Intactivist strategy: which collaborations are to be proscribed?
Droit au Corps Association
Droit au Corps proposes to open a broad debate within the coalition on this problem of strategy: "which collaborations are to be proscribed? »
This proposal follows DaC's warning about "antifeminists" and the discussions that followed, including this post by Brendon Marotta, but of course it goes beyond the single issue of "antifeminism", as Johan understood it well. Think for example of "antisemites" or "anti-Muslims".
Consider for instance the following thought experiment, which is theoretical and extreme enough to highlight the logic of the reasoning and which is likely to bring about a consensus within the coalition:
--- If Adolf Hitler had fought against circumcision (e.g. newborns at 8 days) and had been a staunch defender of the "rights of the child", would it have been acceptable to collaborate with him? For example, would it have been acceptable to give lectures at Nazi rallies or to invite Nazi dignitaries to speak at a ICASM symposium? ---
We have no doubt that the answer of the coalition members would be obviously "NO". We invite you to think carefully about the underlying reasons for your "no" answer before reading the Droit au Corps point of view below. After all, it may seem compelling to collaborate with all those who oppose circumcision and promote the rights of the child - and in the same vein - shouldn't we be open to debate, admit criticism and welcome all points of view with an open mind?
Here is why Droit au Corps would firmly answer "no" to Hitler:
For sure, we would share the will to put an end to circumcision and defend the rights of the child: this shared will would be indisputable;
but the statutes of the coalition specify very clearly that this mission is carried out within the framework of a purpose that is superior to its own: "The Bodyguards' ethical framework prioritizes the alleviation of suffering";
and it is likely that the Nazi project would increase the suffering of the world, and that collaborating with Hitler would make him a valid and respectable interlocutor, giving him more credibility and therefore more power;
for this reason, that we would give more power to an actor whose project would add to the suffering of the world, collaborating with Hitler would result in increased suffering, contrary to the coalition's purpose.
For Droit au Corps, given the ethical priority of The Bodyguards, any collaboration with actors whose project is likely to add to the suffering of the world must be prohibited: this is the red line, a limit not to be exceeded in terms of collaboration.
This rule of conduct is very clear, and it simply implies to reasonably assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether a potential partner is the bearer of a project that will add to the suffering of the world.
*
Take one example among many, "anti-feminism", which led Droit au Corps to issue an alert to the other members of the coalition. Is "anti-feminism" likely to increase suffering? There are good reasons to believe YES.
Indeed, we owe to the feminists of the last two or three centuries the greatest social revolution of all times, a revolution that was carried out - quite exceptionally - without bloodshed, peacefully. What results have been achieved in terms of alleviating suffering?
No less than half of humanity has gained the right to vote, to take just one of the major victories in terms of equality. But Switzerland dragged on until 1971 to satisfy this fundamental form of gender justice, while New Zealand was the first country in the world to give women the right to vote in 1893, followed by Australia in 1902 and Finland in 1906 ;
Women (as well as men) finally had access to sexuality without the anguish of tomorrow thanks to the legalisation of contraception (effective in France only at the end of the 1960s, that is to say only yesterday). If you ask what is the greatest scientific advance of the 20th century, men tend to answer "walking on the moon" while women answer "the pill"! The most important French feminist organisation of the twentieth century, Family Planning, even managed in 2001 to pass a law which granted men a contraceptive technique which only women could benefit from until then: sterilisation. That was against the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church.
We must be aware that, in its dual struggle for the right to dispose of one's body, "my body my choice", and for gender equality, feminism is a social cause that has benefited all genders, not only those most oppressed by patriarchy, women, but also men.
Of course, it is easy to find exceptions or examples of women who claim to be "feminists" whilst they go against its mission: but it would be a serious mistake to throw feminism out with the bathwater. Droit au Corps fights toe-to-toe every day in the French-speaking world to put an end to the all too frequent discourse that "circumcision has nothing to do with excision". In spite of the traumas, one must keep one's composure and resist the odious and cruel mockery that some women make of circumcised men and their "little piece of skin" lost forever. Thus, after much effort, Droit au Corps has obtained the public support of eminent feminist personalities and organisations. This is just the beginning. Droit au Corps has invested a lot in launching the international coalition to go beyond the "tipping point" and obtain the support of the vast majority of feminists: we will make proposals to achieve this goal in the coming months. And when so-called feminists make fun of you and of the cause, you should not hesitate to oppose them with determination: this is how, in 2019, Droit au Corps took advantage of the Appeal To Debate to pinpoint the absolute icon of French feminism who is also among the richest and most powerful women in France, Elisabeth Badinter, as you can judge for yourselves here in the Appeal's press kit: Indeed, this "feminist" has found nothing better than to sign the 2013 appeal of France's main Jewish organisation in defence of ritual circumcision, in order to counter the European project to put an end to it.
Beyond ethical logic, there are highly strategic reasons not to collaborate with "antifeminists", which were presented by DaC and in the answers given by JCL to Simon. In summary :
As Brendon Marotta explained in his recent opus on strategy for the Intactivists, alone we don't go far. What is crucial is first of all to get together, hence the creation of the coalition as a first step. Then, we need to build up a vast network of "lateral allies" who will multiply the capabilities of the Intactivists. Who are the most important lateral allies of the nocirc cause? The most important segment of lateral allies in many respects is feminism, then kiddism (child protection), and then in a random order the health actors, the promoters of fundamental rights, the laity, Muslims and ex-Muslims, the Jews etc. The Appeal To Debate launched in 2019 by Droit au Corps was an opportunity to test this lateral alliance strategy, and the result exceeded our expectations. All that remains for the coalition is to move from this "small Droit au Corps laboratory" to the industrial and planetary scale to which Brendon invites us: here again, we will make proposals in the coming months. The ground to be covered is huge, and it is to this that we should devote ourselves rather than allowing misunderstandings and divisions between us to set in. If anyone saw a hatchet in the DaC alert, let's hurry up and bury it and get down to business!
