I recently saw talk of FeministFrequency's organization obtaining 501 status (from around a month or so ago), and people were/are claiming that her IRS documents were/are fake, and so I decided to do some searching myself; for both halves of her document, I found two similar matches.

The documents below either lend credibility to her document (assuming that most IRS documents of this nature are uniform and signature prints are reused, which is common with government papers), or they take away from the authenticity of her papers. Either way, here are some similar matches below.

I assume that someone elsewhere who cares more about her work than I do might have checked all of this already.

Her Documents:

Her Organization on Guidestar:

Similar Matches:

Owner of the Signature (Tamera Ripperda):

As I said, I don't know if anyone has resolved this elsewhere already or not (or if someone has already found and posted these documents); all I could find immediately from the past month or so were individuals complaining about her, and videos accusing her of lying. If the issue has been resolved, then oh well.

Judge these items for yourselves.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE: Recently, I had a discussion which stemmed from something that I stated on Twitter, related to theology and science (the talk with this person went further than that); at first I considered writing a post on these topics, but then I figured that it'd be fun, since a lot of my friends are into this sort of thing, and just to lend some structural variety to my site, to simply re-post the responses here in their regular “conversational” format. The other person's replies are in the black quote-boxes, and mine are the normal black-on-white text. The only modification that I've made to the messages is reformatting them for this post. It begins with the person quoting what I said on Twitter.

NOTE II: The “studying” disagreement was sort of a subset of the rest of the conversation, and kind of silly.
“Faith and reason can be compatible, but theology and science are different categories of study. Mixing the latter two is just hocus pocus.”



It's no different from “studying” philosophy.

Yeah it is. Because most philosophies don't pretend magic exists.

Except for the whole classical basis of Western philosophy; Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, et cetera, all believed in the existence of souls. And, one can study anything.

But their philosophies weren't ABOUT souls. Lol. Theology is ALL ABOUT magic.

Furthermore, “magic” is not a belief.

"You can study anything"

So I can study unicorns?

Even though, you know...


They're fictional?

That's retarded.

No, it isn’t.

You can't study something that doesn't exist.

Plato/Socrates justified the entirety of their philosophies based on the soul. Have you read them?

Are you asserting that you can't study fictional things?

Should we just burn down all of the English and other language literature departments?

How is English fictional?


Do you know what “study” means?

“The devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject.”

And, also: “A detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation.”

Unicorns are not an academic subject.

So you can't study them.

Case fucking closed.

Says who? That's arbitrary and classist. You can investigate and analyze information regarding unicorns, even if fictional. In fact, I would be well within the bounds of “studying” if I were to pick up a book about unicorns written by a sociologist interested in the various cultural interpretations of them. To claim otherwise is just silly.

That's studying fiction about unicorns, not studying the unicorns themselves.

That's impossible, because they don't exist.

A minor distinction; philosophy is not concerned with the ephemeral make-up of souls, nor is theology trying to analyze pieces of God. Theologians don't, generally, sit, pray, and then write what they claim God said to them. They read what other theologians have written on the various topics of theology, and write on them; analysis of the consequences of various moral assertions, et cetera. Even if you think that it's nonsense, they are still doing theology.

Theology is all about reading religious scriptures and then pretending to have a revelation, like the guy who invented Mormonism. Lol. I also think it's pointless to study morals or ethics since no amount of study will ever change anyone's mind but your own, so it amounts to a gigantic waste of time.

You're wrong; that’s propheteering.

Brigham Young or whoever, right or wrong, was not a theologian. He was a religious figure; a founder.

The ontological argument was a 'revelation' had by Thomas Aquinas.

He just kind of came up with it.

Theologians would be Mormons studying whatever he said.

That's how abstract ideas are formed.

It wasn't based on some scientifically justifiable fact or logically sound argument, he just sort of made it up.

“I came up with it; thanks God.”

And that's what theology is all about.

Making shit up.

So's writing, so's philosophy.

Philosophy is frequently founded on principles of logic.

Like souls?

Plato, Socrates?

Again, have you read them?


It was their foundational topic.

The first conceptualization of the Atom was invented by a Greek philosopher.

Yeah, and their foundation was obviously flawed, that doesn't mean everything they ever said was wrong.

Which I've never claimed, but thank you for clarifying that you aren't either.

There was plenty of other shit that the ancient Greeks came up with that was way more important than the concept of the soul, Krista.

The achievements of pederasts are secondary to this discussion. Logic is a mechanism. It's not a “foundation.” Logic requires axioms and base principles and epistemic allowances.

Which were followed by the ancient Greeks since, you know, they fucking invented it.

