Curbing masturbation (or generally controlling male sexuality) is not why penile circumcision is practiced today. The same is not true of FGM.

I think it’s really, really important that people who don’t come from cultures where FGM is actually practiced make sure to listen to and take the lead of women who do come from those cultures. One reason why is that outright banning FGM and strictly enforcing it in the West can result in people bringing their…

Well, this is a good example of women acting as enforcers of patriarchy.

So did cornflakes. They’re still not comparable.

Reducing a discussion about the difference between the removal of a foreskin and a fucking clitoridectomy to “mutilating a kid is wrong no matter what” is a little bit like reducing a discussion about the difference between shoplifting and murder to “crime is wrong no matter what.”

Literally nobody here is disagreeing with the point that circumcising babies’ penises is problematic at best, since babies are incapable of giving consent. What people are disagreeing with is your insistence that there is no difference between circumcising a penis and “FGM,” a term that includes clitoridectomy, not…

it’s all good :-)

...was your response meant for someone else?

It’s a CLASSIC redpill-type attempt at discrediting Western feminism. The idea is essentially: “you bitches need to shut up about equal pay and sexual harassment and other stuff that affects females in the U.S. because women in Saudi Arabia can’t drive! REAL feminism is those hot chicks shooting at ISIS with big guns!”

What?

Wow, you’re really not grasping this, are you?

What? That doesn’t make any sense. There are ALWAYS going to be other issues that are more important than fashion, and that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be writing about fashion. You’re using a flawed argument. https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-muc…

The quality of the work is not really relevant. OP wasn’t correctly understanding what “his bags” and “the art” were referring to in that sentence.

You can argue that the bags are dumb, but the “his art” in that sentence refers to his larger body of art, which includes this, among other things:

This should not come as a shock to you. People who are financially or ideologically invested in fossil fuels are willing to twist reality to help serve their own interests.

Because he wasn’t literally referring to “black girl magic.”

I don’t think that makes sense in context.

And I’m saying that that’s an accurate assessment. He did evoke black girl magic.

Yes, I wasn’t suggesting that he was specifically referring to “black girl magic,” but rather that he was invoking magic as a positive descriptor of black creativity, not as an exoticifying/othering kind of characteristic. That’s closer to “black girl magic” than to the “magical negro” trope.

God.