First we have to succeed in closely linking the fight against female circumcision and the fight against male circumcision. As soon as we have succeeded in establishing this united front, nothing will be able to resist us: we will be able to knock down all the dikes one after the other, the WHO, UNICEF etc. This is the reason why we have proposed to launch a Joint approach to female and male ritual circumcision and why, thanks to our German colleagues (kudos to 2V, Viola and Victor), TABU INTERNATIONAL has just joined our coalition. For TERRE des FEMMES, due to internal debates, this will unfortunately be delayed. Everyone will understand that if these feminist organisations realise that coalition members are collaborating with "antifeminists", they will run away and the first link in our alliance strategy will collapse.
*
But there is much more than "anti-feminism" that worries Droit au Corps in this affair, which involves a troubling ideological nebula where are appearing those J4MB, those A Voice For Men, those Philip Davies, and who else? We hope that we are wrong and we are counting on you to prove it, but don't you think that all this is enough to create a breeding ground for fascist temptations in a world that has become unstable and explosive, as the last 4 years of political polarization in the US has demonstrated (arms sales have reached record levels in recent weeks)? Don't you think that such discourses, of which "anti-feminism" is only one facet, will accentuate the famous "polarisation" which has grown exponentially since social networks such as Facebook and YouTube have become prevalent? One could laugh and mock our fears, but it is our firm belief that our fragile democratic institutions can be swept aside if the weather turns bad in the next decade, with the help of the climate and environmental crisis, and we hope that one will respect our point of view even if one does not share it.
Finally, we think that this strategic issue of "collaborations to be proscribed" could be a theme of choice for a future coalition symposium, and that it would be an excellent opportunity to invite the intactivist organisations and personalities mentioned by Brendon to come and share their own point of view in a respectful debate: Intact America, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, Tim Hammond, Steven Svoboda, Lloyd Schofield, etc.
DaC is in favour of the "battle of ideas", not the battle between the people with those ideas.
Brendon Marotta
When I spoke with members of ICASM present when this proposal was made, they told me intention was to create a policy of supporting gender equality and bodily autonomy so that when opposition made accusations based on what allied groups said, we could point to this policy and say “this is what we believe.” I was told when this intention was written down it was more extreme than previously discussion. However, this statement is actually more extreme than the previous one, so I’m going to go off what was written, not what was said verbally.
Your last like says you want to battle ideas, not people, however your current statement would ban people, compare them to Hitler collaborators, and brand them as “masculinist antifeminists.” Whether you intend it or not, this is an attack. It also violates your stated ethical principles of reducing suffering and avoiding coercion. ICASM has previously not supported a ban on circumcision because (in your view) it is “coercive,” and would cause suffering to circumcising groups, yet this proposal is a coercive ban on participation in mens rights gender equality activism that causes suffering the men and Intactivist groups.
This proposal also engages in testimonial injustice and epistemic violence against the victims of genital cutting. The proposal marginalizes the testimony of young men speaking out about how they were harmed by genital cutting, and suggests that their lived experience and activism is less valid because they do not identify with the labels of privileged groups that have not experienced genital cutting. There is epistemic violence in labeling them “masculinist antifeminists” when they do not hold this label. This label was applied without consulting them and no attempt was made to understand their perspective or position before publicly attacking survivors of genital cutting this way. As a survivor of genital cutting, proposals like the “Droit au Corps proposal about anti feminism” make me feel unsafe. I do not like when people use the discourse of progressivism to marginalize me and decrease the number of people or organizations advocating against the injustices I’ve experienced. My lived experience is that feminist organizations have marginalized men and the survivors of genital cutting when we try to share out testimony, and the organizations attacked by this proposal have supported survivors and those who speak out. Whatever proposals are made should be centered in the actual victims of genital cutting, not the fragility of privileged groups appropriating progressive discourses.
Jordan Arel
Feminists have done important work to improve women's rights. Men's rights activists are doing important work to raise awareness about the unfair treatment of men.
Feminists can be highly toxic and sometimes have a tendency toward misandry. Men's rights activists can be highly toxic and are sometimes aggressive toward feminism.
Johan Nyman
Denis Baudouin
> It is good to know that this proposal does not just brand intactivist groups as “masculinist antifeminists” but “Hitler collaborators.”
The idea was to take the most extreme example possible to have a starting point on which everyone probably agree.
This misinterpretation could obviously create useless tensions, this is why I wanted to correct it.
> The latest attack from DaC is consistent with the pattern of behavior I would expect of a pro-circumcision fanatic. In my time in ICASM, I have noticed DaC commit dozens of examples of the behaviors listed in the previous paragraph. So, why is DaC sabotaging ICASM? I don't know. Is it supreme incompetence? Lust for mutilation? I won't speculate. The motivation for the sabotage is irrelevant to me. I don't care.
I think this is quite uncharitable and false.
The way DaC take decisions is based on open and as rational and collaborative as possible debates, this is quite opposed of what we would expect of a fanatic group.
