In a speech given recently, President Trump is seen in this unbelievably, insanely shocking photo that he probably doesn’t want you to see at any time ever! He appears, unhinged, it’s newsworthy, this photo, absolutely.
Frogtown, USA–I never really thought about the topic of circumcision much, especially in relation to change or making change within–I think my fate is sealed, was sealed before my brain could function enough to say perhaps “no, sounds painful”.
Maybe once in high school though I thought about it being a private matter. The idea of male circumcision and what it meant. I still don’t understand much about it, however many males in America are circumcised. I think the act could be because of religion or because of hygiene, it could be.
You see, I won’t research that. I don’t care if it is because of “religion” or “hygiene”, they why doesn’t matter.
The matter at hand is that male “genital mutilations” or “circumcisions” happen and there are limited media reports of them in comparison to female “genital mutilation” stories. I find it odd that a prevalent practice performed on one gender (male) is considered normal while a similar practice performed on another gender (female) is considered a news worthy, and possible criminal charge. And, as a self-identified male, I find this a bit unfair. (But that doesn’t fit into the Narrative.)
I do not believe female “genital mutilation” or “circumcisions” should make the news if, at the same time, a majority of male “genital mutilations” or “circumcisions” do not make the news in an equal capacity.
And yet, why is there little concern that “most adult men are circumcised“. Does this not concern the media or the activists that wish to protect human rights. Also, why is male “circumcision” not considered ubiquitously as male “genital mutilation”?
Recent news stories focused on female “genital mutilation” prompted me to delve back into the topic of “circumcision” in males, that, and the experience of having a baby boy.
As a parent I have to decided the fate of my child’s physical dimensions. There is no cry from protesters or the pundits when it comes to this private and personal decision at the hospital, not view as damage or irreversible harm but rather as an “option” to think about before birth.
So, think about this, as from above most American males are “circumcised”, or have experience “genital mutilation”. In recent years, however, male circumcisions in America are on the decline. Why is this? Perhaps because male circumcision is actually male “genital mutilation”, period, and the mainstream media doesn’t care.
They play with terminology when it works with their ideology, but cutting flesh from one person is the same as cutting from another, no matter race, creed, or gender.
In conclusion, the decision to “circumcise” or to “mutilate” not is a highly personal decision, and a final one. Accordingly, I believe that not only do we need to reconsider how we change our bodies but how we change the bodies of the future.
Moreover, I believe we need to understand and keep meanings and definitions in relation to words and genders equal, especially within news media language and context; we observe male “circumcisions” or “mutilations” as somehow not as equally alarming as female genital mutilation. Perhaps the lack of concern shown to one gender over another by mainstream news is the actual shocking news story that everyone wants but no one wants to hear.
As a self-identified male, I haven’t heard of any bills being made to save our (fore)skins, pun intended, in relation to “circumcisions” or actual male “genital mutilation”. Alike, I think all “genital mutilation”, in relation to all genders, is mutilation, destruction, and potentially a crime which disfigures the human body. Reconsider this when the idea arises in local reports or national breaking news.
Language is the key to this matter. You call something “circumcision” and then you call something “genital mutilation”, on the grounds of gender, and you assume a bias in the language you use to describe an action. Which is which?
That is the crux of this biscuit, the matter at hand. If we use the somewhat necessary innocuous and accepted language to describe an horrendous act, is that act then acceptable, and should that act be called something different depending on who it is done to? Because that happens now, today, on the topic put forth above.
I am no advocate, activist, or professional on the topic “genital mutilation”. I am merely stating concern over the potential bias within the media coverage of one agenda over another, one gender over another, through language and terminology.
These are my views. I am open to free discussion and open dialogue on the topic of circumcision/genital mutilation, please comment as necessary. Thank you for reading. No hate please, I try to stay positive.
Frogtown, USA —This week an official report of an official study found that most people don’t read the news because it’s too long and takes too much time to read. In hopes to counter lack of readership and lack of attention to everything the mainstream media has decided to make all articles one to two sentences long, maximum.
The decision to make news articles one to two sentences long in their entirety was unanimously agreed upon by American news organizations on Monday eve after finding that no one reads anymore, or takes the news seriously, and this looming fact destroys potential for more advertisement revenue.
In what seems to be the demise of true journalism, a bastion of hope has been burrowed out of thin air in true optimism, from the idea of less is more, perhaps, and this sea change may just be the beginning of novel style of journalism that doesn’t require words at all, merely assumptions by inflection of personal interpretation. Not a far cry from where we are today, when journalism already doesn’t require legitimate sources at all.
To the news that all news articles would be only one to two sentences long, purposeful and sage Millennials rejoiced in having more time to like things on Instagram and craft new Facebook status updates, now instead of reading through articles with details and objective facts the reader could simply fill in the blanks to their liking. Creating a double positive: the story would be easier to read, and easier to digest mentally.
In a time where there isn’t much time in our busy lives, shorter articles will become a more positive experience for the reader, for the writer, and for the entire world in general; journalism with words, thought, and details will become a thing of the distant past. With the official announcement of shorter articles, the American news media is truly on course for a new style of the literary form, a new style of journalism without words.
St Paul, MN– In a recent unsubstantiated report put out by AP (Ambiguous Press) a single covert unobtrusive research study has found that reading Facebook or CNN at least twice daily, perhaps, is actually equal to attaining a political science doctorate from an accredited University.
This astonishing fact, perhaps, has come out at a time when your friends on Facebook may know just about everything there is to know about politics and science from simply reading a headline published by CNN and create an elaborate and accurate theory or law in a matter of moments in a status update or a rudimentary comment, breakthroughs that change the world.
Sir Richard B’hole, the leading scientist on the study, and famous Antarctic big game hunter, expressed these findings proves that our brains work faster than they ever have before, people are more certain in their beliefs and that is all that matters. Sir B’hole went on to say that it’s amazing that we can learn so much from so little.
Although the AP reported study has been published and went viral on Facebook and throughout social media venues unquestioned, it is merely one single scientific study, meaning that it still has to be tested countless other times and produce the same result, and then go on to be peer reviewed, this, to even be close to considered factually or realistically relevant. To that B’hole said, we are on to something here, we live in a very intelligent time… very interesting.