I was just chided by Ally Fogg!
No. of days Heather Hironimus in jail for protecting her child from genital mutilation? Now 5 No. of US liberals giving a fuck? Still 0
— Ally Fogg (@AllyFogg) May 18, 2015
No. of days Heather Hironimus in jail for protecting her child from genital mutilation? Now 5
No. of US liberals giving a fuck? Still 0
Hey! I’m a US liberal…and I had no idea who Heather Hironimus was. My excuse was that it was the end of the semester followed by a bout of travel and family business. But now I’ve looked her up and…hoo boy. I am shocked.
Heather Hironimus was married to Dennis Nebus. They had a child, Chase. They divorced, bitterly, it seems. They are now engaged in one of those nasty tugs-of-war over petty issues, and the center of that battle is their child. Well, not even the child: the child’s foreskin. Nebus demands that it be cut off. Hironimus refuses, and actually fled and went into hiding to protect her son.
Heather Hironimus went missing with her 4-year-old child nearly three months ago, going into hiding as her long court battle against the surgery reached its climax. Though her defenders said she was simply doing what she could to protect a child portrayed as “scared to death” of the procedure, a judge issued a scalding rebuke for her refusal to appear in court, charging her with contempt and issuing an arrest warrant.
She has now been arrested and is sitting in jail.
I’m wondering why that judge hasn’t been arrested. I’m wondering what the hell is wrong with Dennis Nebus, that it is so important to him to force his own child to go through a painful and pointless medical procedure. I can only come to one conclusion.
He’s an asshole.
This shouldn’t even be a court case. When it’s a matter of cosmetic surgery, and there is no pressing medical need at all, the default ought to be a deferral until the patient is able to give informed consent.
What’s next? If a father insists that his daughter’s labia need a few stitches, will the courts enforce that as well?
Well, the problem seems to be that she signed an agreement consenting to the procedure. She later changed her mind but you can’t just walk away from a contract. And what she did was to avoid appearing in court for a hearing on the issue — the judge had not actually made any decision. The reason he jailed her is for contempt of court. Yes, the father is probably an asshole but the legal issue is more complicated than you make it out to be. It isn’t about the circumcision itself, it’s about contract law and the authority of the court. Maybe the judge could have been more tolerant but he’s acting to protect the legal system, not circumcision.
We need to be honest and accurate with out cause celebres, that’s all I’m saying. There often turns out to be more than the first impression.
Pathetic.
That poor little boy. They’ll have him mutilated before the decision can be reversed but maybe the judge can be disbarred.
It’s sad to see his Dad hurt him on purpose just for the hell of it. Why are people still doing this?
Thanks for clearing that up cervantes. Still, Lofty is right. It is pathetic.
I’m curious as to how Fogg managed to miss all the liberals who have spoken out against male genital mutilation. Considering how numerous we are, it feels a bit like he’s playing some kind of bullshit game.
Actually, now I’m curious as to how many liberals support male genital mutilation. Off the top of my head, I can think of um… hmm…. one? Maybe two but the second one has a lot of caveats about the procedure.
A messed-up story to be sure. I wonder whether the father is religiously motivated or by his understanding of current cultural norms. Unnecessary/cosmetic circumcision seems to be very accepted in the USA, even without religious motivations, after all. As for the judge? Yeah, the mother is impeding the court proceedings, but what did you expect her to do? Leave her child alone somewhere or drop him off and go to court?
As for Ally Fogg: Hey, jerkass, maybe pointing people towards this story without trying to score cheap partisan points would be more effective in getting the word out. But what am I saying? That would only matter to you, if you actually gave a damn about the people affected.
I do not believe you said this with a straight face. Arrested for what?
You have a case in court with one of the litigants trying to escape the jurisdiction of the court. There are rules. There are laws. Our society is built on the rule of law not the rule of emotion. We have seen what happens to societies ruled by the emotion of the majority and we have rejected that system. We rule ourselves by law.
If there is a good defense for her resistance then let it be aired in open court.
You’re better than this, Dr. M. You’re a smart guy with worldly experience. Are you deliberately trolling your own blog?
I looked up why the father wants his son circumcized and he says “it is just what is done.” If the father really cared about his son, he would back off. A patient can withdraw consent at any time for a medical procedure. when it comes to medical procedures, I really don’t think anyone should use contract law.
um, lots of people have been talking about this for some time now. I (an American living abroad) have read multiple stories on this starting many weeks ago in fact. Seems like Ally is just trying to score points in some obscure game though.
If he’s worried about male circumcision generally there are groups (including those started by women!) working to end the practice in the US.
WithinThisMind
It was a snarky tweet within 140 characters, and it wasn’t particularly about circumcision, it was about the jailing of a woman for contempt of court over an issue of profound conscience.
I was reacting to the ongoing absence of outraged articles in the usual US outlets (Gawker, Slate, Salon, WaPo etc etc etc) including those editors who have ignored or declined my offers to ‘point people towards this story without scoring cheap partisan points.’ (cc Saganite)
feel free to point me towards all the brave campaigning efforts of US liberals on this case that I have missed.
Ally doesn’t care that the woman is in jail, oh no, just why she is in jail. It’s just the assumption that we’re not paying attention to the menz (and babie menz) because he doesn’t feel the story is getting any traction on any mainstream left-leaning news-sources or aggregates. I mean, that’s the only thing I can think of why he believes that the number of US liberals who, upon actually hearing the story, aren’t aghast and stating it’s wrong for a woman to be in jail for protecting her child from unnecessary legally sanctioned mutilation.
Fuck Ally Fogg, disingenuous prat.
If the father is white and rich…
Here’s where you were in the wrong, Ally Fogg.
“No. of days Heather Hironimus in jail for protecting her child from genital mutilation? Now 5”
Great, no complaints here. Makes sure people recognize her name, will google it for the full story, and a synopsis of the ridiculousness.
“No. of US liberals giving a fuck? Still 0”
Oh now what in the ever-loving fuck is this shit that I just stepped in? What kind of sick asshole attempts to score a political point against ideologues, unevidenced and baseless to boot, when a woman is suffering and her child is in danger of mutilation? Apparently Ally Fogg.
