studies on pair-bonding - it shows that primates that have more nerves in the foreskin versus their head of the penis, have coitus for longer, and this set's the two primates up for stronger pair bonding and more monogamous arrangements. Human men have more nerve endings in the foreskin than the head of the penis...which leads to more pair bonding.
Primates with more nerve endings in the head of the penis compared to the foreskin, ejaculated quicker, less coitus time, less pair bonding, the species was more polygamous.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I - I think it was this presentation, "Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital by Professor R. McAllister", that had the pair bonding studies with the primates.
Circumcised men are 20% more likely to get divorced...reduced pair bonding...source: the book: Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, by Dr. Ronald Goldman. And yes, the USA has a much higher divorce rate compared to regions of the world where male genital mutilation is not practiced.
Women feel more vaginal pain with circumcised men because of the excessive friction without the slack tissue of the foreskin and also the keratinized, dried out head of the penis that adds more friction. A woman that associates sex with her husband with pain...that's not something that brings a couple together, but drives them apart. Circumcised men tend to thrust harder, they're less gentle - another abrasive factor. Foregen has more information on the 16+ functions of the male prepuce covering that 6500+ species of mammals have...it's not a mistake.
https://circumcision.org/circumcision-affects-female-sexual-pleasure/
Women can't orgasm as easily.
So many more issues.
Your concern about dystopian nightmares should be aimed at the fact that our American society and other parts of the world routinely mutilate the genitals of boys - taking away the MOST pleasurable part of their anatomy.
It's medical indoctrination - circumcision is the most common procedure in the USA, it's a big money maker, and foreskins are SOLD to companies like Skinmedica to put in FACE CREAMS for women like OPRAH and SANDRA BULLOCK.
How is that for DYSTOPIAN NIGHTMARE?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY2aOHQlAco&t=5s
Normalized evil.
And guess what? Companies can test their cosmetic products on HFF, human foreskin fibroblast, which comes from unconsenting baby boys, and they get to call their products as "cruelty free" because they didn't test it on animals!
What a joke! Animals are more valued than boys and the men they grow up into!
You also know that skin gun they use on burn victims? Yep, they use HFF, there, too! From BABY BOYS.
They make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a YEAR!
THAT IS YOUR DYSTOPIAN NIGHTMARE!
Men regenerating the most pleasurable part of their anatomy, regaining body autonomy and sexual integrity, while being able to be living examples of someone that is sexually healed that can definitively say that being intact is immeasurably better - we can end MALE GENITAL MUTILATION.
If men don't respect themselves, we will always be treated like garbage.
How you treat yourself is how you train other people to treat you. And you treat yourself the way your parents treated you growing up.
Awareness, contemplation - the pursuit of Truth - this is Masculinity in its fullness.
Women give birth to men, men give birth to civilization - civilization that is founded upon Truth, pursued through a relationship with the Divine - and women benefit from that, all propser. Only when men continually pursue what is the Truth, what is Sacred. It's a Spiritual pursuit, really. The King Archetype outlines this. Matriarchies do not have electricity, plumbing, or much prosperity at all. This is easy to research.
Additional addendum - American Christians have failed to read their NEW TESTAMENT where Christ compared circumcision to an injury when Christ was criticized for healing a man. "Why do you chastise me for healing a man, when you circumcise one on the Sabbath"...I'm paraphrasing - The Mosaic law is a burden, circumcision is a part of Mosaic law meant only for Jewish people for that specific time - therefore, circumcision is a burden.
The book of Galatians - Apostle Paul calls circumcision, "MUTILATION" - and he wished that the Judiasers who were trying to persuade new Christians to mutilate themselves that they (the Judiasers) would mutilate themselves, instead of trying to trip up new Christians. These Judiasers were following Apostle Paul around, since they couldn't kill him because he was outside of Isreal - they just tried to deceive those he was spreading the gospel to.
European Christians know, that circumcisions is disgusting and wrong - every theologian of note states this.
American Christians have failed on this big time. A huge disappointment.
Also, biblical circumcision is different than modern circumcision.