Axioms aren't followed; you have to come up with them, which the Greeks did, as you say.

They made shit up, happened to hit on the mark, and that's why we don't read about the scribblings of, uh... The Slavs.

In any case, you seem to have some sort of obsessively held conception that studying must be focused on extant topics. Merely by pointing out the plethora of abstract concepts that are out there, it would seem that your conception is a misconception.


The axioms that the ancient Greeks came up with were wrong some of the time obviously and a lot of it was just dumb luck. BUT. That doesn't mean the foundation of logic and reason they constructed can't be applied to axioms derived from the scientific method. That is what modern 'philosophy' is. UNLESS it's religious philosophy.

>deciding what philosophy of any kind is


In which case it's based on made up shit.

Aren’t you also a relativist?

Hence why theology is a joke.

Oh sorry, moral nihilist, was it?

Not that I disagree with that, in particular, but consistency.

Lol, what do you think Hobbesian philosophy is based on? It's based on fucking Evolution, which is a scientific theory, not a philosophical one. A lot of modern philosophy is based on science, not just random bullshit that people pulled out of their asses.

Hobbes believed in natural law, as the concept the medievals and ancients discussed, that was written into human nature.

He believed in survival of the fittest, which is a Darwinian concept, Krista. Lol.

That's also two centuries before Evolution.

He didn't have a scientific framework to back his philosophy. That doesn't mean his ideas were completely fabricated. Survival of the fittest was common sense until somebody came along and explained how it fit into the grand scheme of natural evolution. 

I wouldn't say that he believed in survival of the fittest. You've read the Leviathan, no? Part of the point of social cooperation is that the “fittest” (the strongest, fastest, and smartest people) will have no advantage in a state of nature's all-out war.

Yeah, because of numbers.

Everyone sleeps, he said.

Because they will be outnumbered by the less fit. I just don't see how you can say…

Which means that they won't survive to pass on their genes.

How I can say?

What do you think that the point of what I am trying to tell you is?

Theology, which is based ENTIRELY on conjecture and has absolutely no basis in reality.

Because all of this has been secondary; if not for the Western cultural obsession with science vs. religion, theology would, I think, be able to work with sociology and psychology. My thoughts on religion, in and of itself, are different.

I just don't see how you can reconcile theology with modern science and philosophy.

When we have ideas based on actual scientific facts, instead of made up bullshit about God.

You continue to lump “modern philosophy,” which no one actually agrees on, as something based on scientific facts. Facts are not the general domain of philosophy. Philosophy is primarily about abstractions, much like theology, but is focused on questions rather than directions.

A lot of it -is-. Modern as in, written within the past century. Philosophy is about answering those questions. Lol. And how do you do that? You apply the scientific method to whatever your question is related to.

Like Sartre? Wilfrid Sellars? De Beauvoir? I've not been seeing citations to "scientific facts" in their works.

Actually I guess modern philosophy would be, written since the 1700s.

But, what about the rationalists? Do they not count for some reason?


I've read them.

Are you trying.

Are you trying to fucking


that Descartes

worked with facts?


They tried to base their philosophies on reproducable logic and rationale, hence why they are called “rationalists”. Just because Descartes was kind of a loony…




You've undermin-

I'm done with you; you've sunk your ship, cap'n.

Like Descartes and his demon, them facts?

Hey. Things were different back in the day.

The very opening of Descartes' big work, whatever it’s called, is him describing how he locked himself in a room and came up with shit. He was determined to abandon all preconceptions that he could in doing so (i.e., he set out to specifically talk out his ass).

Descartes was all about regarding reason as the chief source of knowledge. That was my entire point. Lol. As opposed to AQUINAS who thought that knowledge came from the fucking divine.

Yes, reason as opposed to facts that you can perceive from the world, nice try.

It's still better than hallucinating that you're receiving knowledge from a deity?



And, also, some of the medieval thought on “knowledge from the divine” isn't as propheteering as you imply.

It's literally "God told me this” or “I acquired this knowledge by the grace of God”.

Perhaps it was Boethius, not sure, maybe Aquinas, but “knowledge coming from God” does not mean, for every thinker, “God told me this” or “I acquired this knowledge by the grace of God.”

Aquinas thought you could prove God's existence based on the fact that the world has order to it. And he claimed that this knowledge came from God, that's how he convinced people. Like, wtf?

Do we agree that one can study anything, because I feel as though that is vital to the conclusion of this discussion.

No, that's fucking dumb. You can't 'study' a non-academic subject unless you mean 'study' as in scrutinize.

Learn about.

But that's a separate definition.