Ah, yes. Another example of “every liberal in the entire world doesn’t notice and comment on every single case of every kind of thing they say they care about, or at least the once that I notice, so accordingly they’re all hypocritical phonies” syndrome.
And while I’m more on her side than otherwise (I think circumcision should not be allowed at all until the age of consent) she’s actually in jail for contempt of court.
—-feel free to point me towards all the brave campaigning efforts of US liberals on this case that I have missed.—-
Sure. Here you go – http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anti+circumcision . Next time, do your own homework.
I’d link you to all my various posts where I have spoken out against male genital mutilation, but then you’d probably whine ‘oh, but that’s not specific to this one little case’. But then, we both know it’s not about this particular case at all. This is just another of your ‘what about teh menz’ games.
Ally Fogg @ 10
The anti-circumcision activists I know in this country–who are predominantly liberal, in fact–have had a lot to say about this case. In fact, I rather doubt anyone would know about it at all if they weren’t trying to draw attention to it already. That it’s not getting enough attention by the media is not the same as no USian liberals giving a fuck. We are not the media.
Motherfucking Gawker, Slate, Salon, and WaPo aren’t the voice of USian liberals.
Gawker? Seriously?
Also, Ally, if your issue is the whole women getting thrown in jail because they are defending their children / standing against child abuse, and you aren’t, in fact, trying to blow smoke, I invite you to take a walk over to Shakesville and check out some of the link roundups there. You’ll find A) a lot of people speaking out and B) that it’s a widespread problem of which you are barely aware so maybe you should get your head out of your hypocritical ass.
I don’t know about the USA but here in the UK consent to surgery is NOT a contract, and can be retracted at any time. Patients can change their mind and refuse right up to the last minute. You can’t be forced to undergo surgery. Responsible adults can likewise make these decisions for their children and can only be overruled by a court order making the child a ward of court. This would only be done in cases where the court is considering the welfare of the child.
Why did the judge jail her?
He could have given her a fine.
@15 yeah. If he was honest, he’d have to admit that it was probably a US liberal who told him about the case in the first place.
The emotional question is why is mom in jail?
This has nothing to do with circumcision, him being an asshole, her being a protective mother. The substantive matter hasn’t even been aired in court. This issue has to do with her flipping the bird at the court even before any determination of whether the case is proper or not. There are consequences for such contempt. She did something stupid. Whether his motives are sick or not, whether her motives are pure or not is not the issue.
@17. the contract was with the child’s father. Yes, of course you can retract consent but this is a different situation since there are two parents with opposing wishes. So yes, she can change her mind but that doesn’t necessarily get her out of the contract with the father. The judge wants to consider the issue, but she is refusing to acknowledge the authority of the court. That’s the legal issue here, not whether the boy should be circumcised.
Funny Ally, the first stories I found about this were on Gawker and HuffPo. They link to a campaign that has been soliciting funds for her defense. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/15/heather-hironimus-arrested-circumcision_n_7291014.html
A very quick Google search turned up dozens of stories. And if you go to such liberal sites as Salon, MotherJones, or Jezebel and search on circumcision pages of stories show up, most of them concerned with male circumcision.
And that is all I have time for now. But my comment still stands. Looks like you’re trying to score some point here and I don’t see what it is. She’s still fighting this and there’s not much more to be said at the moment because she and her ex-husband are under a gag order from the court.
#18, chigua,
She is in custody on the arrest warrant. The court has not yet heard the contempt citation case.
azpual3 #20
She did something illegal, not stupid.
For whoever asked, I heard about this case through circumcision news mailing lists, but I’m aware there have been some articles in the past.
However, as my own final word on this thread, five days ago Heather was arrested and Chase was (presumed to be) put back into the care of his father. As things stand (there is a court hearing today seeking an injunction) Nebus could *right now* take the boy to any surgeon willing to take his money and have him forcibly circumcised while his mother is held in jail by the state.
Reaction from the media and blogosphere over the past five days? Silence.
Meanwhile most of you (PZ an honourable exception) seem too busy nursing your wounded pride because the mean British lefty said something snarky about the nice caring American liberals that you still can’t take a moment to even express concern.
Case in point…
[11]
Goodness me, but you really are a terrible, terrible person.
Hmm. Objections so far:
It’s a matter of contract law! Gosh, I guess slavery is OK then, as long as someone signed a piece of paper. This is a case in which a child is being forced to undergo a painful, irreversible, and unnecessary surgical procedure, and you’re telling me there is no higher principle in the law than that the parents signed a contract?
Ally Fogg was mean to liberals. Jesus. I’m fairly liberal myself, and there are many occasions on which liberals need a good solid kick in the ass. Here’s a cause which ought to piss you off, but what’s really pissing you off is rudeness towards liberals?
Involuntary genital mutilation is flat-out wrong. If “her mother was cut” is a gross violation of human rights, why is “his father was cut” a morally valid excuse?
I am baffled at the idea that we must take everything literally. Honestly, it’s fucking twitter.
For all the “CONTRACTS ARE WRIT BY THE LORD HIMSELF” folks, it was an agreement in a parenting plan. All elements of a Parenting Plan are subject to the best interests of the child. There is a presumption that any agreement between parents will be in the best interests of the child, but that presumption can be overcome.
The judge has the authority to decline to enforce that provision. You cannot, for example, agree to beat a child with a switch, and expect the court to enforce it.
Parenting plans are also never done under the freest of negotiations. So many family law cases involve people with limited funds, and the agreement very well could have been the result of people trying to avoid the cost of court. It’s very, very, very common for specific clauses to later be contested.
Child custody situations are on-going matters. You don’t sign a contract and then expect it to be obeyed without modification for 18 years, or however long until the child’s majority. This is a common procedure, and the mother is well justified in taking extreme action to avoid a result that can never be reversed.
@21. Cervantes you’re talking bollocks. A consent form for surgery for a child does not remotely constitute a “contract” between the parents. Normally parents agree on surgery for their kids, but if they don’t it would be for a court to decide what was in the best interests of the child. If I was a surgeon in these circumstances I wouldn’t touch it with a long pole as the possibility would arise of allegation of assault from the parent who objects to the procedure.
