The question was why the "men's rights movement" as an entity isn't taken seriously, I explained why. I might add, by the way, that I used to consider myself a part of this movement until I realized how superficial and two-faced the rhetoric I'd been following was. It doesn't mean I care less about men's rights than when I labelled myself such.
Furthermore, for the record:
* I never said the international men's day should also mention women's issues.
* I never implied anything on the same continent as "men's rights activists think women should commit more suicide to even out the scale".
* I explicitly stated that I am in fact not whitewashing an entire group, just that I've noticed a so far unbroken pattern in my experience with people in that group.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
How so? Sure, alcohol and tobacco are consumed for recreational purposes, but they're both responsible for millions of deaths each year. Hell, according to the WHO, alcohol was responsible for 4% of deaths worldwide. Worldwide. That's far more than you'll get from circumcisions.
1.5% is not large and includes things like minor bleeding. Don't confuse "complications" with "fatalities". Its not a risky procedure by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Clearly we should ban peewee sports since I'm sure the injury rate far exceeds 1.5%. Gotta stamp out those not actually risky cultural practices.
Everything in life carries the risk of fatality. Maybe we should dictate what food you can feed your kids?Extremely low rate of fatality != extremely low rate of complications.
Why should we accept unnecessary surgery that carries a risk of fatality?
HAHA as a guy i think this is pathetic. Man up guys. Seriously.
Wow <3 Korra<3 Giants<3
Women's rights! Men's rights!
It's really a joke because, like other organizations that pine for equality, they refuse to shrug off some of the perks of their inequality, and continue to strongly identify with some aspect that is not shared by the people they wish to become equal to. Either side wishes to make a victim of themselves and point to the other as the "big bad opposite gender."
It would be better serve humanity if there was defection from both of these decaying movements toward a unified movement of equality. That would be the real test of how much "equality" is truly sought after by these people.
In the US, where proper medical procedures are utilized, its 1 in 500 for a severe complication (which does not always result in death). Numerous studies done have shown that most of the claims about it being negative are inherently false. You have every single significant and related medical organization in the US approving its use, with the only dissent based not on its health effects, but on parental rights.
I'm sorry that this is how democracy works. If you insult people, they don't vote for you.
Still not even close. Circumcisions are generally soon after birth without a choice given by the infant. Obese people make poor choices over many years.
---------- Post added 2012-11-23 at 10:19 PM ----------
You still ignore the whole premise of choice. However, I will waste no more time attacking your straw-man.
Because it's an optional procedure with a risk of complications, no medical necessity (in the vast majority of cases) and potential loss of sensation.
Its only defense is an appeal to tradition. Imagine if parents pierced and began gauging their infant's ears? That's just as benign, but would probably be considered unacceptable, no?