u/Substantial_Help4678

Intactivism suffers for Maryr Syndrome.

The average Intactivist smugly says to the effect: "We either the end practice for future generations, or we coddle the feelings of victims. I, as an enlightened important specimen, am willing to sacrifice more as a victim to end the practice in the future. YOU just want to complain and achieve nothing".

I've heard variations of this many many times. It's probably the single most common rebuttle I hear from Intactivists.

My first point is it's not mutually exclusive. You don't need to pick between supporting victims and eliminating the practice in the future, you can do both. Imagine is BLM said "We can only either support victims or end police brutality, pick one". How absurd. They can obviously do both. In fact, they usually go hand-in-hanf. Ending police brutality comes as a natural conclusion of supporting victims and obliteratong racism. The same way ending circumcision comes as a natural conclusion of supporting victims and obliterating cutting culture.

My second point is self-sacrifice for self-sacrifice's sake isn't venerable. The average Intactivist takes immense pride in sacrificing more himself, as a martyr, to do what he mistakenly thinks will make change. It's a weird egotistical coping mechanism. He thinks he's more important because he's the one willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I couldn't disagree more.

Martyr Syndrome is like poison for social justice movements. The victims have been through enough. If you're modeling the "only correct way to engage with the movement is self-sacrifice and everyone else is just complaining", you're asking every victim who joins the movement to self sacrifice. It's a huge ask and is victim-negative. I'm constantly shocked that almost every single Intactivist who champions "strategy" champions a victim-negative startegy that isn't used by any other social justice issue. Anti-racism support racial minorities, doesn't ask them to martyr themselves, and does NOT call martyrdom the only legitimate way to have a strategic approach. duh.

When you require people to self sacrifice to join the movement, no one joins. Movements grow by being easy to join. Identifying as a victim is hard enough. The only way you raise an army of victims large enough to make social change is by making bring a victim empowering. Other social justice issues have figured this out.

I could go on. I'm not a vegan, but veganism suffers from this as well. Maybe for another post, but veganism and Intacitivsm have a lot of similarities in why they are abject failures. Vegans are annoying, pester their friends, stand with shock imagery animal cruelty screens at street corner. Veganism is all about asking activists to martyr themselves and make immense personal social sacrifice. And veganism similarly is a complete failure. I'll leave it there for now. But the anatomy of failed vs successful social justice movements is obvious. And a movement sick with martyr syndrome like Intactivism is doomed to fail. We need to purge martyr syndrome from our ranks wherever we see it.

As usual, I am critical of a common Intactivist talking point and startegy. A common startegy is to sue the state to expand genital cutting protections on the grounds that their anti-FGM law discriminates based on a protected class (gender). This is the strategy the likes of Intact Global takes.

Many Intactivists champion this strategy, being happy at the existence and creation of new anti-FGM laws (like the recent one in Colombia), with the idea that Intactivists in the future can expand them to include all genders.

My critique is that first, the easiest time for equal protection is in the creation of the law, not post hoc. We shouldn't be allowing laws that discriminate against an already under-protected gender in the first place.

Second, the time for equality has long passed. The inverse is getting much closer to equitable. Instead, we should champion passing anti-circ only laws that only protect one gender, and have the anti-FGM activists be the ones to fight to expand the law on the grounds of equal protection. If suing for equal protection is so easy, why not make the anti-FGM activists be the ones to do it? In-fact, by the average Intactivists logic, anti-FGM activists should be HAPPY that a discriminatory anti-circ law was passed, and should thank their lucky stars that they're now eligible to sue for equal protection.

Of course I'm being somewhat tongue and cheek, but also I'm not. Going out of way to protect circ victims over anyone else is actually equitable. The way the average Intactivist conducts themself, being super happy when discriminatory laws that exclude us are passed, is shown to be patently absurd when flipped for anti-FGM activists.

I'm getting more and more sick every day of expecting below the bare minimum. If anti-FGM activists wouldn't thank their lucky stars that a new anti-circ law has given them the "opportunity" to sue for equal protection, why should we thank our lucky stars when the same happens for a new anti-FGM law?

My recent post https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionJustice/comments/1ugcx6k/every_antifgm_law_is_a_step_backward_not_forward/

was brigaded here https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTears/comments/1ugwh5k/removed_by_moderator/

You can read the posts on that sub to get a sense of the kinds of people and the kinds of things they were saying here on the Circ Justice sub. Needless to say their comments on this sub are all removed and they are all banned.

Notice exactly what's happening here. First, our enemies squirm incredibly and make it a gender war issue where there wasn't one. I don't mention "men" or "women" once in my original post. All I do is call out that anti-FGM laws only protect one gender, and that gender is the one that is already over protected. There are many anti-FGM laws and no anti-circ laws. Yet our cutter enemies somehow take that to mean I'm somehow anti-feminist and and an incel (?). I didn't mention feminism at all. I said anti-FGM flaws are gender based and exclude based on identity group.

I don't care to belabor the point any more, there are much more interesting things going on here. One, feminists at least the ones in that post WANT to make it a gendered issue. They took a post that wasn't really about the gender war at all, and made it about how men blame women for stuff. Well I wasn't before, but now I am. All the women that brigaded are minimizing the harms of circ and saying how you can't compare it to FGM. That is the oppression. Them minimizing and marginazing me and my systemic oppression IS the harm. How's about we get some self awareness and accountability, by minimizing the harms of circ YOU are and agent of the oppressive cutting culture, full stop. Check your privelage and understand your fragility.