Also DaC work hard since many years to help the victims of circumcisions, and for the abandon of this kind of mutilations, as a example you could look at their public actions.
So they are indeed supremely incompetent if they are a fanatic or a pro-circumcision organization.
You can disagree on some of the DaC positions, maybe you are right, maybe not, but I hope you can see it would be pretty unfair to conclude from these disagreements that they are acting like pro-circumcision fanatics. It is much more reasonable to acknowledge that finding the best strategy to adopt is always a complex, delicate and uncertain issue.
Respectfully.
dallieresophie
Denis Baudouin
Je suis sympathisant de DaC, mais je ne suis pas membre (dans le sens adhérant).
Denis Baudouin
(cependant je participe rarement et assez peu)
herme...@gmail.com
My biggest concern is unprofessional behaviour. E.G. hijacking FGM campaigners twitter posts and starting arguments with people who stand for similar goals as us. Waste of energy and it burns bridges with people who often support us (when approached respectfully and in the correct manner). Bodyguards/ICASM is against -ALL- forms of genital cutting. I think it is important that we all remember this to avoid causing rifts between other human rights advocates, they are not enemies. They are allies.
Robert Daoust
Steven Barendregt
I'd like to provide some background information on the men's rights movement to clear up some inconsistencies I've noticed from the DaC proposal and to provide some context and understanding from the perspective of MRAs. It seems to me that Jean-Christophe makes the assumption that feminism is about gender equality, and, because many men's rights groups are anti-feminist, he makes the assumption that men's rights groups are in opposition to gender equality and thus oppose the goals of ICASM... This couldn't be any further from the truth.... While there are some feminists who definitely believe in gender equality, I have observed that there are other feminists who believe they are fighting for gender equality, but actually fight for the opposite, because of muddled thinking and only focusing on women. many of these feminists cling to the idea that ONLY women can be systemically oppressed, ONLY men can be systemic oppressors, and every injustice done to women and men is because of "patriarchy". I have had these types of feminists tell me that "circumcision is not an issue because it's men oppressing other men" and that "there can be no systemic oppression against men because they are the privileged, oppressive gender"... They ignore the fact that it is the attitudes and actions of BOTH men AND women, which perpetuates this systemic oppression of genital mutilation, and rape culture against boys.... These feminists are only concerned about furthering the interests of women, even if that comes at the expense of men, and thus do not genuinely care about gender equality.... Furthermore, the number of powerful feminist organizations that do not support our cause, and further refuse to acknowledge the harm of MGM I think proves my point... Regardless if you think these people are "actual feminists" or not, they consider themselves "actual feminists", the mainstream media and wider society consider them to be "actual feminists", and they are also the ones in charge of the powerful feminist organizations. If they really opposed MGM on grounds of gender equality, then MGM would be illegal by now since they have the resources and connections to make that happen. I am not pointing this out to demonize feminists. As I said, there are feminists who are on our side and I am thankful for their support, and we should be supporting them and working with them. This information however, leads me into my next point...
The men's rights movement was actually born out of a reaction to the feminist movement not caring about men's issues. Warren Ferrell, who is considered the "father of the men's rights movement" was once a prominent figure in the 2nd wave feminist movement during the 1970s, and served on the New York City Board of the "National organization for women" (NOW) . Ferrell also sincerely believed back then, that the feminist movement was truly about gender equality, and so he decided to use his platform within the movement to speak about the issues that men were disproportionately affected by, since the narrative within the movement was only focusing on women's issues. To his surprise however, his concerns were not well received, and he was shunned by members within the feminist movement. This backlash is what caused Warren Ferrell to create his own groups which were focused on the issues men faced. From the very beginning, Warren intended these groups not to be in opposition to the feminist movement, but rather, a complement to the feminist movement. Another early Men's Rights advocate who was part of the feminist movement, Erin Pizzey, went through a similar experience. She's known for starting the first domestic violence shelters for women in the UK. Through her work, she noticed that most domestic violence in the home, was not unilateral, but rather reciprocal, and that women were often just as violent as men. When she spoke up about her findings, she also received backlash from members in the feminist movement because it contradicted the narrative that only women could be victims.... BOTH of these MRAs were important to the founding of the men's rights movement, and BOTH of them have always considered themselves as gender egalitarians.... And in my experience, the vast majority of men and women nowadays who associate themselves with the men's rights movement, also see themselves as gender egalitarians who value equal rights between the sexes. So that should dispel this myth that MRAs do not care about gender equality... The reason why most MRAs are anti-feminists, is not because they oppose gender equality, but precisely because they care about gender equality. From the very beginning of the Men's Rights Movement, Feminists have worked to shame, sabotage, and diminish the important work that MRAs were trying to do for the liberation of men. Major feminist organizations have deliberately demonized men, promoted hatred of men, promoted abuse of men, trivialized men's issues, pushed for legislation that favored women at men's expense, published misleading studies to push false narratives about gendered issues, promoted a perpetual victimhood narrative for women, and more. Because of this, the anti-feminist MRA perspective is that these feminist groups are adding to the suffering that men and women face in this world.