Studying is learning about something; concluding in the intake of information on a subject and retaining it.

Sorry, but that's not what studying means.

Anyway, as I was going to say earlier; whoever it is, I'm trying to remember, pondered whether all knowledge exists independently of our coming to know it. Of course, only God would be holding onto it, but the point remains that he was stating that knowledge that comes from God is just tapping into the universe's repertoire of truth. For instance, astronomical knowledge would “come from God” because it's assessing some physical truth about the universe that was previously known.

Studying is specifically about academic things.

And, who are you to decide what studying means?

Uh, it's not me that decided this.

Are you kidding me?

“Devote time and attention to acquiring knowledge on (an academic subject), especially by means of books.”

It's whoever writes the Oxford dictionary. Sorry?

What is an academic subject? Are you qualified to determine that? People study non-academic things all the time anyway. Also, note the specification of “books.” Outdated terminology.

“The activity or process of learning about something by reading, memorizing facts, attending school, etc.” - Merriam Webster. And, consider definition 2: “Look at closely in order to observe or read.” Or: “Application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading, investigation, or reflection.”

One can study anything.

I refuse to acknowledge theology as a valid academic field, Krista. :[

Your vaunted “modern philosophy” has trouble agreeing on what knowledge is and who's qualified to say what is known. That's epistemology for you. And, saying that one can't study non-academic things is honestly just nonsensical, because people do it all the time.

People receive money in many prestigious places to “study theology.” Sorry, but even this world disagrees with you.

From whom? Other zany evangelists?

Their universities that employ them?

So, old WASPs.

Georgetown is a Catholic school, sir.

And, that was essentially the conclusion of this discussion; not normally the sort of talk that I'd engage in, but it was fun this time, and given the interest of some of my friends and acquaintances in these subjects, I decided to post this here for the hell of it. Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

WARNING: Post contains potentially disturbing images.

UPDATE #4 (July 27, 2014): 

The jailer, Darius Porter, has been fired; however, there are two others (arresting officer Clint Webb, who threatened Jason), and another jailer who helped transport/restrain Jason (et cetera). From here, we would like the following.

1) To have some action taken against Clint Webb and the other jailer (removal from the department or reasonably appropriate disciplinary action of some kind).

2) Assistance with Jason's medical bills (which amount to, currently, $4,500); he has suffered damage to the sight of one of his eyes, has a concussion, and is going to be checked for brain damage soon. Mr. Bishop is homeless currently and cannot afford these bills, nor could he afford to pay the ticket (which they knew).

3) Release the video of the incident to certify the department's claims that he was only thrown to the ground and not struck in the face. Given the severity of his facial injuries, it seems highly unlikely that he wasn't struck in the face, and so releasing the video would serve to answer the remaining questions regarding the department's honesty and integrity.

Firing a jailer does not heal a person's eyesight or pay for medical bills incurred because of said jailer, nor does it prove that the department reported the entire truth of what took place.

More updates will be posted as time goes on.

UPDATE #3 (July 26, 2014 - From the Facebook [23rd]): 
"The Police Department initiated the investigation based on a review of the use of force report and video of the incident in the jail. The jail employee is currently on Administrative Leave pending the outcome of the investigation. Several social media posts have implicated the arresting officer as being involved in the injuries to the prisoner. This information is incorrect - the arresting officer was not involved with the incident in the jail."


UPDATE #2 (July 24, 2014):
Click Here

UPDATE #1 (July 23, 2014): Click Here (Jailer placed on "Administrative Leave" over incident.)

Original Post Text (July 22, 2014):

"On July 19, 2014 at approximately 2:20am, Denton citizen Jason Wayne Bishop (Pooh), 38, was brutally attacked by Denton, Texas police while in custody for possession of alcohol and public intoxication.

While being beaten, he did not—could not—fight back. He was both restrained and intoxicated, making him unable to defend himself during the incident."

We are calling for an investigation of the Denton city police. Please help us spread the message.

Share this story and help us get justice for Jason.


Facebook Page Mission Statement:

"What we want is a full and impartial investigation into the brutal beating of Jason Wayne Bishop (AKA Pooh) by the Denton Police Department. The delivery should be conducted by third party without the blue wall of silence. We make these demands by any and all means available."


I believe that we can all agree, regardless of levels of intoxication, that beating someone this badly is absolutely unacceptable, a disgustingly gratuitous display of brutality, and a grievous abuse of power; no officers or guards of any kind should be allowed to continue holding their jobs after recklessly thrashing someone in this way.

Please contact those operating the social network pages on Jason's behalf for more information on this story, and aid them in their cause; injustices of this sort should not go without rebuke or consequences for those who carry them out.

