Sexism - Reponse To AngryAussie (MIRROR)

A while back I saw a video by the Angry Aussie which I found extraordinarily offensive in its sexism. In this video he denounces female circumcision, however he goes out of his way to make sure his viewers understand that he will not tolerate any responses, comments or videos, that suggest that male circumcision is just as vile and wrong as female circumcision. I lacked the words to be able to formulate an appropriate response but I commented anyway. As good as his word, he deleted my comments and blocked me from his channel. Not being able to do much about it, I went on my disgruntled way.

This video response by FreedomofSpeech sums up my feelings on theAngry Aussie's video entirely.

The Angry Aussie's original video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHCZQ8JAGhE


Freedom0Speech has had his channels vandalised so the video I have posted here is not currently available on his channels. Please show support by subscribing to both of his channels, which you can find the links to below.

http://www.youtube.com/user/freedom0speech

http://www.youtube.com/freedom0f5peech

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• circumcision
• female
• male
• angry
• aussie
• dick
• sexism
• sexist
• chauvinist

[Anon11674]

AngryAussie was entertaining at first, but he quickly became just some loud asshole shouting his opinions at the camera.

This very video of his that you're showing is what finally made me unsubscribe from him. I can't stand pro-mutilation people.

[4EqualRights]

@Textra1 yeah, not to mention, the neonatal circumcision has to forcibly tear the foreskin from the glans penis in order to be successfully performed. It also violates their own constitution on the first page when they report favorably for circumcision in their reports. "Unequal development in different countries in the pomotion of health and control of disease, especially communicable disease, is a common danger." So basically promoting circumcision in Africa to curb HIV here is total bull.

[Textra1]

@4EqualRights

I couldn't agree more. Religion is inconsistently applied and often to situations which weren't around when the dogma was first written. The best thing to do is to leave it out of the equation. I hate it when religious people, not content to just follow their own beliefs, insist that we all have to as well. I really believe that is the case with male circumcision. Arguments like the HIV one are just an ad hoc way of coating a religious preference in a secular wrapper.

[Textra1]

@4EqualRights

It would be nice if the YT system allowed a small amount of editing to correct spelling and grammar errors. I cringe when I read back over a post I've made and see an error. I have a spell checker plugin for firefox and it checks as I type. Though it doesn't catch errors like the common "your' and you're".

[4EqualRights]

@4EqualRights I misspelled "penis" once, and am a severe grammar and spelling whore, especially when it comes to making a valid point.

[4EqualRights]

@4EqualRights continued...so the entire religion argument is bullshit. The American Academy of Pediatrics even states "Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not permit children to be harmed through religious practices, nor do they allow religion to be a valid legal defense when an individual harms or neglects a child." AND the 1st Amendment says that Freedom of Religion applies to thought only, not actions against others. Combine that with the 14th amendment, equal protection.

[4EqualRights]

@Textra1 ah yes, Religion. Well, let's see. Circumcision started 6000 years ago by the Egyptians on both males and females, on their Jewish slaves to get them to comply, basically using sexual torture to scare them. It was never introduced as a medical procedure until the late 1800's. Circumcision was NOT a part of the original covenant with Abraham and God, in fact it was added by a rabbi 300 years later to "reduce urges". There is no mention of it in the Koran, in fact it's seen as a sin.

[Textra1]

@4EqualRights

[cont]

Surely the better argument would be, whether it helps reduce HIV or not, you should always practice safe sex, i.e. use condoms. I get the feeling that it's agenda driven and has very little to do with truth or health. I smell the big 'R' word in the whole male circumcision controversy.

[Textra1]

@4EqualRights

Indeed, particularly when simply wearing a condom is a much better control for HIV. If people get it into their minds that being circumcised is a protection against HIV, they might be inclined to practice unsafe sex.

I don't buy the whole 'It reduces the chances of contracting HIV' argument, but even if it were true, it would surely only reduce the chance for the male. 

[Textra1]

@4EqualRights

I'm amazed she could have said that it doesn't injure the penis. If hacking off an area of extremely sensitive skin isn't an injury I don't know what is. This is a perfect example of sexism at work.