Beware of Muslim Brotherhood!

“God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.” -Muslim Brotherhood

Millions of people were excited about the Arab Spring. We were dreaming of a secular Arab world. We thought non-corrupt non-religious politicians would rule Egypt. But the holy Arab Spring brought the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. What a shock! Many of us now worried about the future of Egypt.

Muslim Brotherhood was Founded in Egypt in 1928. Its ideas had gained it supporters throughout the Arab world and influenced other Islamist groups with its “model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work”. Muslim Brotherhood believes Islam is the solution to all problems. They built schools, hospitals, orphanages, commercial enterprises etc. to gain trust and influence people.
Many Egyptians got Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic charity. They voted for Brotherhood. If Mubarak started the process of secularization of judicial, educational and social systems, the vote results could have been different.

Muslim Brotherhood claims they believe in democracy and freedom of expression. But you can read their dangerous manifesto which is totally against the basic rights and freedom of people. Manifesto is nothing but the violation of human rights. Muslim Brotherhood is a political movement to make the world Darul Islam or land of Islam. Let’s read some of their wishes.

* A strengthening of the armed forces, and an increase in the number of youth groups; the inspiration of the latter with zeal on the bases of Islamic jihad.

* A strengthening of the bonds between all Islamic countries, especially the Arab countries, to pave the way for practical and serious consideration of the matter of the departed Caliphate.

* The diffusion of the Islamic spirit throughout all departments of the government, so that all its employees will feel responsible for adhering to Islamic teachings.

* Weighing all acts of the government acts in the scales of Islamic wisdom and doctrines; the organization of all celebrations, receptions, official conferences, prisons and hospitals so as not to be incompatible with Islamic teaching; the arranging of work-schedules so that they will not conflict with hours of prayer.

*Conditioning the people to respect public morality, and the issuance of directives fortified by the aegis of the law on this subject; the imposition of severe penalties for moral offences.

*Treatment of the problem of women in a way which combines the progressive and the protective, in accordance with Islamic teachings, so that this problem – one of the most important social problems – will not be abandoned to the biased pens and deviant notions of those who err in the directions of deficiency or excess.

* The recognition of fornication, whatever the circumstances, as a detestable crime whose perpetrator must be flogged.

*A campaign against ostentation in dress and loose behavior; the instruction of women in what is proper, with particular strictness as regards female instructors, pupils, physicians, and students, and all those in similar categories.

*A review of the curricula offered to girls and the necessity of making them distinct from the boys’ curricula in many of the stages of education.

*Segregation of male and female students; private meetings between men and women, unless between the permitted degrees [of relationship] to be counted as a crime for which both will be censored.

*The closure of morally undesirable ballrooms and dance halls, and the prohibition of dancing and other such pastimes.

*The surveillance of theatres and cinemas, and a rigorous selection of plays and films.

*The expurgation of songs, and a rigorous selection and censorship of them.

*The careful selection of lectures, songs, and subjects to be broadcast to the nation; the use of radio broadcasting for the education of the nation in a virtuous and moral way.

*The confiscation of provocative stories and books that implant the seeds of skepticism in an insidious manner, and newspapers which strive to disseminate immorality and capitalize indecently on lustful desires.

* Due consideration for the claims of the moral censorship, and punishment of all who are proved to have infringed any Islamic doctrine or attacked it, such as breaking the fast of Ramadan, wilful neglect of prayers, insulting the faith, or any such act.

*The designation of religious instruction as a basic subject in all schools, in each according to its type, as well as in the universities.

*Active instigation to memorize the Qur’an in all the free elementary schools; making this memorization mandatory for obtaining diplomas in the areas of religion and (Arabic) language; the stipulation that a portion of it be memorized in every school.

*The promulgation of a firm educational policy which will advance and raise the level of education, and will supply it, in all its varieties, with common goals and purposes; which will bring the different cultures represented in the nation closer together, and will make the first stage of its process one dedicated to inculcating a virtuous, patriotic spirit and an unwavering moral code.

*The cultivation of the Arabic language at every stage of instruction; the use of Arabic alone, as opposed to any foreign language, in the primary stages.

*The cultivation of Islamic history, and of the national history and national culture, and the history of Islamic civilization.

*Consideration of ways to arrive gradually at a uniform mode of dress for the nation.

