Worse than tattooing a toddler?

I just finished watching a video of a toddler being being forced to get a tattoo. If you haven’t seen this yet, I’ll link the video below in the description. Basically, the toddler’s parents are forcing him to be tattooed. And the toddler is screaming and crying and obviously in a lot of pain. As we speak, there are hundreds of people on the internet trying to track down the parents of the toddler so they can report them to Child Services.

But you know, it could have been worse. Maybe when the toddler was a newborn–when he was just a few days old and his immune system was at its most vulnerable–maybe the parents agreed to have him tied down to a table as the skin on the end of his penis was sliced off. He probably didn’t even have anesthetic.

So, in reaction to the tattoo, people are outraged that a parent would give a kid an elective procedure that he cannot consent to, a procedure that is permanent, that is painful. They think the child should be taken away from his parents. They think it should be illegal. But not circumcision, even though you could use the same argument against it, and circumcision is a lot more dangerous than giving a kid a tattoo.

How dangerous is circumcision? More children die every year from circumcision complications than from SIDs, car accidents, choking, and suffocating combined. Let me say that one more time just so it sinks in. More children die because of this elective surgery than all other causes of infant death combined.

That number doesn’t even include injuries from circumcision that do not result in the infant’s death. The most conservative sources estimate that at least three times that number suffer medical complications. Some of the more common problems are infection, hemorrhaging, necrotizing fasciitis, scalded skin syndrome, sepsis, and meningitis. 71% of circumcised infants develop painful adhesions, and one third of those cases are so severe they require surgery.

So for all you people who are pro-circumcision, let me ask you this one simple question. Why is it so important for you to circumcise a newborn instead of letting your son decide whether he wants to have the surgery when he is 16? If all you can come up with is, “Oh, this way he won’t remember it,” I want you to realize that the defense you just used is probably the exact same reason that the parents of that toddler forced him to get a tattoo. And you know, there’s something screwy with your logic if you think your son not remembering this surgery is more important than all of the data that says you are exposing your baby to death or injury.

That toddler who got a tattoo will probably grow up to be a teenager who can’t remember getting it, but that teenager will also realize he has to live with it for the rest of his life and you know, he kind of wishes you had let him decide whether to get it or not. If you feel that it is a violation of a minor’s personhood to force a tattoo on them at the age of 2, then there is absolutely no reason you should force an elective surgery on a newborn that cannot be reversed and poses serious health risks. The bottom line is that this is not your decision to make. It belongs to your son.

If your son turns 16 and decides that he would prefer to be circumcised, then you can support his decision. And to celebrate, you can even pay for him to get a tattoo to go along with it.

Video of the toddler being tattooed: http://youtu.be/W2OTKwmAQZ4

Sources for the statistics cited:
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/gracely1/

Advertisements

I don’t need a man, but…

I don’t need a man, but if I get pregnant, I demand that the government make sure that the man I had sex with supports the child that he has no legal rights to.

I don’t need a man, but if I a divorce one, I demand that the government give me a portion of his salary for the rest of his life.

I don’t need a man, but if my ex husband or ex lover can’t supply enough money for my children and I, then I demand that the tax payers support us.

I don’t need a man, but I demand that standards be lowered and incentives be provided so that I can compete with men in any field I like.

I don’t need a man, but I demand that I have free childcare and healthcare for my children.

I don’t need a man, but I demand to get paid just as much as a man, even if I am an objectively worse employee.

I don’t need a man, but I demand maternity leave from my employer.

I don’t need a man, but I demand that anywhere I go be a “safe space” where my delicate sensibilities wont be offended by hearing something that I don’t like.

(These delicate sensibilities of mine must be protected by any means necessary – social pressure, university speech codes, hate speech laws, or even the threat of violence from manginas.)

I don’t need a man, but I demand the protection of men in the military, law enforcement, fire department, and of civilian men in general. And I demand that I gain entry into any of the previously mentioned occupations with much lower physical standards.

I don’t need a man, but I demand that any accusation I make against men be accepted unconditionally by the authorities.

I don’t need a man, but I demand entry into all male-only spaces and further demand that the men there must change to accommodate me and my desires.

I don’t need a man, but I demand medical research and popular concern be focused on my problems despite men dying sooner than women do.

I don’t need a man, but I demand free birth control, and I will call it a “war on women” if someone objects to having to pay for my reproductive choices.

I don’t need a man, I just demand that men be forced to provide all of the services that they traditionally have in the past, but this time free of charge and with society’s contempt instead of accolades.

Why is it that feminists claim to need so little and yet demand so much?

Have feminists ever thought to consider that they may be disliked because they encourage women to be weak, rather than encouraging them to be strong?

You see, men and women have worked together for countless millennia to survive in this harsh world together. Men have done their part, they have died by the millions in wars, they have slaved their lives away in grueling jobs, and by their labor, by their blood and sweat and tears, they have built this modern world where life doesn’t have to be as cheap as it once was.

Modern western civilization is a place of prosperity, where women no longer die by droves in childbirth, where natural predators do not prowl the woods in search of human prey, and where we do not need to live in constant fear of a rival tribe invading and enslaving or exterminating us. Yes, it is a great world that western men have built.

But despite all of our comforts, luxuries, and protections – men still serve as the backbone of our society. Men still work incredibly hard to maintain what we have and to even build a brighter future. They are still needed to provide for women and children, to protect us from criminals and hostile nations.

Unfortunately, feminists have largely succeeded in creating a society where the labor of men is divorced from those hard working men getting credit for it. Men are now forced by law to support women, regardless of how they may be treated by them, and women in turn no longer view men as powerful protectors and supporters, but rather as slaves to be forced into service and tossed away when they fail to amuse. Oh, but the fruits of an abandoned man’s labor is not abandoned, the discarded male can continue to work to support the woman who no longer wants anything to do with him.

Is it any wonder why women don’t seem to have respect for men anymore, when everything that men have traditionally provided, and continue to provide, is supplied by government force instead? Is it any wonder why women, who have evolved to respect strength and power, look not to men but instead to the government as their provider and protector?

But even with the government forcing men to provide for women in so many ways and with so little thanks for it, there are still consequences for the women and children who are told that they only need the benevolent hand of government instead of a real father or husband. We have whole generations of children growing up without men in their lives–the latest research says that one in every three children does not have a father living at home. The terrible consequences of this are readily observable. We have women becoming increasingly bitter and entitled despite receiving all that they demand and more, like spoiled children who throw a tantrum at the drop of a hat. We have men who feel increasingly bitter and alienated, finding it more and more difficult to support a society that not only fails to recognize their vital contributions, but blames them for all its problems, real or imagined.

I really don’t believe that the misandry that dominates our society can last that much longer in the scheme of things. It is a sickness that infects western society and one from which we will either recover…or die. To devalue half of our population, to exploit them, manipulate them, can only be sustained for so long.

Before I go, I just want to thank A Voice for Men Radio for featuring my videos on their blog. You guys are awesome and I really appreciate all that you do. In the unlikely event that you like my videos but haven’t seen A Voice for Men, check out the link below.

I’d also like to thank Benjamin and Soul Books for donating to my channel. I am so grateful for your support.

Until next time, this is Shield Wife and thanks for watching.

Why is it that feminists say they need so little and yet demand so much?

http://www.avoiceformen.com/