I have witnessed firsthand that campaigns of this nature can be quite effective in achieving justice for those wronged by figures of authority, and can even lead to helping others beyond the victim of the original misdeeds. I would encourage everyone to take a look at all of these pages and spread this story; do whatever you can to assist if you are able.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

Ways to help (from the Facebook page):

• SHARE OUR POSTS, PICTURES, AND INFORMATION ONLINE: When your share our content, more people will be exposed to it, and are likely to take action.

• CONNECT WITH US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Please follow us on twitter and tumblr, subscribe to our youtube page, and like us on facebook to see more updates about this campaign. When you connect with us, it boosts our trends so that more people can see what we post (in other words, it helps us gain followers).

• SUBMIT VIDEOS TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL: Create a video(s) discussing this tragic incident, or why you oppose police violence/want the Denton city police to be investigated and send it to us for uploading. You can send your videos to justiceforjasontx@hotmail.com.

• WRITE ABOUT THIS: If you're a writer, and you are given a platform to express your views or expose information, please help us by writing about this situation to give it more light.

• INVITE FRIENDS TO THIS EVENT: Invite your friends and family to this event so they can see this too. We need as much help as possible, and there is strength in numbers.

• TREND OUR HASHTAGS ON TWITTER: #WeAreJason, #WeArePooh, #FuckPoliceBrutality, #JusticeForPooh, #JusticeForDenton, #InvestigateDentonPD, #DentonPDabuse.

• CALL/SUBMIT REPORTS ABOUT/FAX DENTON CITY POLICE AND COMPLAIN: You can submit complaints online here: http://www.cityofdenton.com/departments-services/departments-g-p/police-department/commendations-complaints or call/fax the Denton city police at:

~ 940-349-7923 (Chief of Police)
~ 940-349-7973 (Records)
~ 940-349-8160 (Media Relations)

• CONFRONT DENTON CITY POLICE ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Blow up their interactions and notifications online by tweeting or acknowledging them multiple times. Even it the block or ban you, you can still post about it, and use the hashtag #DentonPD and #DentonPDabuse. They are on facebook [https://www.facebook.com/CityofDentonPoliceDepartment], twitter [https://twitter.com/DentonPolice], and youtube [https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofDenton].

• MAKE THESE IMAGES YOUR COVER PHOTO OR PROFILE PICTURE: /Covers/ [], [], []. /Profile Pictures/ [], [], [], []. (You can also use a picture saying #StandWithJason, or #JusticeForJason to express your support.)

There are many ways you can stand in solidarity with this victim of gross police violence. Please help us spread the message, so we can get #JusticeForJason.

Interview with Jason (from the Facebook page):


Other Pages:


My Video on This:

PURPOSE: This piece will discuss objections and other information relevant to male circumcision (MGM), with a primary focus on the United States. As I am opposed to male circumcision (except in cases where, for whatever reason, it is absolutely medically necessary), I maintain that the procedure should be abolished/outlawed, that the supposed health benefits related to the operation are too poorly evidenced to warrant its continuation or recommendation, and that, ethically, it is no different from female circumcision (FGM), because it destroys individual guarantees of physical integrity and protection, is typically performed without consent, and violates the right of males to bodily self-determination. 

NOTE: Bracketed numbers correspond to references at the end of the post; numbers from other sources which used a similar format were changed to match the numbers from my list (when the same sources were used).

"Routine circumcision is not a medical issue or a social issue. It is a sexual issue and a human rights issue."

- Frederick Hodges (Medical Historian and Author)

Male circumcision, sometimes referred to as male genital mutilation (MGM), is the excision of the foreskin (prepuce) of the human penis. The practice antedates recorded history [1A], and is not explicitly prohibited in most places of the world. In the United States, the operation is still relatively common (although slowly declining in prevalence), and has become an increasingly controversial and polarizing human rights issue. Several myths, exaggerations, and a wealth of conflicting information surround the procedure today, which has resulted in the present struggle between adversaries of the practice and its advocates. Gradually, however, a growing number of people are beginning to view male circumcision as an abuse comparable to female genital mutilation (FGM), arguing that its practice on newborns, who are unable to refuse or consent, is an infringement of the basic human rights of all males to bodily autonomy and physical protection. Many also dispute the health benefits reported by some organizations and studies, claiming that most of them are either mythical, exaggerated, or are too insubstantially evidenced to warrant the procedure or its recommendation.
The History of Male Circumcision

Two useful resources that provide several links to scholarly and non-scholarly references on male circumcision:
[1B] “History of Circumcision”
The History of Female Circumcision

