Friday, May 14, 2010

Genital mutilation: It's not just for ladies

I was recently perusing some headlines when I came across a topic that always makes me cringe: ritualistic female genital cutting. An overview of this cultural phenomenon can be found in this New York Times article (complete with chilling photographs). This practice is, for obvious reasons, illegal in the United States. However, it turns out that the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be allowed to perform a ritualistic "nick" on the genitals of young girls in order to assuage those who have a cultural yearning to damage their daughter's genitals.

As I felt my face flush with rage at the idea of American doctors bending to the will of sadistic misogynists for the sake of RELIGIOUS DOGMA, a sudden precedent sprang into my mind which could justify their reasoning - we're allowed perform unnecessary genital cutting on boys. In fact we're not just allowed - we're peer-pressured, band-wagoned, and indoctrinated into thinking it's abnormal NOT to cut nearly half the skin off a baby boy's penis.

This topic makes me, quite possibly, more irritated than most other religious topics (and yes, it is a religious topic, as well as a cultural topic). In fact, irritated isn't the word - enraged is the word. Why am I so enraged? I'm not a guy. I don't have to worry about it, right? Wrong. I worry about the unnecessary denial of human rights to any being. A human problem is a human problem is a human problem. This is part of the reason that I sometimes hesitate to call myself a feminist - I am not simply concerned with unfair treatment of women (though it is currently far more common than the alternative), I am concerned with the unfair treatment of any person. Call it "gender equality" which often ends up having to defend the feminist cause. So here I am to defend men's rights, even if many men don't feel the need to defend them.

My least compelling argument against the practice of male infant circumcision is that it is a needless infliction of pain on a helpless being. I say "least compelling," because in the grand scheme of things, the child suffers for a very short period and will not, as an adult, remember the procedure. You may be thinking - "If your least compelling argument involves subjecting an infant to unnecessary bloodletting and pain, then I feel no need to hear the most compelling," then congratulations! You're a good person. For the rest of you, to go a bit further, infant circumcision is routinely performed without anesthesia. Pain is very, very real in this procedure. I would like you, the reader, to take a moment to vividly imagine having a section of skin somewhere on your body stretched out and then sliced off without anesthetic. Now imagine that this is some of the most sensitive tissue on your body. Now justify doing that to a helpless infant. Now look at yourself in the mirror, and think about what you just defended.

Furthermore, infant circumcision is completely medically unnecessary. This is the part of the debate where I have countless objections relating to hygiene thrown at me. Hygiene as a justification for circumcision is laughable. As a female, I am responsible for keeping my own vagina clean. If I neglect my genital groundskeeping, I will experience all kinds of creepy and unpleasant problems (and I will have a terrible time convincing my partner to engage in sexual activity with me). Do I yearn for less complicated genitals? I imagine that would go something like this:

"Why, oh why must the labia majora and labia minora be so close together and complicated? How on earth will I ever keep this under control?! Whoa is me! If only someone had removed my labia minora in my infancy! Then there would be less need to consult a manual or ask an expert on how to cleanse myself."

This lament sounds, well, stupid. That's because women clean their genitals without a second thought. It's part of the shower routine. We like all of our lady parts where they are, because they are engineered to do what they are supposed to do. Gentlemen, your foreskin has a purpose. You know that overly-sensitive, sort of shocking feeling you sometimes get when it scrapes up against, say, the inside of your zipper? Your glans (head) isn't meant to be fully exposed. It has a protective, lubricated covering when you're born. This flexible covering is known as the prepuce, or foreskin. Now since it does get a bit moist under there, it is necessary to slide the foreskin back and clean the glans of the penis when performing your normal maintenance. This just means you have to spend five extra seconds touching your penis. I fail to see how this is difficult. When this routine is maintained, the fear of smelliness, buildup, or infection is eliminated. To imply that the foreskin should removed in order to eliminate the risk of uncleanness is tantamount to removing some of one's teeth to avoid having spend so much time brushing and flossing.

To address another common objection to my position, many people insist that uncircumcised penises are less attractive than circumcised penises. First of all, when erect, they look damn near identical:

Yes, this is a photograph of an erect, UNcircumcised penis, so don't click it if you don't want to see it.