Furthermore, as far as I know, the only groups which are fighting against MGM as hard as the intactivist groups, are the men's rights groups. Some things that MRAs have done for our movement, is to consistently speak out against MGM in their media platforms, present the issue of MGM to the UK parliament, and create websites opposing MGM. There's also a significant amount of crossover between intactivists and Men's rights advocates. We would be fools to not work with them, and alienate them when their interests align so closely with that of ours. In my opinion, they are fighting harder against MGM than any feminist groups that I know of... That being said... The men's rights movement as a whole, to my understanding, was not always this vehemently against MGM. As some of you may know, Steven Svoboda, the founder and executive director of the Intactivist organization "Attorneys for the rights of the child" has also been a long time member of the "National Coalition for Men" (NCFM) for over 20 years. During my time at the men's rights conference and speaking with Steven Svoboda and other members of NCFM, I found out that original members of NCFM used to hold a pro-mgm stance. But today, all of the member of the NCFM board of directors hold an anti-MGM stance, largely because of Steven Svoboda's efforts of playing an active role in the organization, and promoting intactivist ideas within.
During my 7 years of being part of the intactivist movement, I've learned that this movement is extremely diverse, and it consists of people from all different backgrounds and ideologies. We have people from just about every country on earth. We have progressives, conservatives, libertarians, feminists, Men's rights advocates, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Sikhs, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.... I think to win, we will have to keep our network as wide as possible, so we can garner support from ALL of these different groups. My strategy (and the one that the website I'm working on will be dedicated toward) is to 1. Provide narratives for the persistence of MGM.... 2. Provide an explanation from as many different perspectives as possible, about how genital integrity for boys aligns with their group's worldview and interests. 3. Use intactivists who are already involved with these various groups, to spread these narratives, and spread pro genital integrity ideas within these groups, while also advocating for whatever other cause they believe in... Have these intactivist stress the importance of opposing MGM as part of the goals of their group, and try and get their groups to adopt an official stance against MGM.... I call it the "diversity is our strength" strategy or the "Diversify, Influence, and Unify". strategy.... but maybe you all can come up with a better name for it. Since people are already more likely to listen to someone who agrees with them on other issues, and since we've already seen this strategy work through Steven Svoboda's involvement in the men's rights movement, I think it would end up being an extremely helpful strategy, and garner much more support and power for our cause....
My final thoughts... ICASM will have the furthest reach, only if we are inclusive about collaboration with ALL groups and ideologies that do not conflict with the goals of intactivism. (And keep in mind, there are a multitude of ways that genital integrity can be compatible with other ideologies, even ideologies like Judaism, if you pitch it right)... As Brendon pointed out earlier in his post, there are already organizations that are members of ICASM which have already associated with MRAs in the past, and if you're going to be consistent with DaC's proposal, you'd have to revoke their membership from ICASM too. I also agree with Brendon that any organization that seeks to spread division within ICASM because of disagreements on anything that differs from ICASM's core beliefs, is a danger to the functioning of the organization, and should be banned from the organization. To win this we will have to Unify as many groups as possible to support our issue. All effective politics are coalition politics. We cannot maximize our effectiveness if we are divided amongst ourselves. We must stay focused on our goal above all else.
Thank you for hearing my concerns,
Steven Barendregt
dallieresophie
Steven Barendregt
I've also spoken with Lena from Intact Denmark about how their proposed law would treat men and women unequally. The impression I got from her is that she doesn't think its right that FGM is banned for life, and that women should also be legally able to choose that for themselves as an adult. And her view is the same for men... I would prefer to simply extend the existing legislation against FGM to also include males and intersex individuals. In addition to this being better in principle for gender equality. I also think there are strategic advantages to doing it this way. I think such a law, if passed, could be used as a tool to help the rest of the world see all genital mutilation, regardless of gender, to be seen as abhorrent as they see FGM. I also think that anyone trying to repeal the extension of the law to include boys and intersex, could be framed as villains who oppose gender equality and go after girls next.... and it would clear up ambiguities within the law itself for people with somewhat ambiguous genitalia if all genital cutting is included.
In addition, I don't mind that FGM or MGM is banned for life. I used to think that an age limit was sufficient, however, my mind was changed after reading the story of the 23 year old man from the UK who killed himself after agreeing to a circumcision in Canada, and after speaking to my friend Nick Kustaros who was tricked into getting a circumcision done in the USA at age 18. In both cases, the doctor who committed MGM, violated his oath to "first do no harm" and misled their patients into thinking that they had to get it done for health reasons. I am also aware of doctors pushing this harmful malpractice onto ignorant patients in some other European countries, such as Germany for example. It is my opinion, that these doctors should be held accountable for the damage and harm that they cause their patients. I also think that if a man does have issues with his prepuce, there are ALWAYS less invasive and less harmful alternatives to solve his problem that don't involve amputating the prepuce, and so leaving "medical exemptions" in the law would allow for too many loopholes for abuse.... Aside from the medical aspect, there's also the cultural (USA or Philippines) and religious (Judaism and Islam) aspect of MGM. Both of these put strong social pressure on men to mutilate themselves in order to conform to their culture or religion if they haven't already been mutilated as a child. This social pressure for men to harm themselves for the sake of conformity is also very unethical to me since it causes harm and dehumanizes the value and integrity of the man himself.... I am not aware of any men who "chose" to circumcise themselves as adults for any motivation other than these, except perhaps to intentionally cause sexual harm to themselves... And I am assuming that the existing laws against FGM in Europe also does not allow for "medical exemptions", "religious exemptions", or "cultural exemptions" for similar reasons? This is also why I have urged other intactivists to say things like "his body, his rights" instead of "his body, his choice" and have been encouraging a paradigm shift within the intactivist movement, to value genital integrity over genital autonomy.