For an overview of female circumcision, I recommend a paper by Nawal M. Nour, MD, MPH
Department of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School:

And, another by Robert Darby BA, B Litt, PhD which covers both female and male circumcision:

Proponents of male circumcision have argued that its practice is a religious right, that it is a male rite of passage, and/or that the health benefits associated with the surgery are evident enough to warrant its continuation. The American Pediatric Academy (AAP), in 2012, reported that: “New scientific evidence shows the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure,” [3] but also stated that there was insufficient evidence of the benefits to officially recommend routine operations. The United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has expressed a similar sentiment, in regard to the surgery’s supposed health benefits: “Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs, penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.” [4]

Several opponents of the procedure, on the other hand, argue that the surgery is superfluous, cruel and painful to infants, violates their basic rights to bodily autonomy and physical protection, and that the reports of its health benefits are either exaggerated, or rife with myths and misinformation. The greatest health-related argument in favor of male circumcision is that undergoing the procedure helps to reduce the risk of men acquiring HIV. However, one website entitled Doctors Opposing Circumcision states that circumcision does not prevent HIV infection, and even goes on to say: “The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.” [5] Other websites, such as cirp.org [6:7] and circumcision.org [8], have reported similar findings and conclusions, calling into question the data which reports such benefits to male circumcision, the ways wherein the information was collected, and the methodologies behind the research.

More from cirp.org: “A recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and WHO report confirms previous reports that circumcision does not prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).” [9:10] / And: “Circumcision does not provide protection against penile cancer. Even if it did, it would no longer be necessary due to the expected availability of a HPV vaccine.” [11]
More from circumcision.org: “Circumcision is the only surgery in history ever advocated as a widespread means of preventing disease. In the last fifty years, circumcision proponents in the medical profession have promoted various claims. One medical claim for circumcision is that it decreases the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. However, the UTI studies this position is based on have been criticized by other physicians, most notably by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). They concluded that the test designs and methods of these studies may have ‘flaws.’ A similar study found no confirmed cases of UTI in intact male infants without urinary birth defects. Furthermore, the UTI defense of circumcision is weak, not just because the methods are flawed, but because the logic and reasoning leading to the conclusion are flawed.” [12]

Many adversaries to male circumcision have also objected on the basis that it is cruel, and that the pain of undergoing the operation is “severe and persistent.” [13] Regardless of whether or not most men will remember their circumcisions later in life (it has been argued that the trauma of the experience can have long-term deleterious effects [14]), the procedure is agonizing for infants, and the recovery time following the operation, which usually lasts for roughly 7 to 10 days [15], results in days of pain for any child who’s undergone it. Male circumcision, according to circumcision.org, has been described as “among the most painful [procedures] performed in neonatal medicine.” [13]

Likewise, removal of the foreskin of human males results in reduced sensitivity and protection; the prepuce serves an important purpose in protecting the head (glans) of the penis from injury, and is vital for proper, and natural, penile function. [16:A/B] All of these factors comprise a significant portion of the objections to male circumcision made by a growing number of people—many blame the prevalence in society of misinformation about the benefits of the surgery for its perpetuation—but several also argue that a large part of the continued advocacy for the practice is caused by misguided cultural, social, and traditionalistic or religious values.

For Muslims, male circumcision is among the rites of Islam, and is “recommended to be performed on the seventh day of infancy.” [17] In most of Judaism, circumcision is mandatory [18], and the practice is also endorsed by some Christians (especially in the United States). The majority of men circumcised, in the United States and elsewhere throughout the world, tend to be among these three groups, but the effects of their tenets and ideals, along with the falsehoods and half-truths in circulation on the health benefits of the surgery, are pervasive throughout U.S. culture; thus, in many cases (and especially for those with religious affiliations), circumcisions are being performed for both misguided medical and non-medical reasons. The former and the latter are equally strong points of objection for those who oppose male circumcision.

Adversaries to female circumcision (FGM) have argued that “female genital mutilation is a violation of human rights.” [19] On a similar ethical basis, and given the abundant evidence against the purported “health benefits” of male circumcision, opponents of the procedure contend that the cultural or religious principles of some collectives (Muslims, Jews, et al.) should not override the individual human rights of male infants to bodily autonomy/self-determination and physical protection. [20:A/B/C/(D)] Both female and male circumcision are, by definition, mutilation (as they each involve removal of some portion of the human body [21], typically without consent), and thus can be challenged and condemned for the same ethical reasons.