Here's a drawing showing the difference. The modern version made it so that Jews could not hide among gentiles by pulling down their foreskin.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/86/3b/71863bd52beeb16865ec7a91d3582ece.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hOb7r88Cvho/VJpL7wq_OdI/AAAAAAAAL9U/x9-nnZfPwrk/s1600/CIrcumcision%2BChoices.png
http://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/
https://www.i2researchhub.org/articles/historical-and-scriptural-evidence-milah-and-periah/
https://www.littleimages.org/drawing-ot-milah-circumcision-vs-modern-periah/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivists/comments/1zobxq/the_range_of_circumcision_categorizing/
The penis head is supposed to be an interal organ - not permanently exposed and dried out. How degrading and demeaning.
That's your dystopian nightmare, the routine mutilation of boys. The regeneration is a blessing and a miracle.
In other words the best solution is prevention not cure. You don't need go in depth with the negative consequences of circumcision, I'm well aware. It's worth noting the circumcision is a Jewish custom.
Prevention is optimal. Regenerative medicine is the next best thing.
The negative consequences are important.
Circumcision in Biblical times is different than modern day circumcision, which is far more severe - I've already outlined that in a different comment.
Who cares if it is Jewish? They do it in parts of Africa, the Phillipines, South Korea - a lot of that is because the USA has taken it to other parts of the world and spread it there - which is disgusting.
It should be federally banned, no exceptions. Jail time for anyone that does this. Just like how girls' genitals are federally protected, it's a sexist double standard to not protect boys.
Just because someonone is Jewish, doesn't mean that their son wants to be Jewish. Boys don't even have religious freedom.
There is a group called, "Jews Against Circumcision", they opt for a naming ceremony, not a genital mutilation ceremony - they're not anti-semetic, they don't hate themselves. Dr. Ronald Goldman, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, is Jewish.
Who cares if it is a Jewish custom? Muslims like to mutilate girls and boys, by that logic should we let muslims cut on girls, too?
Moot point.
Federally ban it for all minors. It's normalized sexual violence.
At least if you are raped, you have all of your body parts still.
They actually can't perform circumcisions on flaccid penises, so they stroke the baby boy's penis to get it erect before inflicting massive pain on it (disgusting) - after they tie him down to a circumstraint board.
It's pure torture.
Here are the affects on the brain - more likely to be autistic and/or have alexthymia - that's what huge surges of cortisol stress hormone and massive fear in the amygdala do! One reason why there is more Autism in boys, among other factors.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33299934/
"Results: Early-circumcised men reported lower attachment security and lower emotional stability while no differences in empathy or trust were found. Early circumcision was also associated with stronger sexual drive and less restricted socio-sexuality along with higher perceived stress and sensation seeking."
https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/amygdala-the-brains-threat-detector-has-broad-roles-in-autism/
"People who sustain damage to the amygdala have social behaviors reminiscent of autism, such as avoiding eye contact and having difficulty judging facial expressions, but they do not meet diagnostic criteria for the condition. Altered amygdala structure or function has been linked to nearly every neuropsychiatric condition, from anxiety and bipolar disorder to schizophrenia, making it difficult to say how the region might uniquely explain autism traits."
And the Jewish people are known for having higher rates of schizophrenia...this is one of those reasons...one contributory factor.
Further, there are studies on pair-bonding - it shows that primates that have more nerves in the foreskin versus their head of the penis, have coitus for longer, and this set's the two primates up for stronger pair bonding and more monogamous arrangements. Human men have more nerve endings in the foreskin than the head of the penis...which leads to more pair bonding.
Primates with more nerve endings in the head of the penis compared to the foreskin, ejacultaed quicker, less coitus time, less pair bonding, the species was more polygamous.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I - I think it was this presentation, "Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital by Professor R. McAllister", that had the pair bonding studies with the primates.
Circumcised men are 20% more likely to get divorced...reduced pair bonding...source: the book: Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, by Dr. Ronald Goldman.
Women feel more vaginal pain with circumcised men because of the excessive friction without the slack tissue of the foreskin and also the keratinized, dried out head of the penis that adds more friction. A woman that associates sex with her husband with pain...that's not something that brings a couple together, but drives them apart. Circumcised men tend to thrust harder, they're less gentle - another abrasive factor. Foregen has more information on the 16+ functions of the male prepuce covering that 6500+ species of mammals have...it's not a mistake.
https://circumcision.org/circumcision-affects-female-sexual-pleasure/
Women can't orgasm as easily.
