Denmark: Marie Krarup – Politician from the patriotic philo-semitic Danish People’s Party supports genital mutilation of boys and girls

http://blog.balder.org/?p=1528

During a debate about religiously motivated genital mutilation organized by the anti Islamic Free Speech Society [Trykkefrihedsselskabet], most recently in the news because of the attempted murder of the organizations president, Lars Hedegaard, Mrs. Marie Krarup, MP for the Danish People’s Party [Dansk Folkeparti] followed in the footsteps of now former member of the Free Speech Society the Lutheran Priest Katrine Lilleoer, MP for the DPP the Lutheran Priest Jesper Langballe, and Marie Krarup’s sister, the Lutheran theologian Katrine Winkel Holm, and argued that circumcision; amputation of part of the male foreskin is a minor procedure with positive effects, and that the freedom of parents to raise their children in some religious tradition is more important than the right of the individual to bodily integrity.

But Marie Krarup went even further than the preceding line of traitors to secular Occidental and Christian ideas, and suggested opening up for some ‘mild’ circumcision of girls!

This caused an immediate reaction from Dr. Morten Frisch:

The debate about foreskin amputation, which goes under the misleading term ‘circumcision’, has gone into a new phase.

Hard pressed by almost nation wide public opposition to the legality of the practice as well as strong and almost unanimous opposition from Danish medical practitioners, panic is spreading among the ranks of the foreskin amputation ritual advocates.

New marked arguments are being launched in an attempt to prevent boys in Denmark from attaining the right to bodily and sexual integrity.

According to Dr. Morten Frisch, Marie Krarup suggested that we end this sexist imbalance by opening up for ‘a mild form’ of genital mutilation for girls, if a good and painless method can be found. Equality for the law so to speak.

Dr. Morten Frisch about the debate on february 7:

The panel was made up of Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner, columnist Leo Milgrom (Jewish), economist Torben Mark Pedersen and me. Marie Krarup spoke as a suppliant for her sister theologian Katrine Winkel Holm, who rose from her sick bed and took part in the discussion anyway, seated among the audience.

I was the first to speak and went through the anatomical, health related and sexual consequences of foreskin amputation, and pointed at the need to secure boys the right to their own bodies, the same way we have installed paragraph 245a of the Danish Penal Code to protect girls from genital mutilation.

Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner talked about the reason why Jews practice foreskin amputation when the boys are eight days old.

Leo Milgrom, a Jewish man gave us his personal story of violence, loss and being let down, something many foreskin amputated men experience, while he also used the occasion to ask Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner once more, as he did in his article in the newspaper Politiken on July 28; ‘Can you give me my foreskin back?’.

MP Marie Krarup thought that there were important health benefits to be got from foreskin amputation, that the pain during and after the procedure were limited, that assault is too strong a word, and that the family deserves to be prioritized before the individual.

Torben Mark Pedersen (member of the Free Speech Society and a member of the ultra liberal, [financially the European meaning of the wordliberal] party, Ny Alliance (New Alliance) closed the presentation round focusing on the rights of the individual and the protection of children against religiously motivated assault.

Thereby the stage had been set for a confrontation between two badly agreeing points of view: that a child’s right to bodily and sexual integrity trumps parents possible urge to cut into their bodies. Or that we for historical reasons and respect for Judaism should accept that some parents violate the UN Children’s Convention, and mutilate their boys because religion is more important for them than basic human rights.

Allowing female genital mutilation in the name of equality

During the following debate, Marie Krarup was asked why some minorities living in Denmark should be allowed to cut into their boys’ genitals, while other groups for cultural reasons just as legitimate, risk several years in jail, if they have genital mutilation performed on their girls.

Marie Krarup suggested that we do away with this sexist imbalance by opening up for a ‘mild’ form of genital mutilation for girls, if a good and painless method can be found. Equality before the law so to speak.

The fact that this Member of Parliament can get it over her lips to legitimate female sexual mutilation in order to preserve the right to mutilate boy’s penisses, is logical enough in all its horror. When one has a world view which accepts that boys should pay with pain and life long loss of sexual sensitivity, because of their parents’ religious ideas, well I guess the same fate may befall girls.

The fact that it is possible to completely spare boys and girls for this madness by banning all none medically necessary chirurgy on children’s genitals obviously hasn’t occurred to Marie Krarup as a viable possibility.

Circumcision advocacy not official position of DPP

Many members of the Danish People’s Party are probably happy that she spoke as a private person, and not on behalf of the party.

[Mr. Frisch is sure right about that one too!]

[..]