Furthermore, any culture or belief system which opposes bodily integrity and the right to physical protection for anyone is erroneous, and should be overruled or changed; in “Circumcision of Male Infants as a Human Rights Violation,” J. Steven Svoboda argued that male circumcision “violates four core human rights documents—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture,” and he also said that:

“Every infant has a right to bodily integrity. Removing healthy tissue from an infant is only permissible if there is an immediate medical indication. In the case of infant male circumcision there is no evidence of an immediate need to perform the procedure. As a German court recently held, any benefit to circumcision can be obtained by delaying the procedure until the male is old enough to give his own fully informed consent. With the option of delaying circumcision providing all of the purported benefits, circumcising an infant is an unnecessary violation of his bodily integrity as well as an ethically invalid form of medical violence. Parental proxy ‘consent’ for newborn circumcision is invalid.” [20D]

Most people who oppose male circumcision (MGM) do so for the same reasons that numerous people oppose female circumcision (FGM); they believe that it violates the basic human rights of male infants, and this attitude toward the matter is becoming more prevalent each year and decade. In fact, in the United States, the CDC has reported an overall (and continuing) decline in the national rate of male circumcisions: “Across the 32-year period from 1979 through 2010, the national rate of newborn circumcision declined 10% overall, from 64.5% to 58.3% (Table and Figure 1). During this time, the overall percentage of newborns circumcised during their birth hospitalization was highest in 1981 at 64.9%, and lowest in 2007 at 55.4%.” [22] These declines in rate, although not entirely related to cultural shifts, are indicative of a trend which correlates to social changes in perspective on MGM.

National U.S. MGM Rate: 58.3% circumcised in 2010, down from 64.5% in 1979. Greatest decline was in the West, down from 63.9% in 1979 to 40.2% in 2010 (a decrease of 23.7%). The Northeast and South showed marginal increases in their rates of circumcision, and the Midwest had a decrease, but the percentage was insignificant. There were fluctuations up-and-down throughout for each region, with an overall national rate reduction. [22]

An increasing number of people are beginning to view male circumcision as the same sort of basic human rights violation that most of the world now sees female circumcision as. Approximations of the global proportion of circumcised males vary from 1/6 [23A] to 1/3 [23B], and several areas are displaying consistent trends of gradual overall decline in their rates of male circumcisions, including the United States.

The myths, distortions and exaggerations surrounding the benefits of the procedure are being debunked, and people all across the world are decrying the practice as an infringement of the guaranteed human rights of males to physical integrity, protection and bodily self-determination. Few, if any, professional medical associations are recommending the surgery as a necessity now (due to insubstantial evidence for its benefits), and a greater number of people currently regard the practice as a basic rights violation equivalent to FGM than ever before. All of these elements amalgamated are why the rates of male circumcision (MGM) are slowly decreasing in the United States and elsewhere, but the battle is not yet won.

Regardless of any misguided objections, dubious claims of “health benefits,” or what some belief systems and collectives state, male circumcision is a superfluous and antiquated procedure which violates the basic human rights of every male infant that suffers it. The practice, unless absolutely medically necessary for individual cases, ought to be made illegal everywhere, just as female circumcision (FGM) should be prohibited everywhere (and is in most places). Ethically, there are no (or merely insignificant) differences. People must stop having their male newborns circumcised, and should instead opt to teach their children proper cleanliness routines. It is not cultural or anti-religious bigotry, or ignorance of science, to oppose MGM as FGM is opposed (in fact, the ignorance of science lies with those who favor male circumcision); it is advocacy for the rights of all males to physical protection, bodily autonomy and self-determination.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]
NOTE II: The purpose of this piece is not to compare the physical impact or damage of female circumcision (FGM) and male circumcision (MGM); it is a discussion of MGM, and the associations made are conceptual (relating to analogous ethical considerations). It is not intended to elevate one over the other in categorical importance, or to undermine either in any way.

NOTE III: I have recently made a donation to IntactAmerica.org (a group which opposes male circumcision); I encourage everyone to check out their work and consider contributing to their cause (if able).

NOTE IV: Leave your thoughts in the comments below, and share this article if you like it.
References (Last Accessed on July 17, 2014):

[1] The History of Male Circumcision
A. History of Circumcision pages by Geoffrey T. Falk (Web Page)
B. History of Circumcision pages by Robert Darby BA, B Litt, PhD (Web Page)

[2] The History of Female Circumcision
A. Nawal M Nour, MD, MPH. Female Genital Cutting: A Persisting Practice. Department of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. (Web page and PDF)
B. History of Circumcision pages
Robert Darby BA, B Litt, PhD

[3] AAP on Health Benefits; Does Not Recommend Circumcision, but Claims There Are Some:
1) New Evidence Points to Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision, But Final Say is Still Up to Parents, Says American Academy of Pediatrics
2) Newborn Male Circumcision - More Information from American Academy of Pediatrics

[4] Male Circumcision – From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[5] The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection
[6] D Sidler, J Smith, H Rode (2008). Neonatal circumcision does not reduce HIV/AIDS infection rates. SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, Volume 98, Number 10: Pages 762-766.