*An end to the foreign spirit in our homes with regard to language, manners, dress, governesses, nurses, etc; all these to be Egyptianized, especially in upper class homes.

*To give journalism a proper orientation, and to encourage authors and writers to undertake Islamic, Eastern subjects.

*The organization of zakat (charity) in terms of income and expenditure, according to the teachings of the magnanimous Sacred Law; invoking its assistance in carrying out necessary benevolent projects, such as homes for the aged, the poor, and orphans, and strengthening the armed forces.

Islamists led by the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Salafists worked to gain the presidency of Egypt. They have been celebrating victory in Tahrir Square. Not long ago hundreds of thousands of young people were crying for democracy in the square. Not many people could imagine that the Islamists would finally make everybody fool and parade with their flags through the same Tahrir Square!

Many of us are worried about Egypt and the Arab world. Many of us are worried about women who would be forced to give up their rights to live under strict Islamic rules. Many of us are worried about women who would be flogged and stoned to death for every little thing.

<

Rape in War

“War provides men with the perfect psychological backdrop to give vent to their contempt for women. The maleness of the military—the brute power of weaponry exclusive to their hands, the spiritual bonding of men at arms, the manly discipline of orders given and orders obeyed, the simple logic of the hierarchical command—confirms for men what they long suspect—that women are peripheral to the world that counts.” –Susan Brownmiller

“There can be no security, without women’s security. Rape is not a lesser evil in the hierarchy of wartime horrors, it is not a crime that the world can dismiss as collateral damage, or as cultural, or inevitable.” -Margot Wallstrom

Throughout history, rape has been the least condemned and most silenced war crime. Sexual violence increases during times of war, it is often dismissed as being an inevitable part of conflict.

Gloria Steinem answered to some questions about rape in war. I just could not resist to republish the interview.

Q: What are some of the reasons rape is so prevalent in war?

A: First, it’s important to note that rape and war didn’t always go together. For instance, European colonists wrote astonished letters home about how “even these savages”—by which they meant the residents of this continent they were invading—didn’t rape, not even their women prisoners. But those were wars of self-defense. If you’re going to get groups of men to risk their humanity, health, and lives in wars of offense, the traditional way is not to pay them a lot, but to addict them to the “cult of masculinity.” You have to convince them they’re not “real men” unless they kill and conquer. And, at its most basic, “masculine” means not being “feminine.” On a continuum, it means controlling women, conquering women, raping women, even with objects: bottles and broom handles in “peacetime” here, and gun barrels and knives in Bosnia or Congo. There’s a reason why it’s a truism that rape is not sex, it’s violence.

Nanking 1937

It’s also true that men may rape in groups out of social pressure to prove their “masculinity”—in peacetime, too—but gang mentality is a way of life in war. Military officers sometimes order men to rape as proof of loyalty and shared culpability. Some men express regret and say they wouldn’t have raped without group pressure. Also the group hatred war requires means humiliating enemies by raping “their” women, implanting sperm, taking over their means of reproduction, wiping out the enemy race or ethnicity. Cultures that put all “honor” in the purity of “their” women—and keep women weak—are actually setting them up as targets.

Even in peacetime, the “cult of masculinity” is so powerful that men commit crimes in which they have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose: “senseless” killings like those in schools and post offices, serial murders, domestic violence, stalking, killing their wives and children and then killing themselves. They’re not hate crimes because they don’t hate the people they kill—but those people symbolize their lack of control, and so are killing the “masculinity” on which their whole sense of self depends. In interviews, such men often describe themselves as victims because they believe they should have been allowed to have control. I think we should call such crimes “supremacy crimes.”


Vietnam 1968

Q: What do you say to people who assert that sexualized violence is a “natural” part of conflict?

A: I try to think of something from the past that was also thought to be “natural,” and wasn’t. For instance, violence was once a “natural” part of childrearing, as in, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” It was also “natural” in marriage, as in, “Wives and bells must be struck regularly.” It was “natural” in religion, as in flagellating and starving the flesh to free the spirit.


Bangladesh 1971
Or I quote Olof Palme, the great former prime minister of Sweden, who said that gender roles are the deepest cause of violence on earth, and it’s up to governments to humanize them. Gender roles may give us our first idea that it’s okay for one group to eat and the other to cook, one to talk and the other to listen, one to order and the other to obey, one to be subject and one as object. The most shared characteristic of original societies in which violence was only for self-defense, not armies—and of the most egalitarian societies now—is that gender roles are fluid and not polarized.