If the current law proposed against MGM in denmark passed, I think it would also help protect girls, because advocates of FGM often use the acceptability of MGM to try and justify their position... If this ban on MGM passed, it would limit the ability of FGM advocates to use this argument in favor of the mutilation of little girls for cultural or religious reasons... However, since this law has an age limit, and allows for medical exemptions, advocates of FGM could still use this argument to push for "medical exemptionson FGM" and "freedom for women over age 18 to choose FGM"...
Still, some restrictions on MGM is much better than no restrictions at all, and it would reduce the amount of suffering done to baby boys, so I would definitely be FOR passing the law that intact Denmark has proposed, and would definitely support it.
dallieresophie
Steven Barendregt
Brendon Marotta
Jordan Arel
Brendon Marotta
Droit au Corps Association
Among the contributions to this debate, it seems to us that 2 arguments, by Bredon Marotta and Jordan Arel, allow us to refine the answer to the question "Are collaborations to be proscribed?”
Brendon's remark suggests that, in order to defeat Hitler, it might be wise to collaborate with Stalin, even if the latter's project was likely to increase the world's suffering. In other words, it may be useful to collaborate with a "lesser evil" if it is to avoid a "greater evil": this seems logical.
For his part Jordan says "Strategically, we may not wish to align ourselves with particular toxic members who are not in alignment with our values and strategy, and we should decide this on a case-by-case basis". In other words, ethical conflict is not the only reason to prescribe a collaboration. Additionally, the fact that a collaboration is not aligned with the strategy of the coalition must also be taken into account.
As a consequence, here is our improved proposal of a general and common sense rule:
"Given the ethical priority of The Bodyguards, the alleviation of suffering, any collaboration which is likely to add to the suffering of the world must be prohibited. Similarly, collaboration that contradicts the strategy of the international coalition must be prohibited."
At this stage of the discussions, it seems to us that there is a consensus within the coalition that there are limits to collaboration. Typically, if a fiercely antisemitic organisation was campaigning against sexual mutilation and for "children's rights", it seems to us that nobody in the coalition would agree to collaborate with this organisation.
A particular interest of Jordan's argument is to show the urgency of providing the coalition with a real overall strategy, which is necessary to make a number of decisions, such as which collaborations are desirable and which are not. This is why we propose to adopt a general and common sense rule for the time being, while waiting for an overall strategy validated by the coalition to decide on a case-by-case basis on which collaborations are desirable or not.
Droit au Corps proposes to open a broad debate within the coalition on this problem of strategy: "which collaborations are to be proscribed? »
[] For Droit au Corps, given the ethical priority of The Bodyguards, any collaboration with actors whose project is likely to add to the suffering of the world must be prohibited: this is the red line, a limit not to be exceeded in terms of collaboration.
Steven Barendregt
Steven Barendregt
Steven Barendregt
https://algosphere.org - Jean christophe's organization for the "alleviation of suffering" and "algoprioritism" that he started back in 2011
https://jcl.algosphere.org/naitre-gratuit.pdf - Jean Christophe's book supporting anti-natalism and opposing reproduction
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fjcl.algosphere.org%2Fnaitre-gratuit.pdf - english translation of the book. Brings attention to his suicidal ideas.
https://jcl.algosphere.org/abstract-child.pdf - abstract for his book
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16PhXUG72lqE-dcbN5NFtLuaIGTO_fgIGAtvfmD12On8/edit# - the strategy statement proposed by DaC which explicitly sets up Jean Christophe's ideology of "algoprioritarism" and "alleviation of suffering" as a higher priority than intactivism itself, even to the point where his strategy specifically says that intactivists would have to "give up our fight" if intactivism conflicts with their ideology. "if the sufferings generated by the fight against circumcision turned out to be worse than the sufferings generated by circumcision"
https://veganoptioncanada.org/en/news/how-to-fail-collectively-for-sure-or-why-get-organized-and-how/ - documentation of Jean Christophe pushing his "algoprioritarism" ideology into the vegan movement.
... The way he is pushing his ideology, it's like a cult leader. Jean Christophe is DANGEROUS for our movement.
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Johan Nyman
Steven Barendregt
So again, lets make this coalition about abolishing genital mutilation for all, rather than about "algoprioritism".
Droit au Corps Association
Response to the objections made against the proposal of Droit au Corps, 15 Square, Foreskin Revolution, MOGiS
At the end of October, here is the proposal made to the coalition by 4 member organisations via the Agora, which was objected:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal: Add this new operating rule to The Bodyguards rules
Which collaborations are to be prohibited?
Given the ethical priority of The Bodyguards, the alleviation of suffering, any collaboration which is likely to add to the suffering of the world must be prohibited. Similarly, collaboration that contradicts the strategy of the international coalition must be prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the response of the authors of this proposal to these objections:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proponents of the proposal wish to provide further contextual information (and explanation about J4MB) so that coalition members can make a more informed decision. The starting point for the discussions that led to this proposal on which collaborations should be banned was not a criticism of MRAs (Men's Rights Activism) but of "antifeminist" organisations (see Droit au Corps proposal about anti feminism). The English political party J4MB (Justice for Men and Boys) was specifically targeted by the Droit au Corps criticism. It is necessary to make a more comprehensive analysis of this organisation which explicitly claims to be 'antifeminist'. Let's not forget that ‘antifeminist’ discourses can lead to very concrete dramas against women, such as the 1989 feminicide in Canada (École Polytechnique massacre): these speeches that feed hatred are not tolerable.