When flaccid, the uncircumcised penis looks just as you would expect: it looks like it has a covering of skin over the glans. The value judgment placed on the attractiveness of this unassuming section of skin (which, FYI, in the adult penis is the size of a postcard when stretched out - think how many nerve endings you lose!) is nothing short of an artificial cultural bias. To make a disquieting comparison, female genital cutting in Indonesia is viewed by men as a beautification - does this make it acceptable? In Europe, circumcised penises would be outside the status quo - fewer than twenty percent of European men are circumcised! Plenty of women and men here in the States find uncircumcised penises just as attractive as or more attractive than circumcised penises. No one knows what an infant's personal tastes will turn out to be as far as the aesthetics of their sexual organ, much less the tastes of their future sexual partners. This is not your decision to make, and that is exactly the point.

It is a violation of human rights to perform a medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a infant. This alone is reason enough to end this antiquated religious ritual. Adults who are displeased with the shape of their penis have just as much right as adults who are dissatisfied with their nose to change it if they decide that it would make them happier. There are thousands of men who feel violated that their parents took it upon themselves to make such a personal and permanent decision on their behalf. While there are men who are perfectly satisfied with their parent's decision to circumcise (note that they never had an opportunity to know what they missed), this is no reason to assume that their parents had the right to do so. Even if only a small minority feel that their parents took something from them, this does nothing to change the fact that every parent who has their infant circumcised has, in fact, stolen a piece of their child's flesh without permission. Just because something is popular does not make it right.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Since I Can't Keep Up With EVERY Religion

I'm going to continue to bone up on new-earth creationism and the Bible. I feel like if I bone up any more on the Bible I'll be sick, but I think at this point it's worth it. Every time I come across someone who wants to attack science and reason with emotional arguments and points from an Iron Age book written by a bunch of uneducated homophobes and misogynists (sorry, Bible, I know you too well - also apologies to the gospel-writer Luke who was apparently a doctor) I feel:

1. Sad. Oh, so sad.
2. Irritated. Massively irritated.
3. Paranoid - MUST MAKE SURE I DON'T MAKE JUDGMENTS ON THINGS I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED!!!!!!
4. Exhausted and overwhelmed.

As exhausting and overwhelming as it may be, I feel that if I can cause one irrational person to act in a slightly more rational way, I've done something worthwhile. Nothing ever is achieved by people sitting back and being pissed off. As long as people feel that they know better because they are "inspired" or "can feel the truth" or "are doing God's will," the world is not safe from extremism.

In other news:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKRLR9jhP_DM%26feature%3Dpopular&h=a781a

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Sitting in my genetics class

While listening to the lecture, I had one of my rare and humbling moments when I realize how absolutely, fantastically, ridiculously amazing life is. The fail-safes in our genetic code... the amazingly organized ballet of transcription and protein production... the development of an entire organism from one fertilized egg cell... everything about life is staggeringly beautiful. Anyone who feels like "miracles" are amazing should take enough science courses to see that reality is far more amazing than any story in a book. I've had so many people tell me that it cheapens life to say it all came about by chance - but I think it makes it so much more valuable.


Sunday, April 25, 2010

would you like to weigh in on a debate?

The following is a copied and pasted debate I attempted to have with a Christian who was evangelizing on the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" Facebook page. I edited nothing, except to change the names to "Christian" and "Atheist." My main reason for posting this is to ask for any skilled defense of the Christian stance in this argument, partially because I refuse to smugly believe that I am some sort of champion because I bested a well-meaning girl (with no concept of sentence structure) on Facebook. I've yet to have any kind of reasonable response to the questions I have posed. Here's your chance, Christendom. Yes it is long, and yes, most of you out there in internet land have no use for this kind of thing - but I do love a good debate. Please jump in at will - from either side. Or if this is not your cup of tea, please move on to something else at will. I know this is a bit unorthodox for a blog post. I just want more input. I'm a conversation junky.

Here it is:

*****************************

Christian: A..admit that you are a sinner..... B..belive that Jesus is Gods son....C..confess that Jesus is your savior and lord........ maybe some of you should think about this before its to late. Regardless what youve done or who you belive in Jesus loves you.


Atheist: I'm curious as to why you find it necessary to evangelize with a cute "ABC" catch-phrase, followed by a vague threat of god's judgment ("before it's too late"), and then proclaim the love of the god who will destroy the non-believers - all on a peaceful site. There is nothing about irreligion that would threaten you in any way. We have no books claiming to be written by the creator of the universe dictating morals to us by way of genocide, rape, and slavery (if you need scriptures, I'll site them). All we as non-religious people want is truth and free inquiry. There is no lake of fire and brimstone, no purgatory, no apocalypse, no oppressive gender and sexual laws, and no calls to war by cosmic forces among the atheists and agnostics of the world. What is it that makes the religious so insecure that they must threaten (directly or indirectly) those who disagree with them until they assimilate to their beliefs? I for one would much rather have someone come to a non-religious stance through a natural progression of inquiry and understanding than to have it brow-beaten into them. The religious people of the world have no such courtesy - they must either guilt, nag, torture, or suicide-bomb others into submission. Why? Is it because you think your god will kill us? If you do, then maybe you should give a second thought to worshiping that guy.