[7] R. S. Van Howe MD FAAP (1999). Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis. Department of Pediatrics, Marshfield Clinic, Lakeland Center, USA. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS, Volume 10, Pages 8-16.

[8] Circumcision and HIV: Harm Outweighs "Benefit"

[9] History of Circumcision pages by Geoffrey T. Falk (Web Page)

[10] Dave SS, Fenton KA, Mercer CH, Erens B, Wellings K, Johnson AM (2003). Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey. SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS, Volume 79: Pages 499-500.

[11] Penile cancer, cervical cancer, and circumcision

[12] Explaining Claims of Medical Benefits

[13] Infant Responses to Circumcision

[14] Psychological impacts of male circumcision

[15] Circumcision – Recovery (Recovering from circumcision)

[16] Foreskin removal reduces sensitivity; prepuce protects glans (et cetera).

[17] Male Circumcision in Islam

[18] M Amin ud din (2012). Aposthia-A Motive of Circumcision Origin. Iran J Public Health. 2012; 41(9): 84.

[19] Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement - OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. (The following link has been condensed.)
[20] Religious and Cultural Values vs. Human Rights
[21] The Definition of Mutilation
[22] Male Circumcision Rates Declining & Insufficient Evidence to Recommend Circumcision:
[23] Proportion of Males Worldwide That Are Circumcised Varies from 1/6 to 1/3:
Supplementary Resources (Unused – Last Accessed on July 17, 2014):

1) WHO on Male Circumcision; Claims That There Are Health Benefits to the Procedure:
2) Another Article Arguing That MGM Reduces the Risk of a Man Acquiring HIV:
3) Where FGM is still practiced.
4) WHO – Over 30% of Males Ages 15+ Are Circumcised (Almost 70% Muslim).
5) Rates of Male Circumcision
D. The Maternity Experiences Survey (MES) 2006-2007 – http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/rhs-ssg/pdf/tab-eng.pdf
6) Greg Millett: “Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men: study”

7) World Health Organization (2007).
“Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability" (PDF).

8) Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I (2010). Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review. BMC Urol 10: 2. doi:10.1186/1471-2490-10-2. PMC 2835667. PMID 20158883.
9) Hay W, Levin M (2012). Current Diagnosis and Treatment Pediatrics 21/E. McGraw Hill Professional. pp. 18–19. ISBN 978-0-07-177971-5.
10) Circumcision and urinary tract infection

NOTE: Normally, this isn't the sort of thing that I'd post to my site as it's not that comprehensive, but since I left a comment on this video yesterday, a few have people informed me that my reply is no longer visible on the video itself, which only leaves me to assume that the uploader of said content (Sam Seder) removed it, or that there is some sort of Google-related issue rendering it hidden for random users.

Accordingly, and despite it lacking a level of depth consistent with most of my site-pieces, I am going to re-post it here for now; I am considering expanding on what I stated in the post as it was really just a response to one "notion" presented during that "debate." Much more could be done with it, and the subject-matter could likely be used for a better piece. But, nevertheless, I'll place it on display for today.

My Comment (the time-stamp at the beginning refers to a point in the video linked above):

23:44; Paul: "We're not going to get there by saying that Elliot Rodger is a result of Feminism, and that he's killing people because of what Feminist ideologues do. We want to look at actual, real problems and find real, evidence-based solutions."

He doesn't wish to blame Elliot Rodger's murders on Feminism because what they truly care about are actual, real problems and real, evidence-based solutions.

So, if that is their mentality, how do they explain blaming entirely unrelated individuals (Feminists, et cetera) for a man's suicide because he was denied funding for his shelter? It is nearly the same thing, in essence. The issues with that logic/reasoning should be palpable. And, there have been several MRAs (not necessarily Paul Elam) who've blamed Elliot Rodger's mindset on the culture now "created" by Feminism (despite the fact that the constructs that he succumbed to existed in one form or another long before Feminism; since antiquity, even).