So many more issues.
Your concern about dystopian nightmares should be aimed at the fact that our American society and other parts of the world routinely mutilate the genitals of boys - taking away the MOST pleasurable part of their anatomy.
It's medical indoctrination - circumcision is the most common procedure in the USA, it's a big money maker, and foreskins are SOLD to companies like Skinmedica to put in FACE CREAMS for women like OPRAH and SANDRA BULLOCK.
How is that for DYSTOPIAN NIGHTMARE?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY2aOHQlAco&t=5s
Normalized evil.
And guess what? Companies can test their cosmetic products on HFF, human foreskin fibroblast, which comes from unconsenting baby boys, and they get to call their products as "cruelty free" because they didn't test it on animals!
What a joke! Animals are more valued than boys and the men they grow up into!
You also know that skin gun they use on burn victims? Yep, they use HFF, there, too! From BABY BOYS.
They make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a YEAR!
THAT IS YOUR DYSTOPIAN NIGHTMARE!
Men regenerating the most pleasurable part of their anatomy, regaining body autonomy and sexual integrity, while being able to be living examples of someone that is sexually healed that can definitively say that being intact is immeasurably better - we can end MALE GENITAL MUTILATION.
If men don't respect themselves, we will always be treated like garbage.
How you treat yourself is how you train other people to treat you. And you treat yourself the way your parents treated you growing up.
Awareness, contemplation - the pursuit of Truth - this is Masculinity in its fullness.
The kind of man I describe whose ego can balance the four archetypes without being fully possessed by any one of their shadow forms or identifying with one of the archetypes in their fullness which leads to grandiosity and pride can be summarized in this video series.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNwwHxpB-dkzeeyLTJKco49tokvT25dt3
This is a well integrated man. To get ever closer and closer to integrating these parts of the psyche requires the attitude of the student, where reality, God himself, the Maker, is your teacher.
The men depicted in these videos experience emotion and express themselves along their developmental pathways. Look at the characters in the Bible.
A boy answers the Call to Adventure, and goes on the Hero's Journey (Joseph Campbell).
He gets initiated, becomes wiser, gets the help of a mentor/sage.
Look at the book/movie, "The Count of Monte Cristo".
You have to go to your limits, to where you do experience intense emotion, the emotion that was always inside of you. Anger, grief, even other very uncomfortable emotions need to be integrated, like murderous rage - because if someone is trying to kill you - you react with deadly force - there is no moral deliberation in the face of actual life or death threat.
You cannot become a health, mature man, if you refuse to feel. Suppression is avoidance, avoidance is weakness.
The video series is great - please consider taking a look at it.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNwwHxpB-dkzeeyLTJKco49tokvT25dt3
How is regenerative medicine, that gives men back the most sensitive and erogenous zones of their penis - there are five regions on the foreskin that are more sensitive than on the circumcised penis - a dystopian nightmare?
If a woman had the tip of her clitoris removed, would a regenerative technique that grew that part of her clitoris back in a lab environment with her own body cells - would you consider that a dystopian nightmare?
I always flip the situation by swapping man and woman, because most people have more empathy for women.
Do you feel the same way?
We want our choice back.
It's not the family penis, where you parents or society can just go ahead and slice and dice your private, sexual organs.
This is important.
Men don't even have basic body autonomy or sexual integrity.
Dystopian nightmare??
This doesn't involve stem cells from aborted fetuses, if that's what you think...?
What is needed is a donor extracellular collagen matrix as scaffolding that comes from cadavers of adult intact men that are tissue donors - then your body cells repopulate the collagen matrix.
Many men want their sexual function back.
Sources:
"The foreskin has important sexual nerve receptors that are removed during circumcision.[9][1][15][27] Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.[28]"
From: https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Foreskin_sensitivity
The Paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17378847/
Also, nothing I said ever asserts that men need to be emotionally incontinent. Also, some women do not understand that men need to grieve - those women that are turned off by grieving men had overbearing fathers or mothers that had an authortarian style of parenting. When a woman cannot have solid boundaries because they never developed due to an overbearing father or mother, they need to use the man's boundaries, so she needs you to continually be vigilant to the point of hypervigilance, you need to be unwavering and make her feel safe in a codependent way. You are supposed to maintain her boundaries because she isn't mature enough to.