Christian: all you want is the truth? ok well here you go. there was a rich man (non believer) and a poor servant (believer) the rich man had all he had ever wanted on this earth and as many servants as he ever wanted. the poor man Lazarus didnt have anything but his God and faith he was coverd in sores and ate with the rich mans dogs.
well they both die, the rich man goes to that lake of fire that you don't believe in and Lazarus went to heaven.
well that lake was so hot that the rich man had to beg God for Lazarus to dip his finger in cool water and touch it to his tongue. Luke16 19-31
can you see wind? no. but you have faith its there right?
well just cause you have not seen the lake of fire and heaven doesn't mean its not there. What i said was not a threat that was a promise from the good book itself.

If you dont want to believe in it i cant make you no one can im just doing what i am on this earth to do that's tell as many people about our lord as i can. you have a right to believe whatever you would like. doesn't mean its right. just try this before you become closed minded and hardened look up this short passage in the new testament John 18 19 and 20.
do yourself a favor and do this please. jesus loves you

Atheist: I know that you're not specifically trying to be judgmental. I know this because for the vast majority of my life, I was on your side of this conversation. I believed that I was helping people. I was rescuing them from death at the hands of the man in the sky who created them. Now, here's the thing that gets me - you just called me closed minded. I spent NINETEEN YEARS of my life immersed in Christian culture. I've read the Bible cover to cover at LEAST three times. Every time I read that book, I had these twinges of conscience telling me - "Why did God make the rules so that one mistake made by one person would destroy mankind's future for countless generations? And why did he make the rules so that his son would have to be tortured to death? Was his hand forced? If he was in charge, why did he make the system set up to so easily digress to chaos?" I wondered why he punished the infant children of Egypt for Pharaoh's refusal to free slaves, instead of punishing Pharaoh himself. For that matter why did he punish Pharaoh for enslaving his people if he himself endorsed slavery (not to mention the rape of female prisoners after a genocide he endorsed Numbers 31:15-18). So, do you know what I did - for years? I CLOSED MY MIND TO THE QUESTIONS. So tell me, if you are so open minded, how many years have you spent exploring my point of view? I've read your passage countless times, and I know how you feel when you read it. It is so uplifting - until you really start to wonder.... Did god make the rules? Why did he require the torture of his son? If he didn't make that rule, whose rules does he follow?

You aren't threatening me with torture in hell - you're promising me that I will be tortured in hell. And you are proclaiming that your book is truth .....because it *says* it's true? I don't claim to be right because I say I'm right. I say I'm definitely more right today than I was yesterday - and I plan on being more right tomorrow. I'm *adaptable*

As much as you follow your comments with the love of your god, it's hard for me to take that at face value, since he's *promising* to kill me.


If your faith can't stand up to scrutiny, you shouldn't have it, so if you come out of this more faithful, good for you. However, if you refuse to seriously consider these questions, you have no conviction at all. If Jesus didn't want you to ask questions, he wouldn't have let you evolve such a magnificent brain.

P.S. - Wind has been scientifically proven to exist. See the weather channel.

Christian: The bible is scientifically proving itself to be true every day. read Revelation. this world as we know it is coming to an end I'm just doing my best to reach as many of these "intelligent" people as i can before it is to late. you can take shots at me all you want I'm doing what our lord wants me to do. Atheist God isn't promising to kill anyone. hes giving everyone a chance to choose they're own future. God could have just made us like robots where we did everything he told us to with no choices but he didn't he wanted us to have these choices. and as for the decision that Adam made, i would have done the same thing so would you. face it we are human we are not perfect. and if you spent 19 years in church you would know exactly why his son had to suffer and die for us there had to be an ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Oh and this is what Jesus would do. try to reach the people bound spend eternity in hell. its not to late to change your mind and it really is as easy as A.B.C.

Atheist:
i will currently ignore the topic of the bible constantly proving itself to be scientifically accurate. i've read every single thing you've got to sling on that one, and i will answer them if you like - in a civilized fashion.

christian, at this point i really just would love to get a straight answer from a christian on this question. it has never been answered by ANY religious person i have asked. you seem to be pretty into your religion and defending it, so maybe you'll step up to the plate.

Premise one: God created the laws of physics, the universe, etc. Pretty much there is no principle or thing or thought that predates God.