As it happens, proposal number 1 of J4MB's Manifesto is a radical critique of the right to abortion. James Buchanan's argument, in this opposition to one of the most important rights of women, has little to do with the cause of men and boys, but more with Pro-Life religious extremists. This instrumentalisation of the cause of men & boys for the benefit of a religious and extremist pro-life ideology is confirmed by what J. Buchanan writes in the same argument: “it’s all too evident to me that with the decline of religion in the UK – and the decline of Christianity, in particular – the nation’s moral compass has been well and truly shattered. [...] I look forward to a future of MRAs increasingly working with religious people on matters of common interest, such as abortion.” Further study of the 20 proposals in the J4MB Manifesto shows that its real agenda is an ultra-conservative pro-life agenda characteristic of religious extremists (proposals 1, 2, 4 - the only 3 bolded proposals out of the 20 proposals of J4MB) long before it is a plea against discrimination against the male gender. MRAs seduced by J4MB would do well to be aware of the sham and instrumentalization they are subjected to.
When we know the amount of suffering endured by women in the history of humanity because of the abortion ban, and also the number of women who have died as a result of this ban, we can measure to what extent collaborating with J4MB is collaborating with an organisation whose project would add to the suffering of the world, in conflict with the ethics of the coalition, in addition to being in conflict with the strategy of bringing in organisations that fight against FGM, often ‘feminist’ organisations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
The arguments of Droit au Corps seem sufficient to make us understand why "feminism" is a major issue in the history of humanity, and why it is a double error to admit "antifeminist" collaborations: both because it goes against the strategy of rapprochement with feminists, especially organisations fighting against the FGM, and because the "antifeminist" agenda adds to the suffering of the world, which goes against the purpose of the coalition. If some people are still not convinced, here are some additional explanations on the issue of "antifeminism". Note, Johan, that there does not seem to be a Wikipedia article on "anti-masculinism", even though the article on anti-feminism is very extensive: Carter will probably find the definition he was looking for at the last coalition meeting and much more information that could enlighten him.
1 - "Feminism" is the source of one of the greatest beneficial revolutions in the history of mankind
Feminism is not an anecdotal phenomenon that can be taken lightly. It is thanks to feminism that one of the most important social revolutions in the history of humanity took place. It seems that the younger generations in the West have forgotten this long history, young people living in a very recent context in which the situation of women has greatly improved, to the point of making visible and legitimately shocking certain discriminations against men: typically male circumcision.
Since the emergence of patriarchy, less than 8000 years ago, large-scale oppression has taken place to the detriment of everyone, women and men, who are forced to play a certain role expected of patriarchy. This social assignment to a role, according to the biological sex, is what we call "gender", hence the sociological studies known as "gender’s studies". This "gender oppression" has more specifically been exercised to the detriment of women, victims of a ocean of suffering over many millennia.
This liberation from patriarchy, which we owe to feminism, for the benefit of both women and men, took place over 2 to 3 centuries and without bloodshed. The 2 major victories of this liberation, which is still not completed here and there on the planet, were (without limitation):
the right to vote for women, followed by a progressive equality of rights (achieved only in the last third of the 20th century in the West)
the freedom to dispose of one's body, especially sexually, with the end of the criminalisation of contraception and abortion. For example, French men obtained the right to permanent contraception by a law of 2001: this law is the result of the efforts of the most important French feminist organisation, the MFPF, against the religious conservatism of the Vatican.
There is still some work left for feminism to do to free all humans on the planet from patriarchal oppression. Think of the archetypical Saudi Arabia, where only men die at the wheel of a car and never women, a profoundly unjust gender discrimination, like other well-known statistical discriminations: accidents at work, war deaths, etc. If we want to put an end to this type of discrimination against men, we need more feminism and less patriarchy! From the moment Saudi women obtain the right to drive (June 2018), we can expect more equality in driving deaths.
To declare oneself "anti-feminist" and fight against feminism is therefore to consciously tackle this immense revolution that has freed all humans from the patriarchal oppression and suffering it has engendered for millennia. But who benefits from crime?
2 - " Antifeminism " instrumentalises the legitimate cause of men for the benefit of an ultra-conservative agenda that flirts with fascism
It is quite logical to note that "feminism" is the number one enemy of those nostalgic for patriarchy, starting with the religions of the Book, Darwinism being their number two enemy. This has been particularly the case of the Vatican for the last few decades: this was visible on the occasion of the 1994 Cairo conference, where Pope John Paul II personally contacted his Muslim colleagues to oppose women's rights to dispose of their bodies (translation in English "[1994] He made the fight against abortion one of his priorities, fighting against its legalisation at the United Nations conference in Cairo"). Unsurprisingly in recent years, the Vatican has supplemented its attacks against feminism by violently attacking "gender studies", which are an emanation of feminism. An ultra-conservative constellation has asserted itself over the years, in a rally against feminism that has allied the religious to the far-right in the temptation of fascism. As the Wikipedia article notes, "Many antifeminists are connected to far-right extremism." While D. Trump is in the midst of an anti-democratic coup attempt, he finds time to strike blows against the right to abortion in California, while welcoming the support of the Proud Boys ("far-right, neo-fascist and male-only political organization") and QAnon ("far-right conspiracy theory").
As shown by this post of Droit au Corps in the case of J4MB, who walks hand in hand with the AVfM, the alibi of the male cause allows the legitimate anger of the younger generations of men to be instrumentalized for the benefit of this "antifeminist" agenda, a political agenda that in reality stems from religious ultra-conservatism, largely orchestrated by the Vatican for decades. In the case of the United States, where almost 80% of young men were circumcised at birth few decades ago, the issue of circumcision alone allows a large target population to be channelled into a simple and effective process of instrumentalisation:
80% of young Americans who were forcibly circumcised, and therefore potentially angry (and rightly so).
