Видео

This bill is a start, but what a disappointment! The issue here is reproductive coercion, people being tricked into parenthood. That is huge. And yet the bill covers only a small number of contraceptive methods -- focusing on barrier methods, which are largely obsolete. Why exclude the pill, patch, ring, and IUD. Why exclude permanent contraception, meaning vasectomy and tubal ligation? People can lie about any of these in order to coerce a pregnancy. Why exclude methods that are currently in the pipeline, like Contraline and Plan A--options for men that are under development?

But why are IUDs and hormonal birth control not analogous to physical barrier forms of birth control? And is the "intent" of the legislation to make it unlawful to impregnate woman without her consent, but still allow her to fraudulently get pregnant by a man without his consent? I think there's a constitutional issue here, i.e., equal protection under the law.

If a dude replaced BC with placebos that should count as stealthing. It should be the same as if a woman purposely lied about it

This is fantastic. It’s great to see support for the well-being of men and boys and for the idea of a Washington Commission. Excellent video!

We chose to be informed and educated and did not choose mutulation for our son. We were shown how much misinfomation was prevalent in the pro-mutilation corner. There are no real benefits. It's religion and superstition primarily. There is no other justification for removing a part of a baby's body.

Pro-circ proponents often refer to the American Academy of Pediatrics saying that "the [possible] benefits outweigh the risks"... Those same pro-circ proponents consistently omit that the American Academy of Pediatrics' opinions since 1996 further conveys that (1) "...the [possible] benefits are NOT great enough to recommend {MIC}.", (2) MIC is a cosmetic procedure and NOT a medical procedure, (3) the UTI benefit is so small/insignificant between intact and circ'd males and that most of the UTIs among the Intact [and causes of Phimosis among adolescent males] are mostly due to parents, caregivers and medical providers wrongly/forcibly retracting those lads' foreskins and (4) the American Cancer Society does NOT consider routine male circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent penile or cervical cancers. The pro-circ proponents erroneously tout that the A.A.P. "recommends" MIC (whereas, factually, the A.A.P. does not); in fact, the A.A.P. adds that, with exception of the UTI argument, the [possible] benefits do not even affect males until they become sexual active and that the procedure COULD be deferred to [the penis possessor/owner] -- adding that, (1) most adult circumcision are performed for cosmetic reasons and NOT for medical reasons and (2) if the decision was left up to the [the penis possessors/owners], they would NOT decide to submit to circumcision. The A.A.P. does, however, step outside their parameters and recommend that MIC be made available for low-income parents and that parents should be able to make the circ-decision for their sons. Regarding the former, the A.A.P. implies that males born into impoverished families (mostly being single-mother households) have the greatest/irresponsible threat to disease acquisition and transmission. Regarding the latter, the A.A.P. is NOT a legal authority or a legislative body and should have no perspective regarding male genital integrity and body autonomy. If there were truly any "benefits" and the "risks of disease acquisition" were factually reduced across the socio-economic thresholds, insurances and/or MedicAid would/should pay for the procedure if/when done as Adults rather than them and medical professionals considering Circumcision to be purely "elective"/"cosmetic" once/after males reach adulthood. The pro-circ proponents RARELY mention the risks, complications and damages (and the A.A.P. touches slightly on this topic and considers the risks [including death], complications and damages to be less than 10%), so let's ask why the A.A.P. has not renewed their policy statement since 2018... Could it be, with so many circ'd males and their families speaking out loudly and abundantly since 1996, 2012 and 2018, that members of the A.A.P. have been re-evaluating that 10% damages figure (with Urologists currently reporting that they are 4x more likely to see circ'd patients related to the damages of MIC/RIC than they are likely to see Intact male patients for medical reasons, and Sex Therapists recently adding that they are seeing more and more circ'd patients in their 20s) and re-thinking that the actual numbers of MIC risks [including death], complications and damages are much GREATER than previously calculated?