It's also cool to see the aspects of power at play here with having out own space. Since this sub is a space for the victims, we set the rules. We can ban them all and remove their posts in a heartbeat. And I was able to report and get the original post removed from IncelTears for brigading, which is against platform TOS. For the first time, maybe ever, circ victims have their own space to demand justice, and are actually in a position of power, if even on just an online forum, to achieve some level of it.

I saw the recent news Colombia banned FGM.

And I cannot help once again going against the grain and saying this is clearly a huge step backward for circumcision justice, not a step forward.

The average "Intactivist" I feel would be very supportive on the new discriminatory law, citing that "more protections against genital cutting are always good". I couldn't disagree more.

The new Colombian law excludes by identity group, only protecting one gender. To me, this is an enormous step backward, not forward. We are talking about the adults electing to intrude into the genitals of children. There are no half measure solutions, especially identity based oppressive one. Colombia has singled out an underserved identity population and expressly signed a law protecting only the already overserved population. There are plenty of anti-FGM laws around the world already, and zero anti-circ.

Put it like this, let's say during colonial USA, a law was passed that prevented only white people from being owned as slaves. Should we champion that? Of course not. This isn't the kind of thing where we all sit around and sing Kumbaya and make half-measure solutions one identity group at time. Should the slaves sing Kumbaya with their masters after only white people are banned from being slaves since it's "one step closer to banning slavery"? Of course not, how absurd.

Banning cutting for only one gender re-enforces the problematic views that have enabled the cutting the continue for the underserved gender in the first place. It is a huge step backward, not a step forward. Just like banning slavery only for white people is further from any sort of justice than passing no law at all, banning cutting for only one gender is further from any sort of justice.

Overall, and I say it all the time, I'm getting really sick of expecting below the bare minimum. I refuse to take the breadcrumbs that are actually just more oppression, like Colombia banning cutting for only one gender, and celebrate it like it's some how favorable to me. It's not. It's just another daily heaping of oppression.

There is no such thing as "medical necessity". Are we really going to allow the medical system, the very same one that justified electing to intruding into the genitals of children, decide what counts as "medical necessity".

Making exemptions for "medical necessity" hands the keys to the kingdom to our systemic oppressors. What if the anti-slavery movement said slavery should be abolished, except as punishment for criminals who's criminal status is determined by the confederate government and the KKK? Do you understand how F-ing absurd that is.

I don't understand how so many in Intactivism and people "on my side" have fallen so far away from any sort of reasonable justice. The medical system is our systemic oppressor. Why would we ever want them to be involved in a position of power ever again, much less defer to their judgement for when to circumcise.

Phimosis, infections, frostbite, I don't care. I want circumcision off the table entirely. Under no circumstance should this be permitted ever again for any reason.

I'm sick of people online talking about "death grip syndrome" (when men allegedly beat off too hard and have low sensitivity during sex) without addressing the elephant in the room, circumcision. "Death grip syndrome" by and large is just victim blaming. Its taking a systemic oppression problem (circ) that applies to a whole identity group (men), and blames each victim individual and makes it his own personal problem to solve.

Even telling the average regard cutter who self-identifies as having had "death-grip" that it isn't his fault will cause him to spiral out, and say "how dare you minimize my death grip, I struggled so much over and finally fixed it myself". Little does he realize that telling him death grip is systemic oppression is actually the first time he has not been victim blamed. Men take pride in overcoming on their own, and when you try to tell them it was systemic oppression and that it wasn't their individual battle, they actually see that as a threat. Men see collectivizing as a threat. They see collectivizing as taking away their individual wins.

It goes to show how bad men are at fighting for justice as a collective. With men it is literally "every man for himself." Men even fight to uphold that problematic individualistic standard. Even within the anti-circumcision space, there is an immense amount of focus on restoring, aka fixing the problem individually for yourself, but very little collective fighting for justice.

Make no mistake men's inability to fight for justice as a collective is part of the oppression, it is cutting culture. Cutting culture keeps men alone, trying to solve problems by themselves, and scoffing at other men who dare fight for victims.

On another thread on an Intactivist related sub, I called out someone who said: "male circumcision is due to misogyny". I said no, that it was actually victim blaming. Apparently this is a bridge too far for the average intactivist. The average intactivist does not care about the victim, and does not care about blaming the victim.

And I get told to "F off and never speak again". Lol. Needless to say I blocked that person.

I don't know why a large portion of our so-called "allies" are incredibly resistant to anything that puts the victim experience first. Hey maybe men are disproportionately the victims of circ, so maybe we shouldn't tell the victims they are suffering at their own fault. Maybe saying men are victims but this is also caused by men is just a little bit victim blaming.

Apparently I can't even say that, and if I do the average "Intactivist" freaks out. I didn't even say anything that should have been controversial. It's not liked pull out any MRA talking points, nor is that something I ever do. I didn't say it should be called "misandry" instead, that's not the kind of thing I say. All I said is that calling it "misogyny" is clearly victim blaming, because it obviously is.

It amazes me how victim-negative the people who are supposed to be on our side are.