So you might say it’s the reverse. Conflict is not the only or even the primary normalizer of the extremes of “masculine” and “feminine.” Those roles at home are the normalizers of conflict.


Bosnia 1993

Q: Why use the term “sexualized” violence?

A: Because there’s nothing sexual about violence. Sex is about pleasure. Violence is about pain. Nature tells us what’s good for us by making it pleasurable, and what’s bad for us by making it painful. To get those things mixed up usually requires a childhood in which people we loved and depended on inflicted pain, and we came to believe we couldn’t get one without the other.

It also works the other way around. People, especially men addicted to “masculinity,” may think that inflicting pain is the only way they can get sexual pleasure. For instance, I didn’t learn there was a mammoth concentration camp only for women—it was called Ravensbrück—until the end of the 1970s when my friend Konnilyn Feig included it in her book called, Hitler’s Death Camps. Nazi doctors there performed a higher proportion of so-called medical experiments there — they simulated battle wounds and amputations, practiced surgeries and forms of sterilization; endless horrors — and their subjects were mainly young, beautiful women. The other women in the camp called them “rabbits” because they were used as lab animals. They tried to protect them. This was the slow sexualized violence known as sadism.


Rwanda 1994

Q: Sexualized violence is frequently underreported. Why do you think this is?

A: Yes, I do. To say otherwise would be to excuse them as human nature. We know there have been societies in which such crimes were rare or absent; they are not human nature. And even if they were, the most significant characteristic of humans—the one that allows our species to survive—is that we’re adaptable. Violence in the home normalizes violence in the street and in foreign policy. Because we genderize the study of childrearing as “feminine” and the study of conflict and foreign policy as “masculine,” we rarely see that the first causes the second. Of course, the goal is to stop war altogether. If we raised even one generation of children without violence and shaming, we have no idea what might be possible. But at least we can limit war to those who want to fight it.


Afghanistan 1995

Q: Do we need both men and women involved to stop these atrocities?

A: Yes, we do. There is more responsibility where there’s more power. Though women have a responsibility to speak up for ourselves — to reverse the Golden Rule and treat ourselves as well as we treat others — men have more power and so are responsible not only for their own behavior, but for creating an atmosphere in which men are penalized for violence toward women and rewarded for treating women as equals. It’s parallel to the fact that I, as a white person, have more responsibility for white racism than do the people of color who suffer from it.

Men also can show each other the rewards of full humanity. It’s been said that the woman a man most fears is the woman within himself. Men are punished by being cut off from human qualities denied to them as “feminine.” I think one element in men’s punishing and killing of women is an effort to do away with what they fear within themselves.


Congo 1998

Q: Do you think it’s ever possible to bring these atrocities to an end or at least significantly curb them?

A:Yes, I do. To say otherwise would be to excuse them as human nature. We know there have been societies in which such crimes were rare or absent; they are not human nature. And even if they were, the most significant characteristic of humans — the one that allows our species to survive — is that we’re adaptable. Violence in the home normalizes violence in the street and in foreign policy. Because we genderize the study of childrearing as “feminine” and the study of conflict and foreign policy as “masculine,” we rarely see that the first causes the second. Of course, the goal is to stop war altogether. If we raised even one generation of children without violence and shaming, we have no idea what might be possible. But at least we can limit war to those who want to fight it.

Q: What do you say to people who believe that this happens far from home, in societies beyond repair? In other words, that there’s nothing we can do.

A: I say, Open your eyes, watch the news, talk to the women in your families and neighborhoods, listen to our women soldiers who were raped by their own comrades. The difference is only one of degree. No society is beyond reproach or beyond repair.

This project is not trying to create a competition of tears. It’s wrong whether men or women are suffering. It’s just that the suffering has to be visible and not called inevitable or blamed on the victim before we can stop it.

Women should say NO to unpaid work

Today I want to apologize to my mother for saying all those years when she was alive that ‘she does not work, she is a housewife’. She was given in marriage when she was a 10-year-old child. Since then she woke up at dawn, worked all day to make breakfast for everyone, and then lunch for everyone and then dinner for everyone, she served everyone food,she cleaned everyone’s dishes, she cleaned the house, the courtyard and the garden, she washed everyone’s clothes, she cleaned up everyone’s messes and she made everyone’s beds but she did not get time to go to her bed even at midnight.