The other thing of course, from a UK perspective is that over here, apart from those who have a definite religious motive, we don’t circumcise our little boys unless there’s a good medical reason. Why do you do it?
—-what’s really pissing you off is rudeness towards liberals?—
No, what’s pissing me off is some jackass with an ulterior motive is using this poor kid and his mom in a pathetic attempt to score what about teh menz points.
It wasn’t a consent form for surgery! It was in fact a contract between the parents. I’m not talking bollocks, I am telling you what the legal issue is here.
PZ, I think you’re missing the point here. The judge is required to follow the law. He hasn’t even ruled on the issue yet. If he were to order the circumcision, then you could support civil disobedience on the part of the mother. But that hasn’t happened yet.
—-Why do you do it?—
Based on what I’ve seen so far?
1 – A lot of folks, mostly male, have their heads up their asses about wanting their son’s penis to look like daddy’s penis.
2 – A bunch of jerks, gender neutral, have their heads up their asses about ‘well, it’s the way it’s always been done’.
3 – A bunch of complete asshats that shouldn’t be allowed to breed are screaming about ‘it’s my kid and you can’t tell me what to do’.
4 – A bunch of useless gits think teaching their sons proper hygiene is just too damn hard and thus would rather lop off part of the kid’s penis.
In other words, there are about as many good reasons for cutting off part of your kid’s penis as there are for cutting off one of your kid’s fingers – that being, short of very unusual medical events, none what so ever. And legally, it should be treated the same way.
#32
I agree. Did he even look to see if anyone was protesting what happened or did he make an assumption that supported his opinion? It sure looks like the latter and by making that assumption he’s exploiting what the woman and her son are going to for his own purposes. That deserves some scorn, but not as much as the father deserves for what he wants to do.
I have no knowledge about US legal system and very limited knowledge about legal systems anywhere.
But from the point of view of “common moral sense” I fail to understand why the judge needed to see the mother at all, or why they need to consider this for more than five seconds.
The decision is straightforward – the medical procedure is only cosmetical and irreversible, therefore if two of legal guardians of the child do not agree on whether the procedure should be performed or not, it is obvious that the option that can be later changed should prevail over the irreversible one, i.e. the father should be told to simply shut his trap and not bother legal system with his assholishness. Presence of the mother is not necessary at all.
In fact, courts should not be necessary.
That said, I fail to undestand how unnecessary circumcision can be legal at all. Which it is, unfortunatelly, in most of the world.
All in all, fuck Dennis Nebus and his maliciousness.
“potential surgeons have backed out after failing to get the mother’s consent” Seems they have a more accurate assessment of the value of such a contract than you cervantes.
False equivalence much?
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/definition/prc-20013585
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
“His father was cut” isn’t a morally valid excuse, but leave female genital mutliation the fuck out of it.
@33 Cervantes
It was a Parenting Plan. It’s a specific type of an agreement that, unlike every other type of contract, is subject to approval by a judge based on the “best interests of the child.”
No, the judge has complete authority to decline to enforce that provision if he finds it to not be in the best interests of the child.
The judge clearly thinks it is, thus he is subject to criticism.
Just some procedure background:
The judge ordered the mother to turn over the child to his father after issuing a ruling. The state court judge has already heard the issue and decided to move forward with the procedure, so it isn’t accurate to say that the mother is inhibiting the court from holding a hearing.
The mother filed a federal lawsuit, but is concerned that the circumcision – which is obviously irreversible – will take place before the hearing. Given the state court decision and the lack of a stay stopping the father from performing the procedure, the mother fled with the child.
PZ #26:
Oh for the love of…
Yes, slavery is wrong. To resolve that legal issue USA had to go to the bloodiest/2nd bloodiest war in its history. So, are you ready to take up a gun and start shooting people? No? Good, because USA also has a system for peaceful resolution of conflicts, but that system has a set of rules to insure even a minimal functionality. The mother has breached those rules and has been punished, while the actual case is in its infancy. This is situation right now, and you sound like a starry-eyed hippie complaining that reality conform to your ideals immediately.
Do I support the judge’s decision? No. Like chigau #18 has said, he could have fined her instead (or maybe just issue a warning?). However, considering the enormity of the things at hand (your comparison to slavery is correct, since this case might be an important step to insure the rights of all US children for all times) I don’t fault the judge for sticking to the letter of the law. Granted, I’m not an expert on law (but neither are you), so if the judge is dragging his feet, or worse, is in favor of the father, then I’d have to agree with your emotion. For the moment, though, you haven’t shown that this is the case.
It almost seems like commenters here at least as concerned with how Ally phrased his Tweet, or whether he has some ulterior motive for trying to get bring attention to this awfulness, as they are with the story itself. I don’t spend as much time on Pharyngula as some, but even I know that arguments about tone or politeness are generally met with eye rolling around here, and that reaction seems appropriate in this case.
So on the more important topic: what about what the kid wants? He’s apparently terrified out of his wits. And yes, obviously a child won’t have the best grasp of the realities of the procedure, and I’m sure they’ll use anesthetic, but the poor little guy now has to grow up knowing his father cares more about enforcing his authority than he does about his kid’s feelings. It breaks my heart.
Let’s see, I know I’ve heard about this case before.
Oh yeah, here.
So, not zero. Sure, complain that it’s not getting large-scale media traction, that’s legitimate, but complain that zero liberals give a fuck? Inaccurate hyperbole, and tars you with the same brush – why didn’t you pick up on it back in 2014 when Ophelia did?
Well, this was fast.
PZ
If what doubtthat #40 has said is correct, then you were right about the state judge and I was wrong. I apologize.
—-It almost seems like commenters here at least as concerned with how Ally phrased his Tweet, or whether he has some ulterior motive for trying to get bring attention to this awfulness, as they are with the story itself.—-
Hey, here is an idea. And it’s one I’ve shared with Ally in the past too:
Instead of pissing and whining because you don’t think other people are doing enough, or because they aren’t doing what you think they should, why don’t you get off your ass and try doing something yourself? Knock off the armchair quarterbacking and try your own hand at entering the field.
It’s been pointed out that plenty of liberals give a fuck about this kid and the issue as a whole. It’s also been pointed out that Ally himself was very late to the party to start whining that other people hadn’t done enough. He’s got something of a history of the whole ‘what about teh menz’ shit, so yeah, some of us are irritated.