Those women put men on pedestals as gods, and gods can't make mistakes, so you can never confide in her, or get comfort from her.
These women are dysfunctional and they're looking for a father figure.
Do you want a father-daughter relationship? It's unhealthy.
Women that want men of stone are the women that are frightened of the world, like scared mouses, they need you to be their father and basically a meat shield that takes on the full abuse of the world and meets her needs as if she were your daughter.
A man that needs to grieve but refuses to, becomes numb.
If you block and avoid grief through being a workaholic or an alcoholic, etc. - you also block yourself off from joy, and become numb. Then you are more likely to have an affair with a different woman to get a nice distraction and to feel more alive...
I've seen this countless times, and am very well read in the literature.
Test my claims, you need not blindly believe me.
Look at the work of Gabot Mate, Peter Levine, Bessel Van Der Kolk, Kathy Kain, Irene Lyon. There is nothing about what they say that has a feminist agenda that seeks to make men into "feminized wussies". They talk about the physiology of trauma is stored in the nervous system and how the body physically releases emotion. They don't talk about politics, ideologies, etc. It's all the science of trauma and how it dysregulates our nervous system which produces disease, and the practices on how to bring the nervous system back into regulation.
Also, your second comment, I don't find competition to be problematic at all. I'm a proponent of men and women learning how to be physically capable, how to be a monster, but a controlled monster - that way when an emergency strikes, you're not useless, but useful. I'm a proponent of people learning how to fight and have concealed carry licenses to defend themselves and the people they love. I'm not promoting that men become emotionally incontent and useless, defanged, etc. Be a monster, but know how to control it - in order to control your newfound ability to fight, you need to have compassion and to have skin in the game (a family, a life worth living), so you don't act like a hothead looking for fights, like you have a chip on your shoulder and you need to beat people up to prove you are a man, same thing for men who are skirt chasers, seeking to get laid by anyone so they can get external validation. It's all a falsehood. This is why compassion and being emotionally intelligent while be a force to contend with physically, psychologically (having psychological boundaries, being able to say no) is important.
Your 4th paragraph, yes, feminism and Jewishness - I wasn't totally conscious of the link, but you're right - also a lot of Jewish people seem to lean liberal, which is more likely to have a feminist leaning, it seems - thanks for concretizing this for me.
Well, would you want to feel empathy for a tranny to want to be able to grow a penis in substitution for a vagina? What if this experiment go in the wrong way? We've already seeing this with hormone therapy. Do you express sympathy for those or is that a dystopian nightmare for you. Road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
For women, yes I would consider it a nightmare. What's done is done.
I will argue that people have more empathy for women because it's genetic. Women bear the civilisation's future generations, it's why they've been the protected group and men play the role of sacrifice.
The answer is curtail on women's freedom and get rid of equality. No civilisation was built on equality. Then again, the west is dying anyway (largely thanks to equality). Whites are becoming the minority in North America and Western Europe is being Islamified, they're literally allowed to build mosque there, 50 years ago it was unthinkable. Whites are already the minority in London.
I've heard some excellent arguments, mostly forgotten, that gynocentrism makes more sense as matricentrism (is that the right word? the privileging of motherhood, protection of mothers) but that western culture's gynocentrism is a perverted version. (I should go back to Peter Wright's work.) We even protect and affirm women who want to destroy their children and prevent children from being born. We protect and affirm women who kill men and seek to fatally weaken our civilization. I get that there is an instinctual component (though I don't think I have it in me, maybe it's just deeply repressed) but there should also be an instinctual revulsion against bad women; and it doesn't seem that it is able to be expressed in our culture.
Matricentrism and gynocentrism are opposites: as with productive and non-productive.