Leo Milgrom (the Jewish man) asked a question to Katrine Winkel Holm which sounded about like this: ‘Is it ok if a new religious movement would want to amputate the tip of the little finger of their kids, in order to give them a sign of their belonging to a group, when after all it is legal to remove something far more valuable from a boy’s sex organ?

Theologian Katrine Winkel Holm thought not, because that would be violence against the child. When fingertip amputation is violence, while foreskin amputation isn’t, that is because there are historical reasons to cut into boys penisses, we were made to understand.

Or in other words, when a religiously motivated assault has been going on for so long that we have repressed the notion that it is an act of violence, nobody from the outside should come and interfere.

[..]

Foreskin amputation is costly. For the defenseless boys as well as for the young and adult men they will become later on. Sexually, emotionally, identity wise and economically.

That fact that this practice in the US is a golden egg worth hundreds of millions for doctors and other ‘circumcizers’ is a delicate matter which was not brought up at the meeting.

But it is thought provoking, that American Pediatricians and Obstetricians, who perform most of the foreskin amputations on newly born American boys, are the only doctors in the world, who can find arguments in the scientific literature in favor of the foreskin amputation practice.

[..]

People in the Western world prioritize to an ever higher degree the emphasis on the rights of children and abstain from the practice.

Even in the US where prognoses say that 2014 or 2015 will be the first year since WWII in which more than half of all newly born boys will have intact sex organs when they leave the maternity ward.

Western doctors argue against the amputation practice, except those who make good money out of it. [And those who support it for tribal reasons – Balder]

Marie Krarup doesn’t think that we should protect Danish boys from genital mutilation.

But a solid majority of the Danish public wants Denmark to lead the way and stop this assault on underage boys which is illegal under the UN Convention.

The Danish Medical Society advices against medically unnecessary foreskin amputation. The Sex & Society Organization is against it, as well as the Children’s Council.

What do you say?

Morten Frisch is Chief Medical Doctor, ph.d., and professor of Sexual Health Epidemiology

Comment: White Nationalists who complain that Muslim men should have more fun when they have sex with non-Muslim women resemble Muslims who think non-Muslims should have large non-Muslim families instead of being sluts and faggots. Disingenous, transparent hypocrisy is never cool or even effective.

 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New “Normal”

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.nl/2012/02/planned-parenthood-mutilated-is-new.html

Yes! Different is normal!

So I just recently saw a video put out by Planned Parenthood, entitled “Different is Normal.”

It’s an interesting little video, obviously aimed towards teens, and it would probably be a very good message if it weren’t for one, tiny, detail.

Actually, no, it’s actually a rather large detail; it outright tries to call the circumcised penis “normal,” like any other part of the body we’re born with.

The video starts out with a good message…

“As a teenager, you worry about a lot of things: homework, acne, your profile picture. One thing you shouldn’t be worried about is whether or not your breasts, penis, or vulva are normal, but lots of kids do. So, are they normal? Will they be when you’re all grown up? Short answer: yes. Long answer: well, when it comes to our bodies, being different is normal.”

Well, there’s a slightly longer answer, but Planned Parenthood won’t be addressing it here. 

“You already know that our bodies are just like snowflakes, no two are alike. Our faces are all made of the same parts: eyes, ears, nose, mouth, but they all look completely different. If that goes for your face, then why not the rest of your body? The reality is that normal is different. It’s all over the place.”

Do you see where this is going?

They start with the penis.

“Here’s a flaccid, or soft, adult penis. All penises have the same parts: glans, shaft, urethra, and all have testicles hanging below. Here’s one that’s erect, or hard.”

Of course.

But, where’s the foreskin? Is that not a part of the penis? And why are they showing a picture of a circumcised penis, as if it were the way it appeared in nature? Where’s the scar?

They show a second slide:

Only THEN do they decide to add:

“Some have foreskins, some are circumcised and have no foreskin.”

Did the guy with a foreskin get some sort of body modification? Was he born with some sort of genetic variation? Why are penises assumed to be circumcised by default?

“Some are shorter, some are thicker, some are thinner, some curve when they’re erect.”

“All are normal.”

Well. At least they hope to convince insecure teens.

Let’s see how they treat the girls:

“Same goes for girls. Each vulva has an inner labia, outer labia, clitoris, 

pening to the vagina, urethra, and clitoral hood.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

They didn’t seem to forget the labia, nor the clitoral hood, nor the clitoris in this diagram. Furthermore, the girls are actually shown different diagrams of different other vulvas, complete with different shapes and sizes of the clitoris, as well as variations in the lengths of the labia.