And plenty of us are aware of this case, have been doing things, and have been speaking out, and hey, look, once again, we got erased because some asshat wanted to score what about teh menz points.
How much have you donated to her legal fund?
cervantes(#1) –
By your argument, a woman who takes her kid and leaves the jehovah’s witnesses to ensure the child gets proper medical care has no legal standing. You are arguing that she should give up, return the kid who might wind up dead because of an “agreement” which the mother no longer agrees to.
And don’t say “circumcision has no risk”. Tell that to the parents of babies in New York infected with herpes or dead because of it.
#40
4 – A bunch of useless gits think teaching their sons proper hygiene is just too damn hard and thus would rather lop off part of the kid’s penis.
Useless is spot on; hygeine under that bit of skin is so damn easy that I figured it out without a father to tell me the insider secret details of penis-having.
Oops, that should be aimed at #34 rather than #40.
Hey WithinThisMind (@45),
I get where your coming from. I’m sure it stings a little bit to give your support for a cause, and then feel like you’re being accused of not caring. If I had to guess, maybe Ally hoped that by phrasing his tweet that way, he would light a fire under American liberals, and more would come out and get behind this cause if only to prove him wrong. The ends would justify the means, as it were.
And I’m ashamed to admit I haven’t donated a penny, but then I’m a poor college student (or was, until this week). Now I get to be a poor Philosophy grad.
False premise; the foreskin helps keep the glans clean. All one need do is wash the outside and retract the foreskin a little bit to rinse. Using soaps can cause irritation and removes oils that lubricate and protect.
The glans is a mucus membrane that is not designed to be exposed to air and (surprise!) dirt. Without the foreskin, it dries and thickens.
The REAL reason circumcision was promoted in the US was because Dr. Kellogg (of corn flakes fame) thought it would stop boys from masteurbating. He was pretty much a sick fuck:
WithinThisMind @ 32
Yep. It’s a dog whistle. It’s an MRA Bingo square. Ally Fogg doesn’t exist in a vacuum and neither do his words. There is a context. The “Gawker Media is the voice of liberals and they don’t care about men/boys” narrative is an old and tired one.
But it’s also distracting from the real issue, so I’d like to ignore the derail Fogg put in his own damn tweet.
One of Heather’s arguments (as reported by her supporters) has been that when she signed the parenting agreement, it said that Dennis would pay for circumcision, not that a circumcision would absolutely take place. She took that to mean the decision was for if it was ever medically necessary. I don’t know how accurate that is, but this fight didn’t start until their son was a toddler, well past the age circumcision typically takes place in this country.
It’s all deeply disturbing.
I think Ally’s tweet could have been worded better, but his passion is not misplaced. I don’t see how he is scoring pints. I don’t read his blog because of the commenters who frequent it. But, I don’t think he’s scoring points.
cervantes #33
Except, if she waited until the judge had ruled, what are the chances that she’d be allowed to just walk out of the court room with the kid? Isn’t it entirely possible that the father would be given custody until the procedure had been done, precisely to prevent the mother from running off?
In that case, the only option for civil disobedience is before the judge has ruled.
@Ally Fogg #25:
And yet needling that same point continues to be YOUR focus as well. What kind of person starts sniping at a group and then tells them they’re responding to the wrong thing when they object to the sniping? You could have just shut the fuck up about “liberals” in the first place (especially since your charge isn’t even accurate – some of the very publications you call out by name in your comment #10, like Gawker, ran the story when it broke and have done follow-up pieces). You’re flat-out denying the existence of millions, and perhaps tens of millions, of people (liberals in the USA who give a fuck about genital cutting of infants generally, that of male infants more specifically, and this case most specifically); of course that’s going to piss people off and prompt them to focus on the proximate, personal attack. That reinforces the idea that you’re just using this as a club to hit USA “liberals” – if your interest was in publicizing the case and helping the kid and his mom, there was no need for the dig in the first place, and it is in fact counterproductive. If you really care about the issue as opposed to preening your ego, ditch the tribalist digs.
@49 —- If I had to guess, maybe Ally hoped that by phrasing his tweet that way, he would light a fire under American liberals, and more would come out and get behind this cause if only to prove him wrong. The ends would justify the means, as it were.—-
Unfortunately, as I’ve already pointed out, there is something of an existing history going on here as well.
@50 —-False premise; the foreskin helps keep the glans clean. All one need do is wash the outside and retract the foreskin a little bit to rinse. Using soaps can cause irritation and removes oils that lubricate and protect. —-
Yeah, I know it’s a false premise. It’s still one of the arguments I see offered in support of circumcision most often. It’s the one used by folks who think they are being ‘reasonable’ on the subject.
@51 —-I don’t know how accurate that is, but this fight didn’t start until their son was a toddler, well past the age circumcision typically takes place in this country.—-
Yeah, this guy strikes me as one of the ‘type 3’ pro-circ jackasses. It’s my kid and I’ll do what I want and fuck you hahaha look at me all powerful and shit and if I can screw over my ex-wife at the same time so much better. Asshat. I think a lot of this is a textbook example of how misogyny (punish the ex-wife) hurts men and boys.
Not one to single boys out for special treatment, Kellogg also recommended anointing with pure carbolic acid (i.e., phenol, a highly toxic and caustic antiseptic) the clitorises of those females “unable to exercise self-control.
That makes me want to rub one out on his grave.
WithinThisMind @ 55
That’s certainly how it looks to me. This poor kid’s body is just a tool in his father’s grudgematch.
Hironimus’s complaint is at the end of this HuffPo piece. The father filed a motion to compel their son’s circumcision when the little boy was over three. His explanation for why he wanted it after the child was well past infancy was because he claims the little boy urinated on his leg, allegedly indicating phimosis. The mother denies any such diagnosis.
A non-retracting foreskin in a pre-pubescent child doesn’t meet the criteria for pathological phimosis.
Really? The mother is in jail and the child is going to be pointlessly mutilated and made to endure a lot of pain because the father is an arsehole that thinks “the way things are done” is an actual argument?
Fucking hell….