Hello. My son is in a NOLS course right now. He called today very distressed. He was accused of being disrespectful and "sexist", and was forced to sign a letter saying he wouldn't do it again. He knows in his heart he did nothing wrong. Can anyone here help me? I read that Jeff Huntington is a good person to talk with? Please reach out if you can. Thanks you. Jim Moses

Excellent overview of the situation. I have a particular problem with the concept of "gender based violence" when applied to genital cutting practices. When it is done to a female child, it is called "Female genital mutilation," and when it is done to a male child, it is called "circumcision" and is attributed to "culture or religion" (the medical rational, is pure rationalization). Boys die from this, even in the United States. Boys are held down while having part of their genitals cut off without anesthetic, and even in the United States anesthetic is optional. Yet, somehow, it is only "gender based violence" when it is done to a female child. It is as though being born male somehow makes victimhood impossible. Even though more than 10 times the number of boys are cut, the violence done to them is invisible. There are far fewer cultures that cut girls genitals, and all cultures practicing female genital cutting also have a parallel practice of cutting boys at the same time, and under similar circumstance. However, somehow only the cutting of girls is "gender based violence." I prefer to describe the non-voluntary cutting of children's genitals for what it is: Violence Against Children! Paradoxically, I believe those fighting for girls rights to genital self-determination, just as those fighting for girls and women to be free of violence done to them, will have a quicker results if they work for a non-violent culture for girls, boy, men, women, and intersex persons. We all deserve to live free from violence. This is the other side of the patriarchy that continues to be supported by both those clinging to conservative gender roles AND, unfortunately, many feminists as well. This idea is that women need protection and are vulnerable, while men (and boys by extension) are powerful (often dangerous) but are also impervious to pain and incapable of victimhood. It is certainly so when discussing the genital cutting of children, all of whom are powerless over what was done to them. Boys and men are capable of suffering, just like girls and women. Furthermore, this aspect of the patriarchy (supported again by both those clinging to conservative gender roles AND many feminists) is intolerant of men and boys who speak out about their own experiences of abuse (in my case genital mutilation), and intolerant of those that support these men and boys. This societally enforced silence only adds injury to the original harm.

Excellent video. Thanks for speaking the truth in a world that is asleep to the reality of domestic violence.

they want to teach men and boys that violence is not ok, but they refuse to see men and boys as victims...This ain't it, chief.

She mentions the so-called salary gap, but nothing about suicide, homelessness, incarceration and other markers of male disadvantage.

Brave men right there 👏

That's awesome!

I agree with this. It shouldn't be about men vs. women. It should be about the couple and the union, acknowledging each other's burdens and genders, and what you do for each other. Most of all showing respect to others in the way they appreciate.

My favorite show about this very thing is the Brady Bunch when Peter had to sing with his group and he voice was cracking... They just made it a part of the song!

What a delightful, interesting way to provide insight to, smiles about and empathy for boys. Made me nod and smile at things I could relate to about being a boy and how crazy it can be. Nice editing and post-production too.

This is fantastic -- good luck. We need these in every state.

Good to see services finally being made available to men and their children. Yep, its 2023, and these people are only just realising that men need domestic violence services. Information about men who are victims of domestic violence has been around for decades, and violently suppressed by DV service providers and women's advocates. How many childfren have been subjected to avoidable family violence because of sexist stereotyping.

Earl... A shame you didn't live to see that.

In Finland such shelters are for men, women and children alike.

Excellent work. Thank you Carol.

Great intro to EBM. thanks for putting it on RUclips

"Best interest" is language used in family court throughout the U.S., it is not unique to WA. It is terminology weaponized, primarily against fathers, by judges, attorneys, mediators, guardian ad litems, custody evaluators, and other family law actors. Unfortunately, in many of the states that have miraculously passed legislation for presumption of equal time they've all but been, to appropriately pun, emasculated. Most of these bills merely require an allegation of domestic violence, not a conviction; I say gain, they merely need any accusation. If I recall, there have been a couple studies in one or two states that noticed a significant uptick in DV allegations after the bill has been passed. So, in some ways we've gone one step forward and two back. The fight continues! -DW