My mother often told me that she could earn some money if she worked as a maid in some people’s houses. I laughed at my mother. I could not imagine my mother as other’s housemaid. My father was a renowned physician. He earned a decent amount of money. But the money he earned was HIS money, not my mother’s money. My mother had to beg my father for money. My mother had no rights and no freedom only because she did not have her own money. She could not buy anything she wanted to buy. She could not go anywhere she wanted to go. My father gave her money only when he wanted to give her money. My mother had to do what she was instructed to do with HIS money.

We know they don’t count women’s work but they count on women’s work. We know that the unpaid work done by women is worth $11 trillion. There is a conspiracy to glorify women’s unpaid housework. They have given housework a nice sweet name, it is now ‘homemaking’. They now call housewives ‘homemakers’. But nice names can’t make penniless women happy and satisfied.

Women must have their own money and their own house, so that they do not have to beg anyone for money, so that nobody can ever say to any woman, ‘get out of my house’.

Housework must be shared by all family members. No single person can or should be responsible for all of the household chores and childcare. Women should work for money, HER money.

Sylvia Plath’s drawings

‘ ..how can
I accuse
Ted Hughes
of what the entire British and American
literary and critical establishment
has been at great lengths to deny
without ever saying it in so many words, of course,
the murder of Sylvia Plath…’ (Robin Morgan)

Not many people knew that Sylvia Plath was a talented artist. London’s Mayor Gallery showed her drawings for the first time. If Ted Hughes could paint or draw, the world would have known about it decades ago.

Sylvia was sent to a psychiatric hospital. She received electric shock treatment for months. It is so hard to believe a talented poet and artist like Sylvia Plath was mentally sick. She was different from others. She was more intelligent as well as sensitive than others. That was probably a good reason to accuse her of being crazy. Ted claimed Sylvia’s suicide was inevitable. But many people do not think it was inevitable. Ted’s behavior particularly his decision to leave her for other woman after six years of marriage, pushed her over the brink! Yes, it did.

Ted destroyed Sylvia’s last journals which contained entries from the winter of 1962 up to her death in February 1963. Ted wrote, ‘I destroyed her journals because I did not want her children to read it.’ What did Sylvia write that Ted did not want her children to read? We all can guess Sylvia wrote about Ted and about Ted and about Ted, not about the Ted everybody knew as a wonderful poet but about the Ted Sylvia knew as an abusive husband. Writers and poets are against censorship, they believe in freedom of expression but Ted’s acts did not prove that he believed in freedom of expression. I so much wish to read Sylvia Plath’s journals that were destroyed by Ted Hughes, one of the twentieth century’s greatest English poets.

Nicholas Hughes, the son of Plath and Hughes, killed himself. Did he get his mother’s depression genes! You may say so. But I wonder, why Ted’s second wife Assia Wevill and their four year old daughter Shura Wevill committed suicide exactly the same way Sylvia committed suicide using a gas oven! Is it just coincidence or Ted killed them all?

Don’t say ‘Vagina’. Vagina is a bad word, Vagina is a nasty thing! Say ‘non-penis’.

Women Reps in Michigan barred from speaking, one for “vagina” mention.

Two women serving in the state House have been barred from participating in floor debates for one day. The sanction is a punishment for things they said during a debate on anti-abortion legislation.

State Representatives Lisa Brown and Barb Byrum are both Democrats. Brown made a reference to her vagina in a floor statement.

“I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina,” she said, “but ‘no’ means ‘no.’”

Byrum shouted at the presiding officer after she was not recognized to speak.

Ari Adler is the spokesman for the House Republican leadership.

“It is the responsibility of every member who serves in the House of Representatives to maintain decorum on the House floor and when they do not do that, there can be actions because of that. And the action today is to not recognize either representative to speak on the House floor,” he said.

Brown was speaking during a debate on anti-abortion bills, and has no apologies for what she said.

“I used an anatomically correct word. I said ‘vagina,’” she said. “Can I not say ‘elbow?’ I don’t see what the difference is.”

This is the first time in memory that lawmakers have been formally barred from participating in floor debates.

And then

Two Democratic lawmakers say they have been barred from speaking during House debates.

The House Republican leadership confirms that state Representative Lisa Brown will not be recognized during debates as a sanction for mentioning her vagina during a debate on anti-abortion legislation.