A stark difference is that the boys don’t get to see different types of foreskins and/or glans. It appears the only variations among penises is circumcised and not… Absolutely no mention of the frenulum…

“Even with the same parts, each adult vulva looks completely different.

Some have bigger openings in the vagina, some have bigger clitorises that stick out…”

“…some have wide outer labia…”

“…some have bigger inner labia that stick out…”

“…and often the labia in the pair don’t match each other.”

“All are normal”

So much dedication and care for the female vulva. Where are all the variations of the male penis?  Where are all the large prominent glans? The long foreskins? The short foreskins? The uneven foreskins? Are those not “normal?”

But, more than this, where are all the circumcised vulvas? Where are the vulvas with no clitoris? Where are the vulvas that have been sewn up in infibulation? If they’re showing diagrams of circumcised penises, why aren’t they showing diagrams of female circumcision? Why does Planned Parenthood try to pass off the circumcised penis as just another variation of “normal?”

Would Planned Parent hood EVER dare to say that ANY of these things was normal?

Female genital cutting is “normal” for millions of girls in Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei and all over South East Asia.

But let’s not talk about THAT.

“So remember, when it comes to our faces, our hands, and yes, our genitals, different is normal. So you can officially stop worrying about your vulva, breasts, or penis.”

Do you hear that, boys? Do you hear that men? You can stop worrying about the fact that someone took a knife and sliced off part of your penis.

Muslim boy becoming “normal.”

This is perfectly “normal” and acceptable.

What about you girls who don’t have a clitoris? Who are missing your labia? Or who have been infibulated?

For millions of girls globally, this is “normal.”

Go sit in a corner and feel sorry for yourself.

Thanks, Planned Parenthood, but NO THANKS.

NOT NORMAL
No, the circumcised penis is NOT normal.

It is a forced, contrived, artificial phenomenon.

It is a subversion of the normal, healthy penis.

No, penises in the world DON’T all have the same parts. (Neither do vulvas in the world for that matter…) Some are missing parts, and it’s because they were deliberately CUT OFF.

But let’s not get into that; this is a feel-good video for teens, right?

SHAME ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD
This video is pure self-serving GARBAGE.

Planned Parenthood ought to be ASHAMED for trying to normalize genital mutilation.

They ought to be ashamed that they are insulting the youth’s intelligence with this crap.

SHAME on you, Planned Parenthood, SHAME on you.

Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

The presence of the foreskin is normal, and its absence abnormal.

Nay, it is a deliberate disfigurement.

Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

The same video touting the same bullshit can be seen here in Spanish.

The New York Times has actually published a very informative article concerning female genital cutting as it occurs in South East Asia and can be accessed here.

Comment: Among many people, Planned Parenthood has a very shady reputation. Again, as I stressed many times, lowering the birthrate by whatever means requires the acceptance of euthanasia. Hell is eternal.

Circumcision: A women’s issue?

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2013/03/baby-boys-get-circumcised-women-hardest-hit/

Baby Boys Get Circumcised; Women Hardest Hit

examples of both sides being feminizedAdd comments

Mar192013

 

I hate the circumcision debate because both sides of the circumcision debate have been taken over by women.  The last time I wrote an article about circumcision, I took a look at some comments from women involved in the anti-circumcision movement, and they all had bizarre ideas like circumcised men are permenantly damaged and incapable of actual sex.  One woman couldn’t stop thinking about how her son’s penis was irrevocably damaged.  These women were making circumcision all about themselves despite not actually being the recipients of a circumcision.

Recently, I found an article in the Huffington Post from a woman against circumcision who made it all about women too:

Even though the age for circumcision ranges widely across all circumcising societies, what is most universally constant is the requirement that circumcision occur before marriage. This rule not only establishes the father’s status in the male-dominant community, but it also works to achieve another salient objective: marriageable girls are entrained to view any uncircumcised man as undesirable, thereby ensuring the ethnic stability of the tribe. Girls know from an early age that they would risk social ostracism by mating with an uncircumcised male.

On a meta-historical and biological level, circumcision acts to rename, remap, and invert our fundamental and primal relationship to the feminine. It is not coincidental that this ritual of tribal belonging necessitates the cutting, blood-letting, and altering — in a public ceremony — of the male child’s sexual organ. As Glick points out, “Female blood contaminates, male blood sanctifies.” Thus, he explains, “the shedding of male blood is an act of consecration.”  By creating historical and social linkage through this sacrificial ritual, circumcision functions to supersede and transcend our most primary maternal and biological system of relationship making patrilineal and patriarchal hierarchy appear “natural and inevitable,” as Nancy Jay notes in her brilliant book, Throughout Your Generations Forever.