After listing the names of several essentially entirely unrelated individuals, for a man's suicide, the article went on to state: "Admittedly, many, if not most of the people listed in this article will take delight at provoking the anger of the 'very bad men over at AVfM'. Let’s be really clear about what this article says. The evil, self satisfied indifference of the major actors and proponents of a dominant ideology of gender in the face of a male rate of suicide FOUR TIMES HIGHER than corresponding female suicide is laid squarely at your feet. We are not simply going to yell 'fuck you' and go away. We’re coming for each of you. We will never stop until you and your indifference to human harm relegated to the same trash-bin of history the Ku Klux Klan, and the third reich now occupy. Giggle if you like, or just go back to eating cheese coated wacky fries. Your indifference to human damage, as you pretend to humanism or some “greater good” is why you are named here, and why we are coming for you." (Emphasis Mine.)

Where were they with their real, evidence-based solutions for Earl Silverman's real problems, and need for help, when he was still struggling and fighting? Surely, if they cared as much as the tragedy-politicizing articles that followed his death suggest, they would've been there to help him and raise funds for him and his work, which would've served to actually assist real men suffering in the real-world. But, they were almost nowhere to be found there, until it was too late (and then they used his death, briefly, for their sociopolitical agenda).

There was more of that "we're coming to get you!" rhetoric in this radio episode:

And, further discussion of Feminism "killing Earl" can be found here:

Is this the sort of thing that Paul Elam means when he states: "We're not going to get there by saying that Elliot Rodger is a result of Feminism, and that he's killing people because of what Feminist ideologues do. We want to look at actual, real problems and find real, evidence-based solutions." ?

I see no proof of this mindset: "We want to look at actual, real problems and find real, evidence-based solutions." in any of that. I see blaming, threateningly, virtually totally unrelated people for a man's death for the sake of politicizing his demise in order to work their site's followers into an infuriated and stupefied fervor; it's the type of disingenuous underhandedness that people regularly shame and condemn the worst of Feminists and the slimiest of politicians for. And, that was not an isolated incident. This sort of rhetoric and vitriol is commonplace with AVoiceforMen and its operators. They do little aside from blaming people for things and working their followers into a frenzy over anything and everything; stirring up and forging a collective rage of Oppression Hysteria by continuously pummeling their readers and viewers with a constantly reinforced "men are victims of X, Y and Z; expendable, disposable, abhorred, viewed as subhuman" victim narrative, and almost always with an Anti-Feminist overtone, or direct sentiment, that ignores a great deal of historical contexts, and makes few distinctions between issues which are not inherently "men's" issues, but issues of race or class, and so forth.

This sort of thing is the problem with AVoiceforMen that people have. It's not that they fight against inequality in family/divorce courts, or that they discuss male suicide rates or sexual violence against men or workplace-related deaths or alimony and child support; it's all of the (relatively superfluous) fear and hate-mongering that accompanies those points via their oft-inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric.

Until those internal issues are addressed, they will continue to be met with backlash and push-back, and little will be accomplished; they hardly even know how to achieve their aspirations, other than just misguidedly talking and fallaciously blaming most of the wrong factors for the ills and injustices of society (ad nauseam).

Here is another example of AVfM "being concerned with real problems and seeking real, evidence-based solutions": http://www.donotlink.com/fWz - Offering a "$1,000 bounty" for some women (and one man) involved in a YouTube video, which, if I recall correctly, was produced/directed by a man as a promotional piece for some local play (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that).

Matt Binder didn't do that well, and Paul Elam was Paul Elam, but it would be nice if they could, some day, see the reality of why people aggressively oppose primarily AVoiceforMen; if they were able to view the truth of it, they would find that they could still attain most of their core-objectives, eventually, without a great deal of the backlash that they receive now (and, rightfully so).

P.S. Would AVfM and Elam have blamed Feminism for Elliot Rodger had he been entirely unrelated to any Anti-Feminism or PUA-esque activities? Would they have blamed Feminism for him and what he did had he been a Feminist or Feminist-leaning? Who knows. Perhaps. Likely so. But, of course they "don't want to" blame Feminism (even though some other MRAs have), or anyone else, for what he did now, because the mainstream media attempted, in excess, to tie him to them. Paul Elam stating that they don't want to do that now is not, by default, evidence of intellectual honesty or integrity on their part; it is just as likely suggestive of them being, at least to an extent, politically savvy and/or interested in self-preservation. It could be either or. Or, perhaps even an amalgamation of both.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE II: Share this post and leave your thoughts in the comments below.

NOTE III: As I stated at the top of this entry, I can only assume that the post was removed by +Sam Seder because it no longer appears for me on the video itself when I log out, and three other individuals have told me that they cannot see it there either. If I am wrong, and it's still there and some people simply can't view it for whatever reason, then that is fine. It doesn't really matter either way, but I'll leave it here for a bit nonetheless.
Some Related Posts (Older):