State Representative Barb Byrum also says she has been barred from speaking in the future because of an outburst after she was not called on during the abortion debate.

It is so unbelievable!
Is it America? Or is it Saudi Arabia? It is a nasty war on women’s health. It is a war on women by nasty men.

Be brave. Fight it out.

Sometimes I feel that men who are against abortion, against choice, against women’s reproductive health, are exactly like those men who used to beat women up on the streets because they demanded voting rights for women.


‘Several times constables and plain-clothes men who were in the crowds passed their arms round me from the back and clutched hold of my breasts in as public a manner as possible, and men in the crowd followed their example. I was also pummeled in the chest […] my skirt was lifted up as high as possible and the constable attempted to lift me off the ground by raising his knee. This he could not do, so he threw me into the crowd and incited the men to treat me as they wished. 18 NOVEMBER 1910.’

Time has passed So much has changed. But the hatred against women has remained the same.

Irresponsible Irrational Indonesia! Islamic Idiotic Insane Indonesia!

Alexander Aan is sentenced to 2.5 years in prison in Indonesia for saying ‘God doesn’t exist.’

We live in an insane world where we get exiled, we get banned, we get burned, we get sentenced to death,sentenced to life in prison,sentenced to years in prison if we tell the simple truth, ‘God doesn’t exist.’

The truth is imprisoned. The lie is free.

Indonesia is not Saudi Arabia or Sudan. It is not Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Indonesians are a mix of almost everything. The diversity of Indonesia’s many religions, languages, cultures and ethnicities is a treasure to be appreciated. Indonesia has world’s largest Muslim population but it has always been a tolerant country.

Indonesian national airlines Garuda was named after the Hindu mythical bird Garuda.


Hindus believe that Garuda is the carrier of the God Vishnu.

Good old Indonesia has now started having Sharia Laws that discriminate against women and non-Muslims and it has started harassing and arresting atheists, secularists, humanists and thinking minds.

Religion makes people insane. In today’s world, Islamic faith makes people more insane than any other faiths.

Many atheist organizations including Atheist Ireland started a campaign for the release of Alexander Aan and for the repeal of blasphemy laws.

Let’s join the campaign to fight not only Islamists but also Islam to save humanity.

My atheist cat


She is Minu the philosopher. A 7-year-old cat. She was born in India. She does not believe in god. She laughs at humans when they practice religion. She gets angry with humans because they practice a cruel, disgusting, dehumanizing, unjust caste system.

She believes in evolution.

Minu used to believe that cats were first domesticated in ancient Egypt around 4000 years ago. But she recently started believing that cats were domesticated in Asia 10,000 years ago around the time of the development of agriculture. She learned that a 9,500 years old Neolithic grave was excavated in Cyprus that contained the skeletons of a human and a cat.

I have no idea why she thinks that Himalayan snow leopard is her ancestor.

What about Bast or Bastet, Egyptian Cat-Goddess? I asked her.
She told me that throughout history ignorance encouraged people to worship things. She thinks every human and animal should live with head held high, with dignity and honor. I said, ‘What about me, some of my friends say I worship my adopted daughter!’ Minu smiled, ‘They are so jealous of you! I know you treat me like your boss. It is alright. But I will never let you worship me. I am no Goddess. Actually there is no such thing as God or Goddess!’

Minu the philosopher loves to study physics. I sleep but she would stay up late at night studying. Her favorite physicists are Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss.

She likes to read Richard Dawkins. She has just finished reading The Magic of Reality.I met Richard Dawkins at Reason Rally in Washington DC in April this year. We both were invited at American Atheist convention. After his lecture he signed his Magic book for Minu the philosopher. Minu was so happy! She sent Dawkins an email, ‘Uncle Richard, Many thanks for the autograph. You help me to open my eyes to the wonderfulness of the truth and the poetry of the universe.’

She is now having a Twitter account . But she is too busy studying and thinking and writing. She doesn’t get much time to tweet.

She doesn’t study all day long. Sometimes she likes to do other things too. After reading newspapers in the morning or after having her lunch, she takes a nap.

She is against war and bloodshed. She believes if humans did not spend their enormous amount of money to make weapons of mass destruction, they could provide food,shelter,education, health care, job for every human in the world including cats and other domestic animals.