Agree?

Okay. If you don't, then you can explain that one to me. On to the question.

When making mankind, he made them so that there was one thing to tempt them, and he made them very curious - a quality that would make it extremely difficult not to give it a try. Now when god set this up, he had the right to decide what the punishment is, right? No one else told God what the rules would be - nothing predates him. So, he made the rules so that the one thing that Adam did, which was a result of his nature, resulted in an abundance of terrible things - agonizing child labor/mortality, death, sickness, pain, evil, etc - and could only be cured by the torture of god's son. You tell me that if I read the Bible and spent years studying Christianity, that I would know exactly why this had to happen. I've read it and re-read it, and asked anyone I could - all I ever got was, "It's a mystery." or "His ways are higher than ours."

That means you would rather not think about it.

So tell me: Why did God make the rules such that we were not mindless automatons, but if one guy is not an automaton about one command, God will torture his son to death and allow the world to descend into chaos?

Well if a guy who's all powerful can't figure out how to make fruit without its consumption resulting in a chaotic spiral of death and torture, forgive me for being doubtful.

Really, if you could shed some light, I'd be a lot less confused about why I spent so many years of my life cramming my beliefs down people's throats.

***************************************

That's it for now. Please, continue the convo. I'll add more if it gets interesting.

UPDATE!!!

response:

Christian: And too answer your question Atheist God did not make Adam and Eve curious. The Devil made them curious he tempted them to take the fruit. And the reason that God decided to punish Adam and Eve and the desendants was that the Earth was corrupt by the devil. They were no longer pure for they had sinned. Jesus had to die to make up for this sin and all the sin that will ever be commited. Otherwise each of us would have to suffer and die a horrible death, (which we deserve). God did this just as you punish a child. You discipline your child even though you love them. If your child killed someone they would be put to death by the government. Punishment.... but God loves us and does not want us to die so he sent his true son to die in our place. And when God created the devil he was good. Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it. found in Ezekial 28:15. And if God made us mindless followers of him when we worshipped or praised him what would that mean.... He gives us a choice. People can choose thier own fate and choose to follow him. I hope this answers your ? if you need more detail please tell me.

I will leave off pasting the conversation here, although it still goes on. I will admit, we both get less patient as time goes on. It never becomes a full on mud sling, but we do get a bit snippy. It's become exhausting. If you'd like to weigh in, please comment here or get on the FFRF page on facebook! Also here is a link to the remainder of the conversation on FB:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Freedom-From-Religion-Foundation/99536044727?v=wall&story_fbid=385996234727

Keep on thinkin', kids.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

God's pharmacy



Now for my first chain email evisceration:

http://www.whyagain.com/media/Gods_Pharmacy.pdf

Here's a good one.

When Gaaawud (pronounced like a southern Baptist preacher) made the world, he left us a whole buncha useful clues as to which foods are good for us.... by making the foods that are good for certain body parts.... shaped like said body parts.

.....really?

If you haven't seen it, check the link.

I've gotten a ton of people saying: "Oooooh, isn't that cool! It's so mind-blowing, but it's right! Wow!!!!"

My initial thought is - there are an ABUNDANCE of things out there that are good for your penis, by this logic.


































I could go on for days with that game. In any case, none of these plant specimens are known for their penis health benefits, as far as I know. Go on. Go to the grocery store. See how many fruits and/or vegetables are phallic in shape....

Enough with the phallice argument. Let's address some stuff that's in the email.

Carrots:







Notice the pupil-like center.... the radiating lines of the iris... GASP! Carrots are loaded with vitamin A, and that's good for your eyes!!!! IT IS A SIGN!!!

Also notice the tubular tapered structure of a carrot when not cut into cross sections. Notice the bright orange color. Notice the rigid structure. Notice the plume of leaves coming off the top and the stringy roots coming off the sides and bottom. None of these things are terribly similar to your eyeball by my understanding.

Notice the fact that any brightly orange colored vegetable is a good source of vitamin A. Sweet potatoes, cantaloupes, papayas, mangoes, and pumpkins all seem to suspiciously lack a freaky magical pupil cross section. Actually, when you look at the ovary of a frog during a dissection, the abundance of wet, black seeds kind of reminds me of the inside of a papaya.














I'm willing to bet that frogs who eat a diet high in papaya will not have robust, extra-healthy ovaries. They'll be getting tons of digestive enzyme and vitamin A, but that is to no avail for super-powered ovaries. Yet, to me, the inside of this papaya looks much more like the frog ovaries than the carrot looked like my eye. Well look at that - a coincidence. Those happen? Yes. Yes they do.