Matricentrism. Yes that does make more sense. After all fir most of human history we lived in comparatively small clan communities, often at quite a distance from other similar communities. Given the high infant mortality and fragility of life in general mothers would indeed be incredibly valuable and valued by the clan, for its continuation and future. It is hard to remember how very recent it is that humanity is so numerous and so much in command of tte environment that many of it's most deep cultural developments have simply not "caught up". When one looks at the privileges accorded to women, and indeed the protections that came to be seen as "oppression", it easy to see how they would fundamentally be about protecting the future. Of course it is also hard to turn back the clock to the times when the mechanics of our reproduction were very imperfectly understood. As you say the idea that preventing conception and preventing the birth of children by killing them is a bizarre recent innovation that would have been invoncievable not that long ago.
You're talking about an entirely different issue - a trans person wanting to grow the opposite genitalia? I don't even care to discuss that. Why bring it up?
What if the experiment goes wrong? The technology is already FDA approved, only this novel application need be approved - they've already had successful animal trials - human trials are next, the last phase. They're being careful and systematic. What if it goes right? It's going to be each man's choice, whether they want to do this or not. This is a fantastic opportunity - asking what if it goes wrong is a moot point.
Hormone therapy is not comparable to this. You don't understand the technology.
Your trans statement, your questioning of whether the experiment could go wrong (that's what the testing and trials are for...), and the false comparison to hormone therapy is all useless.
"For women, yes I would consider it a nightmare. What's done is done." - wow, that is ignorant. People that get sexually mutilated want to be whole - there are surgeries to help women who are victims of female genital mutilation regain sexual function, and they are thankful.
It's not your choice to "consider it a nightmare" on someone's behalf.
They teach people in kindergarten to keep your hands to yourself...Americans just can't get a grip on this concept, I suppose.
All of your "criticisms" of regenerative medicine healing men and women, whom it is their own personal choice, are weak, tangential red herrings.
Your last two paragraphs, I somewhat agree with - but don't want to expound upon and belabor these points - for sake of time and energy.
Covid vaccine was FDA approved that failed abysmally. Thalidomide was also FDA approved and looked at the birth defects it has caused. FDA doesn't guarantee your safety. I could go through a whole history of medical mishaps and corruptions.
"You don't understand the technology" Said the person who projects.
Yes, it cruel I said it, but so is nature. Nature is vindictive, cold, callous and uncaring and it's certainly not evil. That's nature.
Much of the West seem to failed to keep their hands to themselves not just Americans. Hence the collapse of the West.
Actually, no. They do accelerate dysgenics. Most of modern medicines aren't cures, they're treatments. Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, we've started producing more dysgenic people. We now have an infant mortality rate of 1%. Previously it was 50%, this was natural selection.
I recommend reading Theodore Kaczynski.
The technology has already successfully been used with other body parts.
I am aware that 300,000 people are killed each year due to medical malpractice in the USA. The third leading cause of death each year, if I recall from memory correctly.
Your feelings of nature are projection, as well. We cannot move away from our biases, and those that think they have no blindspot, most certainly do.
I spend the time to be informed with this company, Foregen. The concept of informed consent is important. Many of those injured by medicine were not properly informed. I suggest to people that it is their own personal imperative to inform themselves.
I am very aware of the corrupt nature of western allopathic medicine and of the massive failure of the mRNA injection, and all of the hiding of the adverse events, etc. It's a debacle of large magnitude.
Most modern medicine is a treatment on purpose. Look at the kind of healthcare that the wealthy get, not covered by insurance. It gets closer to first principles healing. So much healing technology and treatments have been suppressed.
People like Dave Asprey, Dr. Mercola, and others within their circle actually know of the methods of healing that the mainstream calls quackery and even dangerous, they do this just to protect their profits.
IFM, Integrative Functional Medicine, is far better than regular MD allopathic practices, especially when it comes to chronic illnesses.
Modern medicine makes people sick. Government dietary guidelines are illness producing. I could go on.
If you look at Dave Asprey's podcast and read his books and the books of his guests - you would have a different perspective.
You've no doubt seen this with the ivermectin drug, very safe for humans, get dragged through the mud by the mainstream that is funded by big pharma.
This has been happening for decades! With male genital mutilation, statins, root canals, etc....
As for dysgenics - take a look at Bruce Lipton, he talks of epigenetics, we can change the state of our nervous system with things like Somatic Experiencing, to change gene expression, and change the health of our offspring for the better.
Also, just saying something MIGHT not work, is not helpful. Experimentation and feedback from experimentation is crucial.