@57
O_o No…no it doesn’t…
That seems to me to be the reaction of someone who, because they can’t even remember having a foreskin and clearly lives in a society dominated by people without them, doesn’t know even the most basic facts about them…like for example that the foreskin is attached to the glans until well into childhood.
@10
I thought it was nice snark. The circling of the defenses was strange, but I suspect that with the deep rifts (TM) some topics are like kindle?
Well this nicely sums up why people are suspicious of Ally, in regards to advocating for coverage about Men’s Issues, while tut-tutting U.S. Liberals.
https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/600311667050807297
https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/600311797040676865
https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/600312015257755649
For those who don’t follow the links, I will recreate it below.
The context: image of a cover of The Sun, about women’s shelters.
Tweet from someone else: “Dear @TheSunNewspaper, instead of asking readers to build refuges, why not ask them to not abuse their girlfriends?”.
Problematic, but there is potentially an important message there: Don’t just ask for feel good charity attempts to help those who are victimized at the hands of The Other, acknowledge that some of your audience will be abusive men and make it explicitly clear that they are in the wrong. Change the culture. Don’t just be reactive, but proactive.
But Ally couldn’t have a charitable interpretation of this. Instead, he replies:
Speaking of ill-judged tweets. Jesus fuck.
And that is a nice and fresh example of why people don’t trust Ally.
How exactly did your tweet “express concern” Ally? Because if that was your real issue then you should have started right there yourself. Did you donate to her defense fund? In order to make sure that you heard about the activism were all the people involved supposed to make sure to call The Guardian?
I would give most people more leeway, actually I probably would roll my eyes and move on, but your blog posts have long had a distinct flavor of “what about the men” and “women don’t do enough”, which just makes this tweet worse. It doesn’t look like you’re worried about Chase at all from here. You didn’t even write a blog post yourself.
@61
Didn’t he claim to be a “British lefty” earlier?
One that slags off the Guardian and rails to the defence of the Sun?
That makes sense.
Not.
@63
Here’s a tweet from Ally:
And this directed to the general commentariat: I really don’t like the shitty treatment Ally gets around here. I’m a feminist, and I’ve found him to be as thoughtful and compassionate as anyone who writes about gender issues. But because he writes about men’s issues, or speaks out against things that do harm to men (and it’s always the very opposite of what you’d hear from the sorts of MRAs that believe female equality is a threat to men, or that men are hurt by the erosion of traditional gender roles), and isn’t always precisely on the same page as feminists , he gets lumped in with MRAs and treated with suspicion.
And enough with the hateful, mocking “what about teh menz?” Seriously, ignorant assholes have been calling feminists “man-haters” for years. It’s like we thought “Well, they’re clearly the experts on what feminism is all about. I guess we’d better get busy despising men and scoffing at men’s issues.” (That’s clearly more than a little overblown, but it’s sorta feels that way when I read “what about teh menz?” every other comment). It’s a totally legit way to rebut someone who barges into a discussion about a feminist issue with no regard for the context of harm done to women. But when we’re talking about an issue where men really are hurting, it’s just kinda shitty. FTB gets accused of being a hivemind, of having no room for dissenting opinions or new ideas. That’s emphatically not true, but we’re giving ammunition to the people who spew that crap in the way some of us treat Ally.
I agree that they shouldn’t circumcise this kid. However, I’m often a bit put off by the monomania of people who’re opposed to circumcision. They get a bit crazy about the issue.
No, he’s a sadist. He’s trying to hurt his ex-wife by hurting the child she loves.
Sometimes the sadists get back at their ex-wife by torturing their children to death. This guy has decided to stay with something that is considered (in some areas) to be socially acceptable – but he’s still a sadist trying to hurt his ex-wife.
Now you’re pulling the same type of hyperbolic shit Ally was pulling, PZ.
Many of us have noticed the “what about the menz’ing” this tweet , and it falls into the same category of “liberals only do things to assuage themselves of their affluent white guilt when it is convenient to do so, or to court the minority vote, but never when it’s about white male lives” narratives, It’s a cheap toxic lie that rallies the right-wing base and whips them into a frenzy of head-nods and finger-pointing, utterly obliterating facts and truth in the process. I don’t give a shit if Ally calls out everything wrong with liberalism, in fact, I’d thank him for that. But this is not one of those. It’s a patent lie, not meanness.
That’s what pisses me off. The lies. You know what else pisses me off? That you would make the same stupid claim that Ally does, that we only care about what Ally said and not about the situation itself. Disappointed in you that you would restate the same talking point about people you should know of better than to state such patent falsity about them.
@atheist #65:
You could literally replace “circumcision” with any other wicked practice or concept and make as much sense. Everyone who ever cared about anything is “a bit crazy about the issue”. It’s called giving a shit.
Azhael wrote:
-no, she is in jail and the child may be mutilated because there are no *laws* to prevent that from happening. There will always be arseholes, that’s why children need protection from them.
I guess I need to get involved in some campaign to outlaw pointless mutilation.
The child didn’t even ask for it to be done-when one juxtaposes that with how difficult it is for trans teens to get hormone treatment or to get tubes tied-elective and sometimes reversible treatments, my conclusion is that:
-this is not to minimize pain and suffering;
-this is not about self-determination about ones life and body:
instead, tradition and social control forces apply until someting is done to change that.
Adam James: I don’t see how he is getting a “shitty” treatment.
While I generally agree with what you said in the part I just quoted, based only on skimming a few of his blog posts, the sentence in bold is vague in a rather telling fashion.
In addition, I seem to recall that one of the key complaints about Ally is that he didn’t do a very good job of cleaning out of the slyme from his comment sections. But I could be wrong.
Your concern is noted.
Isn’t it also kind of shitty to only bring up the ‘issue where men really are hurting” only to complain about how those “U.S, liberals” don’t care about it hard enough? Isn’t it also kind of shitty to then backtrack to how this was about lack of news stories at liberal sites when the very sites mentioned actually did cover the story? Isn’t it also kind of shitty to say that suggesting that a newspaper should tell men to also not abuse women is The Worst Tweet Ever, chastising the woman who said it because that person is obviously implying that only conservatives beat women?
Ah, okay. I thought you were proffering the rationale instead of mocking it. My bad.
