Same thing happened here.
Hmm for some reason that website has blocked entry so heres a relevant quote:
"Many primitive cultures carried out various mutilating procedures on different parts of the body, including the genitals of both boys and girls, but the origins and rationale of these practices are obscure and contested, as are the environmental conditions prevailing when such customs emerged. Such societies also practised human sacrifice, widow-burial, foot-binding, scarification, tattooing, piercing, infibulation, head or nose shaping, tooth evulsion and many other traditions not seen as health-giving today. The idea that the mutilations carried out by savage cultures must have a utilitarian basis emerged in the eighteenth century, when Enlightenment thinkers sought naturalistic explanations for phenomena formerly regarded as miracles or attributed to the will of the Deity. Denis Diderot embodied this trend when he suggested that infibulation of women in some tribal societies originated as a birth control measure and only later became sanctioned as a divinely ordained precept. [4]
It is, however, a functionalist delusion which Mary Douglas has called "medical materialism" to assume that traditional rites must have a rational basis; modern anthropology recognises that such customs emerge from the belief structure or cosmology of the cultures which produced them and do not necessarily have utilitarian significance. [5] Many conflicting theories have been advanced to account for ritual operations on the male and female genitals, among which are the following:
a propitiatory sacrifice or sign of submission to a deity, probably a milder form of a ritual which began as outright human sacrifice;
an offering to the god or goddess of fertility to ensure children;
a mark of tribal identification;
a rite of passage from childhood to adult responsibility;
(in the case of boys circumcised at puberty) the imposition of adult and tribal authority at a time when youthful rebellion might be expected;
a fertility rite, aimed at giving men the power of procreation by making them shed blood from their genitals like women;
an attempt to emphasise feminine or masculine characteristics in girls and boys by removing the parts of the genitals (clitoris and foreskin) believed to resemble the genitals of the other sex;
a means of humiliating and marking defeated enemies and slaves."
I knew a man who was not circumcised. Why, he wasn't, I don't know. That's not the point. I do know that him not being circumcised caused him some health issues. The extra folds of skin caused problems because if there was any dampness at all trapped in those folds bacteria would grow and cause him problems.
It took him awhile, but he decided to go ahead and get circumcised in his late thirties. It was just too much of a health problem for him. I don't know if this is common or not.
There is always somebody looking for ways to convince the uncircumcised to get clipped. There is ordinarily no cause to do so. I bet if you did long term studies on the circumcised, there would be instances of infection or whatever also. People want to concentrate on the uncircumcised exclusively. Fact is, in many or most cases, the extra fold of skin stays drawn back, whether from the contact with clothing or something else. There were seven boys in my family, some of who were and the rest not. After more than fifty and sixty years, not one has had infections or other problems. It is religion and emotionalism that makes this an issue at all.
edgarblythe wrote: It is religion and emotionalism that makes this an issue at all.
Incorrect. It's flap-envy, plain and simple.
The American Academy of Pediatrics currently takes a neutral stance on circumcision, which says something. They say it's up to the parents to decide. (If there were actual widespread medical problems, their stance would reflect that.)
That's why I looked to the AAP for an overview.
Very thorough discussion here:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686
(I didn't know whether sozlet would be a boy or a girl before she was born, and so read up on this a lot and was agonizing about it. While a boy would have been just fine, I confess to relief that I didn't have to make the decision after all.)
Flap envy. But of course. Why didn't I recognize it?
To get back to the central issue of religious misogyny, there seem to be plenty of references on Google such as this.
http://www.pelican-consulting.com/solisust01.html
Fresco,
I tried that link. It says I am not authorized to view that page.
I tried it and it seems OK.
Try Google "religious mysogyny" and click the second link down.
Yep, that worked! Thanx Fresco.
Fresco- I am able to see that link. Apparently, the writer postulates that patriarchial religions foster divisiveness, and prevents its followers from experiencing the feminine in the divine. I think that the writer is being disingenuous. It is religion itself, with its patriarchial history and customs, that is the main cause of this divisiveness.
Phoenix,
I entirely agree.
From my point of view that all reality could be socially constructed the "function" of religion is to reify social norms. The male human as the phyically dominant animal with the "problem" of cognition needs an "external authority" to sanction and control his natural sexual urges and aggression. Modern "reform movements" reflect shifting norms in society which have been brought about by birth control practices and associated sexual freedoms.