Regardless of what you think is or is not possible - this regenerative medicine is very meaningful to many people, and well within the realm of possibility. They've already implanted vaginas in biological women that had vaginal birth defects....back around 2012...
There are many war veterans that have damage genitals, that want to experience this regenerative method.
We want to be able to provide this to people. I care, anyways.
You sound like you view the human race like an alien or something. I understand the evolutionary world view and the selective pressures, but...I don't let it make me so clinical and unfeeling.
I'll take a look at the name you dropped, Theodore.
Please excuse any typos.
Thanks.
Without doubt the empathy gap is very real, even to the point of the humanity of males being downgraded. Was it in 2013 that posters declaring “men’s rights are human rights” were defaced with words like “false”? I invited you to consider the implied logical corollary.
The “Genderbread” graphic illustrates how these ideologies – feminism or trans – are promoting mental ill-health. Not content with atomising society by dividing us as individuals, this presentation of the nature of a single individual even divides our own being into fragments. One might define mental, emotional and spiritual maturity as being the harmonious unity of brain, heart and genitalia – not their presentation as independent and unrelated. (See CS Lewis, Men Without Chests).
It is distressing that even conservatives who might talk sense on many issues are so blind to feminism’s true nature and implications. But that is because the traditional world was just as gynocentric as this one.
What these attitudes betray, whether of feminists or traditional conservatives, is an implicit status hierarchy. A male wishing to transition is analogous to some working class oik in the Victorian era attempting to pass himself off as something socially superior. It is simply not to be tolerated.
Indeed I do think the demise of the Tavistock clinic shows this. Had the universal assumption in public debate, that this was mainly about boys wanting to be girls, been confirmed by the stats on referral. Then I'm sure the clinic would not have been subjected to the scrutiny it has. I recall a Professor writing about the "worrying" increase in girls being referred. Indicating the previously higher number of boys in the previous decade was not bothersome.
One of the things I didn't mention about Shrier's short video and her interview with Owens (and by the way, I do not particularly blame these women; I quite like them in many ways, but their blindspot is typical) was that she mentioned that until fairly recently, the trans phenomenon was mainly confined to young boys. She cleary said that when a phenomenon has been mainly experienced by one sex and suddenly starts being experienced by the other sex, 'something is going on.' Her concern, though, was not at all with the sex that had previously been experiencing it.
In an era of change in 1970s working class Manchester I and my friends simply assumed girls and women were "better". In the sense of morally good and "mature". We were taught never to hit or shout, to help and support and aspire to be good husbands and fathers on the assumption that our "natures" made us rough and uncouth without careful control. Hence the acceptance that we'd be blamed and more severely punished and rarely get the fulsome praise showered on female contemporaries. I very much doubt "feminism" had much influence on any of this. As I have seen my children grow up to adulthood their experience (two boys and a girl) were not that different with "feminist" ideas really simply piggy backing the existing "man up" culture. And of course there is the irony on the huge numbers of supposedly "silenced" women in the media pontificating about "men" while apparently having as little to do with the beasts as they can! Perhaps the "experiment" that is LGBT plus particularly exposed this deeply held empathy gap and gynocentricity precisely because it takes feminism beyond the usual "women and children first" to actual messing about with sex and "gender".
Sometimes I think the fact that mens wear and work has changed little for over a century reflects that so much is a sort of debate between different groups of women with men still "taking care of business" back stage. Which in a way is the conclusion of Norah Vincent.
Thanks for bringing attention to this issue of imbalanced display of empathy for MtF transpeople, Janice. As you say, most MtF have other things going on in their lives than the aim of raping or patriarchal domination of natal women - as feminists would have us believe. I'm reminded of the example of a 3 year old 'gender dysphoric' boy who said to researchers, “I hate myself. I don’t want to be me. I want to be somebody else. I want to be a girl.” [Source of quote: Sonia Marantz and Susan Coates, Mothers of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder: A Comparison of Matched Controls (1991)]
It's worth adding that the recent death of Norah Vincent might serve as a warning to girls as to what they might be facing as a male.
She had problems prior to her "experiment" so I'm not sure her death related to the episodes of mental ill health after her time as Ned. However her book is indeed a real "eye opener" for those so convinced males live charmed lives. As far as I know no one else has done such an experiment for so long.