Bullshit. People mistrust Ally because of several reasons none of which is that he talks about men’s issues or that he’s “not always on the same page as feminists”. We mistrust him because he allowed his blog to become an outpost of the slymepit, allows people to express whatever odious views they want as long as their language remains superficially polite, often is more interested in nitpicking at feminism than he is in actually talking about men’s issues and complains that other people/groups aren’t concerned enough about his pet issues (for an example of this, see his post about Emma Watson’s UN speech wherein he evinced surprise and disappointment that an initiative called “He for She” was more focused on violence against women than violence against men).
ally fogg
Well actually I discount any opinion you hold since you decided to be a sexist asshole and slag on Emma Watson for her He for She campaign, and the fact that your blog comment section is populated by some of the most loathsome MRA’s found on the internet. But hey, keep telling yourself that it’s all about our wounded pride.
This Nebus guy is a disgusting piece of shit. What do you even tell a four-year old about why he’s having to go to the doctor in such a ghastly situation?
Did the kid sign the contract?
He’s an asshole.
He’s not even an asshole. Assholes would claim there are “deep rifts” between him, and otherwise useful bodily interfaces. And I agree.
The mom signed the parenting agreement to allow the circ when an ill-informed pediatrician told her it was necessary due to phimosis. She later found out that it was not, in fact, necessary. So if you want to hold her to the contract, how about we’ll allow the kid to be circed when and if it should actually be medically necessary?
She later changed her mind but you can’t just walk away from a contract
Contract law does not superceed a 3 year-old’s bodily integrity.
@Saad – This Nebus guy is a disgusting piece of shit. What do you even tell a four-year old about why he’s having to go to the doctor in such a ghastly situation?
Yes, does the father expect the child to love him, or something? What a sick, twisted-up with hate person he must be, to use a child as a lever like that. Because, you know, just walking away is apparently too hard for him.
The judge clearly thinks it is
The judge has not had a full and complete hearing on the issue because the mother refused to show up when she was required to.
Sometimes I suspect that St Paul may have been a victim of a botched circumcision, which might explain his antipathy toward sex.
Makes one wonder why this guy is so adamant about his own son being genitally mutilated.
This is a front-page story at Talking Points Memo.
So there’s your “lefty American Blog” coverage etc. for you. I haven’t checked elsewhere.
You fucked up Ally
Just accept it and deal with it. What you did in your tweet would have been just fine, if what you said about US liberals not giving a fuck was true. But since it was not true we are left with the fact that all you had was emotional manipulation. Of course that is going to piss people off.
It’s a bad habit that people used to being in the dominant part of of society can get into, trying to simply make people do what you want. If the situation were different you would have checked your facts with respect to US liberals. Since you did not it’s a pretty easy conclusion that you were more interested in in the political maneuvering than reality. You MUST have the political maneuvering AND reality.
I hope that you keep this in mind and think about how to root out whatever thinking led to this. We need more men taking the form of what feminism has done for women (as well as working with feminists) and you have done a lot of good on your blog. I really don’t want to see you go down the road that can lead to all sorts of other bad habits.
PSA
FYI
Ally Fogg has a blog.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/
If you are actually serious about addressing him …
that was not just for Brony
So are MRAs sticking up for this child and his mother, I wonder? Anybody know?
Can’t say I really care whether some blogger believes my efforts or those of anyone else have been sufficient with regards to this case. I dont know whether the complaint is its the wrong individuals or its too few individuals or the effort people ARE putting forth to help this woman and her kid isn’t enough. I do know though that its a crock of shit that literally no US liberals, whatever that means, give a fuck. People do care about those affected in this case and are trying to help.
I mean, I’m Canadian and became involved with this case over a year ago when an American friend, one of those US liberals who doesn’t give a fuck, became involved in trying to raise awareness about this case and shut down the many avenues the father could take to have the kid put through a needless cosmetic surgery.
Yeah, there needs to be more awareness on this case and why its so wrong. Telling people who give a fuck they dont exist doesn’t accomplish that. Its just hyperbolic. Its not even helpful re: consciousness raising and having an impact on the outcome of the case.
Chicagu, some people might not be comfortable on that blog.
I know I have no intention of leaving a comment there… of course I don’t have much to say about this but even if I did I wouldn’t say it there.
Geez, sorry chigau, sorry for mangling your name… I thought I had copied and pasted it, too… weird brain.
I really don’t get the hate Ally gets around here. For a start, this is totally not a “What about the menz?”. He’s not raising a men’s issue as a derail; he’s just raising a men’s issue, in a solitary tweet. Handwaving that issue away and declaring it to be a “What about the menz?” is just being an arsehole.
People also seem to have an issue with the phrasing. Fine, I can see if you are a US liberal who campaigns against male circumcision, I can see how his phrasing would be galling. But it’s pretty obvious to me that he’s bemoaning the general lack of response about this specific case, and so far the only concrete point offered in rebuttal is that Gawker have run a story on it. Which hardly invalidates the overall point, does it? We all accept, under basically any other circumstance, that some simplistic hyperbole in the face of an emotive issue is fine, but when Ally does it about a men’s issue, suddenly it isn’t. I can’t help thinking there’s a bit of a double standard at play here.
The only accurate criticism of Ally I’ve ever seen is that he allows out-and-out MRAs on his blog. So basically the complaint is that he has a different banhammer policy than PZ. The fact he allows them to comment doesn’t at all mean he agrees with them. And, as PZ has alluded to many times himself, it’s Ally’s blog and Ally’s rules. PZ’s is the safe space, and Ally’s is the debating space. And that’s OK, isn’t it? It doesn’t really seem to count as a criticism at all, simply a declaration that you don’t like the space he operates. Which is fine, but hardly a reason to circle the wagons whenever his name appears in the OP.
Personally, I don;t know enough about Ally to have an opinion of him.
I just know that I wandered into his comments threads a couple of times… and I get more than enough of that shit from YouTube comments, etc.
I don’t need to go searching it out.
Thumper,
Are you being willfully obtuse? Most people are not complaing about the first part of the tweet (which makes your first paragraph a non-sequitur), but about the second part.
About the second part, how dishonest can you get? “so far the only concrete point offered in rebuttal is that Gawker have run a story on it. Which hardly invalidates the overall point, does it?”