> MRAs (why not)
> "anti-feminism" (that's where it doesn't go any more)
> ultra-conservative fascist temptation of religious origin (which no longer fits): Trumpism for example
In short, not only is "anti-feminism" in itself unacceptable given its historical role in the liberation of the patriarchy, but it is also a lever for the instrumentalization of the younger male generation in favour of an ultra-conservative religious agenda that flirts with fascism.
3 - Why does feminism not massively support the fight against male circumcision, and how can this be remedied?
It is true that, unfortunately, feminist networks do not massively support the fight against male circumcision as would be logical. Some discourses even hinder the fight against male circumcision, notably the discourse that it would be offensive to compare it to female circumcision. See these three articles, especially the first one which includes specific examples:
FORESKIN IS A FEMINIST ISSUE, Marie Fox & Michael Thomson, Australian Feminist Studies, 2009
Forced genital cutting in North America: Feminist theory and nursing considerations, Kira Antinuk [Executive Director CHHRP], 2013
Questioning Circumcisionism: Feminism, Gender Equity, and Human Rights, Travis Wisdom [BA in Women’s Studies, Advisor Your Whole Baby], University of Nevada, 2012
Faced with this depressing observation, is the right strategy to become 'antifeminist' or to try to understand the causes of this blockage and to remove this brake on a broad alliance with feminists, an alliance that is highly desirable for many reasons? I can understand that the lack of hindsight on geostrategic and historical issues could lead to the temptation to become antifeminist, but it would be a fatal mistake for our cause, which would only benefit an ultra-conservative religious and fascist agenda, while sowing discord among us and alienating all the "progressive" networks attached to the feminist revolution.
There are various reasons that may explain the feminists' "trouble" with male circumcision. One explanation seems to me to be central: male circumcision is a major problem for mainstream feminist theory because it totally challenges it. As long as feminists do not have an alternative theory that allows them to coherently integrate male circumcision AND patriarchal oppression, they will have difficulty grasping our struggle.
In fact, mainstream feminist theory stops at the horizon of patriarchy and does not historically go back to the vast period of humanity that preceded the patriarchal parenthesis, which is, after all, quite brief compared to the cult of the Great Mother Goddess of the prehistoric period for tens of millennia. According to this feminist theory, which has its roots in France since Simone de Beauvoir, male domination existed "from the beginning" (Françoise Héritier) and patriarchy was "the main enemy" (Christine Delphy). But then, how can we explain that men do so much harm to themselves with circumcision, instead of only doing themselves good by dominating women, as the theory would have it? There is something major here that doesn't add up. Unfortunately, for anyone with a hammer, every problem is a nail. For feminists whose only enemy is patriarchy, any problem has to be explained by patriarchy. Since the drama of female circumcision is supposed to be explained by patriarchy, how can male circumcision, which is obviously a symmetrical phenomenon and not a game of fun, be brought into this framework?
I have spent decades in research to solve this kind of mystery, and in general to understand this great mystery that everyone wants to be happy and not suffer, whereas no society (or almost no society) has ever given priority to it, which is very strange. I have studied all known human systems of thought, from the most ancient religions to the most recent philosophies. The grid for reading the world that emerged from this long research, supported at the French university in 2010, makes it easy to solve this type of problem. It is an approach which goes beyond current feminist theory and reconciles feminism with its struggle against patriarchy, while opening it up to a wider struggle, against another "main enemy": the ideology of reproduction.
In short, I have convincingly shown that a true "reproductive ideology" emerged 100,000 years ago, in the wake of the belief that the spirit survives the death of the body. This belief has become the matrix of all human systems of thought up to the present day. A large number of offspring were needed to care for their own spirit after the death of their own body. This is why the power of reproduction became central, at the very source of political power. And this power of reproduction was the monopoly of women until humanity began to guess how children were made, and man had something to do with it. This discovery about begetting began only a few thousand years ago, after the invention of animal husbandry. Hence the appearance of patriarchy in the wake of this discovery, which aimed to take back the power of reproduction from women through their domination and control of their wombs.
This ideology gives priority to reproduction and not to happiness, which puts it in regular conflict with algoprioritarism, that ethic which gives priority to the alleviation of suffering: typically contraception, abortion, homosexuality, assisted suicide. This is the real "main enemy" that is opposed to the happiness of all.
And it so happens that genital mutilation plays a very particular role in this ideology of reproduction. It is the only practice that aims precisely at controlling the power of reproduction. Male genital mutilation did not wait for patriarchy to begin, and began long before female genital mutilation. For example, male castration (of which circumcision is an attenuated evolution) was necessary for a man to come into contact with the Great Goddess at a time when no male god existed. It was a condition for becoming a priest in Egypt, to become a eunuch, whereas only women could be priestesses before. The cult of the goddess Cybèle is still practised today in India, with its share of male castrations.
Judaism is the first religion in the world that strives to suppress all female deities and replace them with a male one, which is why Judaism is considered the ultimate historical phase in the establishment of patriarchy, its apogee. Circumcision, which is the culmination of much older practices such as castration to bring men into contact with the divine, is logically at the foundation of Judaism: it is the rite which is the condition of the covenant with the male god. It is important to note that this Jewish covenant is a reproductive covenant, which aims to transfer into the hands of men the rest of the reproductive power that women still had.