I cant remember a programme out coincidentally at about the time of her book there was a couple of programmes where British actors and actresses spend a day passing as the opposite sex. I always recall a youngish attractive actress remarking how shocked she was at how "invisible" she was in her Male guise. As she said she was completely ignored and expected to just "get on with it". It is no wonder women spend so much time and treasure on creating a "look at me" image, if the alternative is to be as invisible as a man is.
I've read articles by trans men about their surprise at how unfriendly people were to them generally once they were able to present as male in the world, as compared to their female experience. Far fewer smiles, no 'Let me help you's,' fewer shared chuckles in the grocery line-up.
Interesting. I suppose having gone through so much to "transition"" it must be hard to admit that the grass is not so green after all.
Off topic but wanted to share: https://twitter.com/thisisfoster/status/1575852431090425858
It's quite an intellectual trick to simultaneously enforce the notion that women are equal in every way with men and also to systematically remove all agency from women and girls whose action are simply the result of societal pressure, fashion magazines, and other oppressive, probably patriarchal, forces which overwhelm the morally superior sex
Indeed, it is quite the intellectual trick--and they do it every time. Even back in the 19th century, you can see it at work. Have you read Ernest Belfort Bax's books (The Legal Subjection of Men and The Fraud of Feminism)? He highlighted those very contradictions: women were "equal" in every way (or even better than men); but they were also more vulnerable, and needed many special protections, privileges, and excuses. Even back in those bad old days, women were immune to prosecution for many crimes for which men were harshly punished. He details these.
I've only come to know about Bax through your YT essays. Listening to you introduce Bax, I thought of Esther Vilar's book, The Manipulated Man, which deserves as much reexamination as those of Bax
Yes, Vilar is brilliant too. Steve and I discussed her in a livestream, and Steve once did a video about her, but we should do another. Thanks for the reminder. I loved that book.
Here in the UK "the Tavistock" a NHS mental health clinic for children and adult has just been closed. To cut a longer story short, because an inquiry found it was all to ready to give "puberty blockers" and other medical interventions to pre -teens and teens. Now this story began about 4 years ago when an earlier report highlighted that the majority of children and teens referred to the Tavistock were in fact female. I remember this in the headlines of the day and thinking that this was the beginning of the end for the then highly fashionable support for "trans" ideology. For of course since at least the 1960s to my knowledge the public perception and debate had always been about men transitioning to women. So in my teenage years I was aware my favourite travel writer Jan Morris, had been James Morris, and there were still jokes about "going to Casablanca" because the rather rudimentary surgery then used as "treatment " was not available in the UK. Throughout the carefree 70s, the rather less carefree 80s and the arrival of irresponsibility from the mid 90s the general story was that it was all about men taking a few steps further than cross dressing or drag acts. So it wasn't any surprise it continued in much the same vein in the early 21st Century. As such the adoption of the ideology by LGBT organisations such as Stonewall boosted their image as cutting edge and continued the idea of it being just one of a range of strange behaviours of males. Then came the controversy abot the Tavistock and referrals from schools and the massive tanker started to turn, because rather than being a modish Male pursuit of their "feminine side" that only boring old fashioned prudes would oppose ; the penny started to drop that it also affected girls and women. Actually following this suddenly women and feminists caught wind that not only was it something that affected females in "treatment" but that allowing people to simply "be" rather than wait til, their bits were chopped off, rather undermined a few privileges women rather liked after all. And so feminists roundly turned on their former "allies" in the LGBT etc. Camp. Explicitly laying bare in the process that its women who have extra "rights" based on sex (I have yet to see anyone protest about mens privacy or "sex based rights" either Male or female, because there are non to protect). I notice that this turn around has engendered (ha ha) feminist campaigns against "drag acts" and other forms of entertainment where men "impersonate " women. Of course there again no one is the least bit bothered about women dressing as men nor impersonating them as entertainment. Even the God like Harry Styles has hit some buffers for his effimate fashions and make up (hardly "cutting edge" to those once fans of "glam rock" and "gender bending" David Bowie). Because all of a sudden finding your feminine side is usurping female "rights".