First of all, there are other concrete points, did you for example miss comment 82? So no, not only Gawker has run with the story. Something you would know if you read the comments in good faith.
Second of all, if the point is that zero people give a fuck and examples are given of people giving a fuck of course it invalidates the point. Hyperbole? Even in comment 10 Ally gives the impression he doesn’t think too much about actual efforts being undertaken.
Personally, I don’t think Ally is the Big Bad MRA Dude, he just slightly fucked up in this instance. Not such a big deal, except when you decide to dig in your heels.
For the rest I’m going to defer to marinerachel’s comment 87 and Brony’s 83.
—-But it’s pretty obvious to me that he’s bemoaning the general lack of response about this specific case,—-
And if he hadn’t come into the thread and doubled down, this might have been more believable.
odin@63: the Guardian may be leftist but it’s full of shit on many topics — did you know, for instance, that it openly sided with the Zambian government’s use of mass starvation against refugees in 2002? Your comment was like saying that if you criticise HuffPo’s stance on homeopathy, that makes you right-wing.
Lady Mondegreen, #86
I suspect they would if the mother and father’s positions were switched.
re: chrislawson @94
I know plenty of lefties who criticise the Guardian, and justly so. What I’m not used to is seeing it as part of a one-two punch where the Sun is defended.
And I do think it makes perfect sense that a similar complaint would not be directed at the Guardian. After all, although there’s no doubt some abusers do read the Guardian, the paper doesn’t have quite as … coloured a history as the Sun when it comes to seeing women as human beings.
So those tweets strike me as … intriguing, and certainly do their bit to explain how someone would reach the conclusion their author is a bit of a prat. Personally, I don’t know either way. Don’t really see any particular reason to find out, either.
@zenlike #93
tl;dr: The factual inaccuracy is not a big deal, and this is clearly not a “What about the menz?”, so why are some people so determinedly focusing on that/pretending it is, rather than addressing the actual injustice here?
Content:
No.
My first paragraph specifically addresses those referring to the tweet as a “What about the menz?”. Whether or not most of the people disagreeing with him are guilty of it or not is immaterial; if you didn’t refer to it as a “What about the menz?”, then that paragraph is not about you. I’m not sure on what grounds it can be said to be a non-sequitur.
I did read the entire thread, and in good faith. I’m not sure what ulterior motive I might have for pointing out what I consider to be unfair behavior, but fine.
I assume you mean #83, rather than the comment about St. Paul being circumcised? In which case, fine; Gawker and a blog. This still does not count as mainstream media coverage, it does not count as people making a big noise about the case or strenuously protesting it, and I can’t help thinking that any attempt to paint it as if it were is disingenuous at best.
But whatever. He is factually incorrect, so if that’s really your issue, then fine. I still disagree that the treatment he received for such a technically-factually-inaccurate statement would have been meted out to anyone else. If I find a story on HuffPo which I then post with words to the effect of “Why the fuck isn’t anyone covering this?”, no one starts jumping up and down and pointing out that HuffPo covered it, and so did this blog over here, so you are incorrect! Despite the factual inaccuracy, everyone’s focus is the story. That was not the case here, and that bothers me. It smacks of some people being more bothered with doing him down than addressing the actual injustice, and that bothers me.
I’m not sure #10 was “doubling down”, he’s saying essentially what I did: It was snarky and emotional and not strictly accurate. But again, secondary to the main point, and I don’t at all deny that he was factually inaccurate. I think the reaction to that was disproportionate, but that’s not really the issue at hand here. My issue was that some people, who clearly did think he was the big bad MRA dude, started hand-waving away the real concerns by accusing him of WATM? and focusing on the factual inaccuracy. On any other subject they would have been pulled up on it, and so far the only other commenter who tried was Adam James. And again, that bothers me.
Thumper @ 98
As already noted, the HuffPo has been covering the story as well. And no matter how terrible they can be, they’ve won a Pulitzer Prize and have an Alexa ranking of 29 in the USA. That’s pretty mainstream at this point.
But it really doesn’t fucking matter. If people were mean to poor Ally Fogg because he was mean in his tweet doesn’t fucking matter. What does matter is a child is being threatened with an unnecessary surgery that he doesn’t want and cannot give meaningful consent to anyway. Ally Fogg isn’t the goddamned person here who needs defending and protection.
The hearing yesterday was concluded without a ruling, but it doesn’t sound like the judge is particularly sympathetic to preventing the circumcision.
https://www.facebook.com/ChasesGuardians
http://savingchase.org/donate
Here are a couple places to support Chase and his mom.
This is Chase
http://savingchase.org/sites/default/files/81ab41d2-55e1-4ff3-b2b9-008437e51489_profile.jpg
@ The Mellow Monkey
Perhaps you’re right, but if you’re bothered by me not addressing the story at hand in order to point out that some people handwaving the issue is arseholeish, I can’t see why you wouldn’t also be bothered by their handwaving. And, if you are, why you haven’t pulled them up on it.
But you are right, I’ve made my point, and I am now contributing to the distraction.
Thanks for that link. I’m having trouble believing the nerve of the father’s attorney.
Oh yeah, it’s totally in the child’s interest to bring this to a swift conclusion and hack his foreskin off post-haste!
Ally mentioned this thread on his own blog, and doubled down on the stupidity thusly:
The whole business is horrific and grotesque, and I’m furious at the lack of interest from the media, especially the liberal-left American blogosphere, which appears entirely indifferent. I’m grateful to PZ for picking up on my howls of despair and responding appropriately.
So he cited a blog thread where the commenters debunk his claim of US liberal inaction, and yet never backs down from the disproven claim.
Nobody is fucking handwaiving, thumper. You really have your head up your ass on this one if you can’t detect the dogwhistle here.
Do you honestly think Ally cares enough about leftist journalism that he’s merely calling it out as an issue they’re being silent about in a “oh, hey, you all are forgetting to cover this issue?” Given the vitriol implied with an accusatory remark about actual people, not journalistic rags, but actual “U.S. Liberals”, not caring about the issue, I find that hard to believe.
I guess it’s hardly worth bringing up at this point, but 3 minutes of googling will uncover a couple of other rather important points.