In summary:
the ideology of reproduction is the "main enemy" that opposes happiness (and not simply patriarchy)
this ideology is at the origin of genital mutilation, especially male genital mutilation, and also at the origin of patriarchy
if one wants to fight effectively for happiness, one must fight against the ideology of reproduction (and not only against patriarchy)
As genital mutilation is at the symbolic heart of this ideology, it is particularly interesting to awaken consciences to their original meaning and to fight against all kinds of mutilation. It is, by the way, an excellent means of awakening consciences to the existence of the ideology of reproduction and its misdeeds, and thus of fighting against this ideology.
For the reader who wishes to go further, here is the summary in English of my research, the full text in French, and the 1200 pages of appendices for those who would like to check the documentary sources of my assertions.
General conclusion:
It is a major mistake for the fight against male circumcision to play the game of "antifeminism".
On the contrary, it is necessary to seek to ally ourselves with feminists, and to do this we must offer a way of overcoming mainstream feminist theory by means of the new reading grid "Ideology of reproduction versus nonsuffering", which is more coherent and powerful to explain the history of humanity over the last 100,000 years.
Steven Barendregt
And the reason you don't like Mike Buchanan is because:
1. He's pro-life
2. He's an anti-feminist
4. You think that these associations would drive feminists away, because they have an explanation for MGM that contradicts patriarchy theory.
6 You've somehow convinced yourself that "the ideology of reproduction" (whatever that means) is the cause of male genital mutilation and that the ONLY way to stop MGM is to stop "the ideology of reproduction" (whatever that means).
Jean.... Please hear me out... This is crazy. Please stop acting like this.
Before you assume that I am defending Mike Buchanan, let me tell you that I'm not. I have never met him before in my life, and the only thing I knew about him before you brought him up, is that he's an MRA politician in the UK who opposes MGM. Good enough for me! All the reasons you gave for why you hate him have nothing whatsoever to do with intactivism so I don't care. What I do have a problem with however, is how you're allowing your hatred of Mike Buchanan to drive a wedge into the coalition.
I realize mike Buchanan's views are controversial to you, but then again, so is our view on MGM to others, and so are YOUR views on algoprioritism to others! So are the views of feminists to non-feminists! There are a lot of controversial views out there. Nobody is asking for J4MB to become a member of icasm. But what you're doing is guilt by association three times removed. (You opposed carter becoming a member, because I am associated with carter, and I went to an MRA conference where Paul Elam was present, and Paul Elam knows mike Buchanan.)... Jean. This is insane! If you were to apply this standard consistently, then you are basically saying that you wouldn't want to cooperate with Simon, Johan, and other large sections of the population. Are you suggesting that if you knew ahead of time that Simon protested once with Mike Buchanan, that you wouldn't cooperate with him? or are you suggesting that you wouldn't cooperate with Johan if you knew ahead of time that he was an MRA? Do you see the problem here Jean?
Jean, I agree with you that the coalition should not have an official anti-feminist stance, but what you're doing goes far beyond that. You are alienating a large proportion of intactivists by your insistence on making this group about your ideology, rather than making the group about the goal that we all share in common: The abolishment of genital mutilation. You are causing divisions within the group by focusing on this so much. Not everyone sees the world the exact same way that you do Jean. Most people have not even heard of "algoprioritism" before, nor have they heard about "the ideology of reproduction" (which makes sense, because from what I understand, this is just something that you made up yourself). People can disagree on the reasons why they are intactivists and that is FINE. Jean, I know you have convinced yourself that following your ideology is the ONLY way to stop MGM, but you are wrong! There are many different ways in which people can approach the issue and oppose it. We can disagree on other things and still cooperate on our shared goal. But Jean, you keep insisting that ONLY your ideology matters and that everyone must conform to your ideology. This is a problem. Please stop doing this!...
Now... the only one of your points that I think MIGHT have some credibility, is the claim that feminists would not want to cooperate with ICASM if we cooperated with anti-feminists (Which you are already doing, mind you) who disagree with patriarchy theory... And if that's the case, then there definitely need to be organizations that are explicitly both pro-feminist and pro-intact. If that's what you wanted ICASM to be, then you should have made that clear from the beginning and named yourself something like "The feminist coalition against sexual mutilation" instead.... But what you're proposing isn't exactly that either. is it? You said yourself that you want to recruit feminists, but then you also said you want to supplant mainstream feminist theory and replace it with your own theories! This is insane! If you want to recruit feminists then you need to meet them where they are at! Give them a narrative about how MGM is caused by the patriarchy. Tell them how MGM is part of and contributes to rape culture. Tell them how MGM harms women too. Or whatever appeals to them. You're fighting an uphill battle if your plan is to completely change everyone's core ideology to match yours!!!
Jean. For me, intactivism is not about "pro-feminism" vs "anti-feminism". Intactivism to me is solely about "pro intact or pro protecting children" vs "Pro mutilation or Pro child abuse"... But then you've somehow convinced yourself that intactivism is about "algoprioritism" vs "the ideology of reproduction"! Jean, this is crazy! You are so deep into your ideology that it is hindering your ability to cooperate with others! This is why I called you a cult leader. It's like a religious belief to you! Stop this! I want all of us to fight against MGM together, but we can't do that when you want to force your ideology on everyone else! Again. Lets make the coalition about the goal of intactivism, rather than making it about ideology! If you can't do that, then there is no future for the coalition!
#genius