Minu is so worried about me. When Mullahs issue fatwas or demand for my execution by hanging, she desperately tries to find me a hiding place.

She shared her bed with her aunt who came to visit her a few months ago. She slept exactly the way her aunt slept.

Minu could not accept the idea that she would live with humans who kill each other everyday because of their belief in God. She was so sick and tired with human society that she decided to leave. She left for jungle but came back after a couple of days because she realized that she loved me very much and she wouldn’t be able to live without me.

She has recently visited President Obama. It’s an interesting story. She paid $5 dollar to buy a ticket for a chance to attend the fund-raising dinner at George Clooney’s house in LA. She was so lucky! she got an invitation letter and flight tickets. They did not know that she was a cat. The brave girl flew to LA but was kept in quarantine at the airport.
She is a cat from a 3rd world country! It was not easy for her to enter a rich country! Animal rights organizations wrote letters to Obama. She was then released and joined the party. She bought a nice black dress to dance with Obama and Clooney. BTW, She almost fell in love with Clooney.

She is now busy in preparation for writing her memoir. She doesn’t have time to chat with me or watch TV or talk with her friends on her iPhone or tweet or facebook. She needs to read some of the autobiographical works before writing her memoir. One of the books she has chosen to read is my ‘My Girlhood’.

Which penis do you think is better?

Male circumcision is one of the oldest surgical procedures worldwide. There are many reasons to do it: religious, cultural, social, medical. Many anthropologists tried to find out the origin of circumcision. They had many different theories: it was a religious sacrifice, a rite of passage marking a boy’s entrance into adulthood, a form of magic to ensure virility or fertility, a means of enhancing sexual pleasure, an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was not possible, a means of marking those of higher social status, a means of humiliating enemies and slaves by symbolic castration, a means of differentiating a circumcised group from their non-circumcised neighbors, a means of discouraging masturbation or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors, a means of removing excess pleasure, a male counterpart to menstruation or the breaking of the hymen etc.

The oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from ancient Egypt. Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 BC) tomb artwork in Egypt is thought to be the oldest evidence of circumcision. Historians say, Egyptians practiced circumcision for cleanliness or a mark of passage from childhood to adulthood. Circumcision was then adopted by some Semitic people living around Egypt.

According to Genesis, God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his household and his slaves as an everlasting covenant in their flesh.Those who were not circumcised were to be “cut off” from their people (Genesis 17:10–14).In Judaism, it is considered a commandment from God. In Islam, circumcision is widely practiced even though it is not mentioned in the Qur’an. But it is mentioned in the Hadith, the words of prophet Muhammad. “Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, cutting the mustaches short, clipping the nails, and removal of the hair of armpits.” (Bukhari, Book 72, Hadith 779)

Uncircumcised Penis:

Georganne Chapin, the founder of Hudson Center for Health Equity said,

Circumcision is not medically necessary, is unethical and can cause irreversible harm to men. My argument against circumcision of children and infants is no more and no less than that it’s a human rights issue. All people, male as well as female, are entitled to bodily integrity, and nobody — for any reason — has the right to cut off part of another person’s body when that person is too young to understand and to consent.

Under bio-ethical principles, parental consent for medical treatment is permitted only if the treatment being considered will save the life or health of the child. Circumcision is not medically necessary, and so it violates those principles, as well as that child’s entitlement to a complete body, his own personal freedom and autonomy.

There are medical risks involved with circumcision. The baby loses the protective function of the foreskin, which means that the head of the penis can build up extra layers of skin, or the baby could develop skin ridges, a bent penis or sexual dysfunction later in life. A study published in the British medical journal Lancet in 1997 demonstrated that babies who have been circumcised have a lower pain threshold for subsequent immunizations; they are extremely distressed, their cries are different. There is also a risk of infection and death, or of a botched procedure.

The foreskin serves a number of purposes sexually. It contains thousands of nerve endings, and if you’re cutting off such an exquisitely sensitive body part you’re going to lose sexual sensitivity. During intercourse, the foreskin also provides a natural gliding action and a lubricating function that’s lost if the person is circumcised.

In this country, we’ve made female genital cutting a crime and grounds for refugee status, but we do the same thing to boys that other cultures do to girls. Those in favor of male circumcision say that one is mutilation and the other is helpful, but the act of cutting off part of a child’s genitals is the same, whether it’s a boy or a girl.