Similarly, in both the Hebrew Scriptures (Samuel 1:1) and the New Testament (Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38) , by citing and repeating the lineage of male progenitors, legitimacy is established. The names of the mothers are usually unmentioned, irrelevant in a male-dominant culture.

Circumcision subverts the community’s relationship to the life-giving principle of the feminine, not only by obliterating the woman’s rightful identity in structuring the historical social network of her tribe, but also by trivializing and implicitly forbidding her to acknowledge, much less act upon, her deepest mammalian instincts to protect her newly birthed child. She knows, long before she has even conceived, that in order for her male child to be bonded to the male community — past, present and future — and to a male-imaged god, she must surrender him to the men with a knife to cut, wound and cause great pain to the very vulnerable sexual organ of this newly birthed child. Typically, a mother’s feelings are dismissed or ridiculed. Her voice is silenced, even to herself.

Can it be a coincidence that we have language for the primary disempowerment for men, but not for women? When men are wounded in their primal potency of manhood, we say they have been “emasculated.” When women are wounded in their primary potency of womanhood, we rarely notice. We have no language, no conceptual structure, no word to claim, much less attempt to heal the experience of core female disempowerment.

The wounding of circumcision irreversibly alters both mother and child: the mother is fractured at the base of her deepest womb-wisdom, which knows that she must protect her child no matter what; and the baby, shocked and traumatized, is fractured in his ability to absolutely trust the protective arms of the mother he has biologically and innately turned to as his primordial source of safety. From the beginning, masculinity is now defined as that which must be cut off from the mother and all that is female, nurturing, and essential for human survival. In this way women are made complicit in this masculine-defined model of motherhood. Nancy Jay states, “Gender is therefore unequaled as a cornerstone of domination.” Circumcision is the weapon that not only destroys a boy’s foreskin but also deftly excises maternal authority over the ultimate well-being of her child. For if a woman is forbidden to feel entitled to her instinctive need to protect her newborn child, what feelings of her own can she ever trust?

Additionally, the removal of the foreskin creates a secondary loss of sensitivity: not only has the most erogenous tissue of the male sexual organ been removed, but, as the man ages, the glans loses its mucosal covering, becomes dried out, and keratinizes over time. Typically by middle age the glans of the circumcised penis has lost much of its receptive potential and the man requires more abrasive stimulation to achieve orgasm. Often this is just as a woman is becoming peri-menopausal and experiencing decreasing vaginal lubrication. Typically, the problem is identified as the woman’s entry into menopause; the contribution of the circumcised partner is rarely acknowledged. In subtle but profound ways, circumcision functions to diminish a man’s pleasure potential, allowing his bond to his partner to be subordinated to his bond to his tribal male peers.

Circumcision achieves this by violently breaching the maternal-infant bond shortly after birth; by amputating and marking the baby’s sexual organ before he knows what he has lost; by disempowering, “taming,” the mother at the height of her instinctual need to protect her infant; by bonding the baby to the community of men past, present, and future and to a male-imaged G-d; by restructuring the family and the society in terms of male dominance; and by psycho-sexually wounding the manhood still asleep in the unsuspecting baby boy. In all of these ways — socially, politically, religiously, ethnically, sexually, tribally, and interpersonally — the cutting of our baby boys’ sexual organs is the fulcrum around which patriarchy exerts its power. Circumcision is a rite of male domination — domination and the entitlement of domination over other men, women, and children, both institutionally and personally. It is the essence of patriarchy.

These are just a few quotes from the article.  In an anti-circumcision article, terms like “womb wisdom” and sentences like, “Circumcision is a rite of male domination — domination and the entitlement of domination over other men, women, and children, both institutionally and personally. It is the essence of patriarchy” have no place.  The point of being against circumcision is what happens to baby BOYS (and older boys and men if circumcision happens later).

What has happened is that women have managed to take over the anti-circumcision movement and make it all about them.  The boys who actually get circumcised are only an afterthought at best.  The “logic” that we see here is incredibly twisted, but that is what it takes to say women are the real victims of male circumcision.

What has happened to the anti-circumcision movement is a sober warning about what could happen to the MRM if we are not careful.  The anti-circumcision movement has been taken over by women and made to be anti-male.  We can’t let that happen to the MRM.

Comment: read the comments. I personally think a circumcised male who has PIV at sixteen has more real sex than an uncircumcised male who masturbates well into his twenties. As I explained to Hyperborean, one shouldn’t seek a pretext to fight one’s enemies, but attack them on their real faults.