It appears that primitive human social groupings were quite aware of gender differences. Now isn't that a starteling observation. Tribal roles were assigned often based directly on those gender differences. Bigger, stronger individuals were hunters and warriors who might spend some relatively long periods away from the main group. Females may occasionally been warriors and hunters, but probably not very often. The teamwork involved in hunting and soldiering could be erroded by sexual territorialism, and mensuration would have been taboo event in the field. Women bore and tended the children, the fires and gathered the bounty of the land around the campsite. Woment cooked, processed carcasses into useable materials, built and may even have "owned" the family tent.
Dividing the gender roles was almost purely a natural reaction to the need for the tribe's need for survival in a very competitive world. Those same early tribal groupings sought the protection and favor of natural forces that, though not understood, could make the difference between victory and defeat, between famine and surplus. Elaborate ritual and ceremony was developed to cleans the individuals/group of anything displeasing to their gods, and to curry favor. Children ask around the fires "why do we do this?", and the elders tell them stories that become handed down for a hundred generations. The stories become refined and evolve as bright people work to perfect the myths and provide a consistent weltanschaung of the tribe's heritage. The best storytellers, those with the most complete and "rational" renderings became associated with the evolving "religion". Sometimes those individuals were male and sometimes female, but always the foundation of the tribal belief system remained true to the cultural divisions that existed from the earliest times.
When a tribe was defeated or unable to survive the environmental challenges, their gods were weak. Any who survived and became absorbed into another group had new gods, though their old gods might infect and change the new tribes beliefs in subtle ways. As tribal groups evolved into more complex units and adopted more sophisticated technology, their religious beliefs adapted to new circumstances. Farmers have the need for different gods than nomads. Change must have been slow, for religion is almost always very conservative. Larger social groupings absorbed the cultural and religious beliefs of smaller, less successful tribes. Probably few of the territorial contests/wars were fundamentally about religion, they were concerned with territory, resources, and security of the kingdom.
Religions that centered on the Goddess, or goddesses, often were "led" by female acolytes and priestesses. In Europe these female-centric religions tended to die out as Christianity took hold. The old priestesses were renamed witches, and the surviving ritual/ceremonies of ancient religions became secret and hidden. The Marian Movement may very well be a artifact of Catholic adaptation. Southwestern Asia has been for a very long time the birthplace of Gods, and Godesses were almost always a secondary religious strain. With the rise of Islam, the Abrahamic univeral monotheism ruthlessly crushed all other religions.
Outside the Western World, some matriarchal societies survived into modern times, and in some of those the religious leader(s) remained women. Generally we find these cultures in areas where the smaller tribal groupings have managed to escape absorbtion.
The bottom line is that in the Big Picture, successful religions perpetuate ancient cultural patterns that have ruled human societies for hundereds of thousands of years. Religions reflect cultures, and mirror those belief systems back to the tribes as justification for their beliefs. Religions, though often extremely irrational, reach to some deeper needs that individuals have as much today as when they sat hungary and shivering while the tiger stalked the edges of the encampment. Religion still serves a useful purpose for human tribes, or it would cease to exist.
In very modern times, say since the 17th century (oh such a short time in the history of Man), traditional Abrahamic religions have successfully destroyed many older tribal religions. In that same short period, Western technology and science have called into serious question many of the most cherished myths of the Abrahamic world view. It's hard to credit the sun standing still so that a Jewish general could finish the slaughter of opponents. Miracles don't fit well into a world defined by mathematics and physics. As human's have extended their "control" over nature, the reach of their god is loosened. We can see back to the beginning of our Universe and begin to really understand the natue of Time and Space, and that tends to cut the ground out from under the Abrahamic notions of what God is and the true nature of the Universe. The result has been mixed.
First, we have those who become agonostic or atheistic. These folks are riding the wave of credibility because their beliefs appear supported by the advancement of science and rationality. What do you want to believe: your eyes, your heart, or your mind? Some choose their hearts desire and deny both their eyes and minds. These are the sort of people who can easily be persuaded to blow themselves up in a crowded market place as a short-cut to heaven. Seeing clearly, using your mind and following your heart is a pretty good choice, but not popular with the masses. Thinking is hard work, and our perceptions are so easily distorted. Personally, I believe that the Abrahamic religions and religions that hold universalist monotheistic beliefs are a poison.
For me, Buddhism is the best alternative. Though Buddhism recognizes gender differences, and monks/priests tend to occupy positions with greater status than nuns/priestesses, I don't believe my religion is anti-female, or even fundamentally against sex.