As you say what does this illustrate ? Well that in the UK at least, the thing that most derails the great contradictions and damages of "woke" ideologies is that most deeply rooted and universal animus to protect females. I think I can confidently say that had the furore about the Tavistock not laid bare the reality that it wasn't all about chopping boys bits off, we'd still gave all our public services and institutions of education blithely insisting is all totally fine and "modern".
Timely insight. It made me recall in a parallel to the Tavistock closure that one of the turningpoint legal decisions that opened the floodgates to state legislatures codifying same sex marriage was the case of a widowed lesbian who was not fully entitled by law to the property of her, then soidisant, lifetime partner. It's clear that a gay male partnership in the exact same circumstance would not have generated a fraction of the public sympathy
Well said, thanks.
Janice, please write a book.
Good news!
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/40091339
I'm pretty sure he means a more recent book with all the compilation of feminist history and lies.
Do you think it could have anything to do with this? It's could be genetic.
I genuinely believe that much of this isn't just feminism, but female nature at work.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gender-differences-in-automatic-in-group-bias%3A-why-Rudman-Goodwin/2c4414cde6b6a011e9f4910e6389d658278e3a7a?p2df
Feminism would never have been able to achieve what it has if not for the genetic bias.
I was thinking along the lines of that. It's feminist that exploit the females natural ingroup preference.
Yes it ironic isn't it? For in the UK the repeal of "sexist" laws and indeed the equality legislation of the 1960s and 70s were passed by institutions 90% Male. Certainly in the UK it is only since the Blair years and "devolution " that a significant proportion of females have any prospect of claiming to have taken such decisions. Just as many legislative moves to protect women were pushed by christian women's groups influencing Male decision makers in the mid Victorian era. Indeed later Oscar Wilde fell foul of this as he was prosecuted not "for the love that dares not speak its name" but for entertaining rent boys in London hotel rooms under legislation newly minted against prostitution, lobbied for vociferously for almost the preceding decade by prominent spouses of MPs and peers and women's religious groups. All of it dutifully enacted by men.
Probably by Jewish lobbying groups.
There can be no true understanding of the sexes until we understand how difficult it has been to shine an empathetic light on men and boys. The double standard not only remains, it remains all but entirely unquestioned.
Sure, I see that, and she seems like a good person overall. She's just an example, and not a malicious one, of our society's general inability to care as much about boys as about girls.
Although this may be tangential a recent documentary on a supposed "epidemic" of "Tourettes syndrome" amongst British teenagers. Needless to say the concern was about the rapid increases in girls. Now what was interesting was in following the stories of the selected girls. It was clear that their mothers (fathers it seems were either absent or irrelevant) and schools took a distinctly indulgent attitude. For behaviours which would certainly end up with "exclusion " from school and referral to special schools or behavioural units (something I know about from a previous job). The programme ended with an evidently exasperated NHS Consultant pinning the blame for this sudden explosion on social media sites. Interestingly all of the subjects in the documentary were "cured" as their tourettes vanished on it's own.
What struck me was the very different attitude of mothers and schools to the actual behaviours, which would have been viewed very differently and with very different consequences for boys. The reluctance to admit the obvious, that in each case the behaviour gained attention, and positive at that, at a time the girls has a stress (changing school, falling out with a friend, bad exam results) and passed as the stress abated.
Though I take the point about boys and young men and suicide, I do suspect the general lack of indulgence of boys teenage difficulties and high expectation they'll sort themselves out may actually contribute to the comparatively small number of boys who suffer from anxiety disorders and "poor mental health" compared to their female contemporaries. I think in general the boys and men who eventually present with acute distress have very real and immediate needs. But in general something seems to act as a "protective" to men and boys who are such a minority in the "walking worried" at all ages. Nature or nurture , probably a bit of both.
You are so on the money Janice. Thank you for all your hard unappreciated severely needed hard work.
As always, thank you! Great article. Although I suggest that you use this link to represent "The Future Is Female".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Miller_Gearhart#Writing
"Gearhart outlines a three-step proposal for female-led social change from her essay, "The Future–-If There Is One–-is Female":
I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future.
II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."
Thanks for this. I will change the look (if I can).
Oh! if only we had a crystal ball.
Part of my projection into the future will be the enormous number of court cases, dealing with the issues created today.