I won't individually conquer each example posed in the email because, honestly it's too easy and would be unnecessary. But there was one that I couldn't leave alone:

"Celery, Bok choy, and rhubarb look just like bones."

Come on. This is just really, really, really reaching. Show me one human bone that has a distinct crescent-shaped cross section. Also, this is under the premise that all bones are long and rod-like. Bones include the scapula, cranium, patella, vertebrae, sternum, etc, etc, etc. The radius and ulna (bones of the fore-arm) are the most likely candidate for celery-ness. They still really don't look like celery. Whatever idiot decided to write this garbage thought that the celery comparison was profound. That truly wins a medal for stupidity.

You may be thinking: "Well, it's a pretty thought. Why does this bother you? You're full of hate and negativity."

There are PLENTY of reasons to want this kind of bullshit explained and debunked. Check out the first part of the email:

"It’s been said that God first separated the salt water from the fresh, made dry land, planted a garden, made animals and fish… all before making a human. He made and provided what we’d need before we were born. These are best & more powerful when eaten raw.

We’re such slow learners…God left us a great clues as to what foods help what part of our body"


#1: This advances the American anti-science/creationist agenda. Far too many Americans have no regard for scientific truth. As of 2004, 44% believed that a deity just sculpted humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. From what I've experienced in countless conversations, many believe it was 6 to 7 thousand years ago (by the way, that also includes the creation of the entire planet). The oldest known beer recipe predates their "history" of the world. These people disdain the scientific community's advances in anthropology, archaeology, geology, etc, but are completely willing to accept a heart transplant. These people need to either decide to trust or distrust science. America is so far behind in science and math education, it's sickening. THAT is NOT a coincidence.

#2: The statement that "we're such slow learners" implies that the scientific community has been failing us the entire time that they weren't telling us to eat food shaped like organs. Hooray, now we know that everything round is good for your cells, and therefore good for your entire body (since it's entirely made of cells). Those good-for-nothing scientists can't figure out anything. Now I'll go take my antibiotics and drive my car and go visit my uncle with a pacemaker to tell him how slow scientists are on the uptake.

#3: This is spreading misinformation. In fact, it's misinformation that detracts from gaining a real knowledge of nutrition and healthy eating habits. Why learn about real health habits when I can walk into a grocery store, pick up a honeydew melon, and assume it will prevent breast cancer?

#4: The people talking about this garbage could be ACTUALLY LEARNING SOMETHING instead.

#5: It's incredibly irritating. (yes, I know that's not a legitimate debate point, but it's MY blog.)

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat a taco - for vaginal health.




Saturday, February 20, 2010

The Things I Find Important

Just last night I said to my boyfriend and a friend of ours, "I should never have a blog, because it would just be me bitching about things that make me angry."

That may have been pretty accurate, but I think I oversimplified myself a bit. The things that make me angry are the things I find important. I would like to think that I wouldn't allow myself to get overly emotional about petty, trivial things that have no major impact on anyone. I know very well that I wouldn't be posting about my feelings of betrayal because I wasn't invited to this or the other thing, or that Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie just can't get along. If something pisses me off, it is because I find it to be damaging to someone, or in some cases, everyone.

That being said, what I find repugnant is the intellectual laziness and outright distrust (or even hatred) of science and intellectualism that I see in people every day. In fact, the vast majority of times that I am engaged intellectually or philosophically by people in my everyday life (outside my regular circle of friends), it is in a way that slaps intellectualism in the face. People have, especially since the advent of email, developed a great fondness for taking bits and pieces of fact and philosophy and framing it around things that they have already believed their entire lives and saying, "AHA! Even the great intellectual community agrees with me!" People have no interest in being challenged or learning new things. The only interest they have in higher thought is quoting it to further their agenda. No original thoughts, just (usually out of context) quotes around a simplistic lesson of their liking. THIS DISGUSTS ME.

No one wants to discuss the merits of their position, consider the opposing view in depth, or write an ORIGINAL thought. There is also, apparently, no need to view anything with skepticism. "Everything they said in this email that reaffirmed my opinions must be true. No need to think about it further, or god forbid, fact check." They have interesting chain emails to think for them. These casual dips into psuedo-intellectualism serve as nothing but emotional masturbation, and are usually followed by the unstoppable need to share the experience with others - but not over a conversation, just a forward or something. If, on a rare occasion it is over a conversation, any challenge of the topic is viewed as "rude" or "negative".

My number one priority here is analysis - honest, skeptical, analysis.