Some men even say that they have post-traumatic stress disorder that they associate with their circumcision as infants. I think we would have no trouble believing that from a woman, but we write off men’s trauma and recollection as being whining and unmanly.

Circumcision is a so-called cure that’s in search of a disease. The vast majority of men in the world are intact, and they are not suffering from illness or infection. There is no justification for cutting off a body part for a hypothetical future disease, especially ones like STDs that can be prevented in ways that don’t involve mutilation. It’s crazy that we don’t think it’s crazy.’

Circumcised Penis:

30 percent of males worldwide are circumcised.

Many doctors support circumcision. They believe that ‘circumcision provides a number of health benefits. It reduces the risk of HIV and penile cancer in men. It also reduces the risk of several other sexually transmitted infections in both men and women, including syphilis and herpes, and of cervical cancer in women. Urinary tract infections in infants are about 10 times less likely if the boy has been circumcised’.

They also say that ‘in Africa, circumcision reduces heterosexual HIV infection in men by at least 60%. The foreskin provides a ready access to cells that are the entry point for HIV because the skin there is very soft and permeable, making it more vulnerable to infection. The area underneath the foreskin is also humid and provides a hospitable environment for infections, whereas they can’t proliferate as well on the dry skin of the circumcised penis.

In countries where there is not good access to running water, another reason to circumcise is hygiene. And in a study of nurses in a U.S. geriatric unit, about 90% were strongly in favor of circumcision because it was difficult to bathe uncircumcised men in their 90s. When we look at a baby and we think about circumcision, we have to think not just about that baby but that he’s going to turn into a man and, eventually, an old man’.

But recently a Canadian study finds that personal factors, rather than medical reasons, influence primary care physicians’ recommendations for routine infant circumcision.

Rape is outdated and old-fashioned. Gangrape is the new trend.

Gang rape occurs when a group of people participate in the rape of a single victim. Gang rape occurs all over the world.

Gang rape 1

Gang rape 2

Gang rape 3

Gang rape 4

Gang rape 5

Gang rape 6

Gang rape 7

Gang rape 8

Gang rape 9

Gang rape 10


Things that encourage men to gangrape women:


1.Cultural misogyny.

2.Advertisement.

Calvin Klein ad.

Dolce & Gabbana ad.

3.Gang bang pornography.

A gang bang pornographic film is a type of film in which a woman get fucked by many men in front of cameras, for money. The woman has to suck constantly some penises while her body gets invaded by some other penises, they penetrate her vagina, her anus however they like, sometimes they prefer single penetration, sometimes double. Even though double penetration is extremely painful, the woman has to repeatedly say ‘yes, yes’ to tell her audience that she is getting pleasure from the torture. It is part of the deal. She is aware of the risks of her anal and vaginal rupture but she has limited options. She has to accept everything or almost everything she is asked for and she has to smile and fake orgasm for money.

6 to 12 men used to fuck a woman in gang bang films made in the 1980s. But in The World’s Biggest Gangbang (1995) a woman was fucked by 300 men. Since then many films were made to show that a woman can be fucked by an infinite number of men.

And many more…

If men could breastfeed and women could not, it would be alright not to breastfeed or to breastfeed in public or in uniform

If men could breastfeed and women could not, it would be alright not to breastfeed.

Nobody would hate non-breastfeeding men. Nobody would say, ‘they are bad fathers, they choose not to breastfeed.’

Nobody would say, ‘they do not breastfeed, because they worry more for the shape of their breasts than the health of their babies. They do not want saggy breasts, that’s all.’

Everybody would say, ‘they are very sincere and responsible persons. They are working hard so that they can help their children to get higher education. Men are determined to build a better future for children. They do not have much time for breastfeeding. Formula is just as perfect as breast milk.’

No man would feel guilty for not breastfeeding.

If men could breastfeed and women couldn’t, it would be alright to breastfeed in public and in uniform.

There would be no debate on this issue, no one would ask, ‘breast-feeding in public and in uniform: is it courageous or shameless?’

Everybody would say, ‘breastfeeding is so manly! Men look so handsome and muscular, so proud and confident while they breastfeed!’

There would be no small breastfeeding zone here and there, men’s breastfeeding would be celebrated in all public places. Men would breastfeed whenever they like, wherever they like, in whatever uniform they like.

Everybody would say, ‘men are so sincere and responsible. They are so perfect fathers!’