1) The woman is in jail for failing to showing up in court to explain why she kidnapped a child in contravention of a child custody order. Not for some variant of heroic penis saving.
2) There is allegedly an underlying medical issue that would be addressed by circumcision.
Maybe the reason why liberal whatevers are not jumping over this story is because a couple of minutes of basic research would quickly reveal that this is not a story about Heroic Saving of Penises, but instead a routine and uninteresting story about something far less savory, and not in the least bit heroic.
edrowland
Right you are.
Especially since you didn’t read the 100+ comments above yours.
chigau
“Especially since you didn’t read the 100+ comments above yours.”
I did actually. Although point (1) seems to get some coverage, point 2 (that there is allegedly a medical justification for the circumcision in this case because the child has a deformed foreskin) hasn’t really been mentioned at all that I can see. Did you read the 100+ comments above mine?
For what it’s worth, it seemed hardly worth bringing up not because the point had already been made (it hadn’t), but hardly worth bringing up because there were 100+ comments above mine.
Yep, and it has been mention a couple of times. Evidently you didn’t comprehend what you read, or just decided to duplicate unnecessarily the material into the discussion.
We get lots of folks who don’t read the thread, just add something we’ve already seen and discussed. Happens often enough to be irksome.
edrowland, #107
Could you point me to a source for this? I’ve seen several articles so far that say this:
And here’s another:
If there’s a more recent article out there that has a doctor saying that circumcision is medically warranted, I’d like to see it, because that would change things quite a bit.
edrowland #107
There was discussion of the alleged medical justification. The second and third of The Mellow Monkey’s links at #58 discuss the condition and states that a child’s urine stream going down his leg does not indicate a need for circumcision. Also, the father is said to have asked a doctor and gotten the answer “phimosis,” but not taken the child in for a diagnosis and a recommendation for the surgery.
Also, in your#105, you don’t seem to have picked up the mother’s attorney explaining her position that the father was attempting to have the circumcision done secretly once she followed the custody order.
Ah, much better info from Saad. Thank you for it, and for teaching me to refresh before I post. :)
The mother has conceded to the circumcision. The running theory seems to be that jail time was threatening her custody, at which point she has a really shitty choice: keep fighting what looks like a losing battle, thereby losing her son to an apparently shitty father, or give in on the circumcision.
The MRA reddit seems pretty against the circumcision, albeit laced with potshots at feminism (some of which don’t even make sense: in what world is Michelle Obama a apocalyptic horseman of feminism?). That result isn’t really surprising.
Ally Fogg isn’t the person here who needs condemning, and US liberals aren’t the ones who need defending and protection. Yet, for some fucking reason, both kept happening.
I sympathize with radical feminism, and I’m an MRA. There’s no conflict – MRA issues come from patriarchy & racism. Feminists have been tricked (by white privilege, patriarchy, capitalism etc.) into rejecting the parts of feminism that should apply to men. Not feminists fault. So I’ve decided the MRM will become that male feminist space whether MRAs like it or not, and MRAs need to give feminists credit for some things.
I’m sick of people attacking feminists over circumcision, & I consider MRA tactics a threat to ending it. It’s gotten so bad that feminists don’t know what other feminists or FGM survivors have said about MGM. Feminists think feminism doesn’t care about MGM because everyone else says so. And now MRAs are getting credit for work & ideas contributed by feminists & women, while disconnecting MGM from the other issues like obstetric violence that female intactivists deal with.. Nearly all major feminists & FGM survivors have not only condemned MGM but drawn direct causal relationships between the practices.
Genital mutilation on both sexes is not a political issue. It is worse than oppression. Oppression is largely conscious behavior intended to be harmful. Genital cutting is an evolved psychological disorder with political, religious & cultural symptoms. It exploits good intent, alters our understanding of anatomy & convinces us that normal tissue is cancerous.
It is practically sentient – this idea of ‘surgical hygiene’ is networked across hundreds of millions of minds & adapts to all kinds of cultural conditions. Just like any deity or other religious practice. It learns. And it is aware of feminism and is actively tricking feminists into using the wrong tactics and rejecting potential allies. The feminist story of FGM was told to feminists by FGM, MGM, and white colonialism. It is a ruse against feminists.
MRAs are getting credit for raising an issue that feminists raised first, and they bring none of the understanding to MGM that feminists do. Instead of heeding the feminist narrative about MGM, they simply plagiarize the parts of feminists’ FGM narrative that are the most sensationalized. Even radical feminist political analysis of MGM is an excellent analogy for the sheer social Darwinism that drives these practices. Unfortunately feminism arose before memetics or evolutionary psychology, and at a time when women aren’t represented in those fields. So feminists are stuck with political analysis of a scientific problem, and the scientific community is decades behind them.
But feminists have discovered that natural selection applies within the smallest family unit and that culture is centered around coercing reproduction. Patriarchy is a range of evolutionary adaptations that coerce breeding. MGM & FGM are part of that. The species’ combined intelligence looked at us and decided to round us off to 1s and 0s to make us breed more efficiently. Like salmon swimming upstream. Just replace bears with ideas that trained us to jump into their mouths.
That’s it. As an MRA, I think the constant attacks on feminists over circumcision undermine feminist participation and convince feminists that feminism doesn’t care about this even though it does. We accept people’s stated reasons for these practices as being the root cause, and they’re not. What comes out of people’s mouths (religion, sexism, etc.) is a ruse designed to transmit the culture’s thoughts while convincing us that we are making decisions for ourselves. Blaming feminists for MGM is just as stupid as blaming men for FGM.
God, I’m glad there are so many women MRAs & feminist intactivists. Men would never be able to liberate themselves from masculinity. The feminists dissect gender, & the women MRAs teach misogynists that women’s leadership can liberate them from misandry (aka toxic masculinity). If these two groups of women work together, men will be better off.
No, we haven’t.
“Blaming feminists … blaming men ”
Your Venn diagram is gonna look like a rather colourful fractal, I can tell ya!
You won’t find that here. Just normal feminism, where women are the equals of men, and that must be enshrined with attitudes and laws. Where do you find radical feminists that aren’t straw people made up to be boogie women by MRA idjits like yourself?