The Four Color Media Monitor

Over a dozen years ago, a leftist activist in San Francisco produced a comic called Foreskin Man, which built on antisemitic tropes and imagery in its supposed objection to the custom of circumcision in the Judaist religion. Here's a posting on Tablet about it:

Matthew Hess is the San Diego-based intactivist who wrote the San Francisco initiative. But he is also the author of a comics series—the first issue of which came out a year ago—that, to the Anti-Defamation League’s reading (and to my own), trades in anti-Semitic tropes to make its anti-circumcision case. It is bad enough that the hero, “Foreskin Man,” is a strong, blond Aryan-type. The villain is “Monster Mohel,” and as you can see from the illustration, he is straight out of a 19th-century pamphlet (note the nose, devious expression, hat, and even fingernails). “Nothing excites Monster Mohel more than cutting into the penile flesh of an eight-day-old boy,” the comic says.

Back in the 19th century, observant Judaists wearing what's now considered ultra-Orthodox attire were considered easy targets because they more or less wore identifiable outfits, even if said clothing may have been based on that of Polish and Lithuanian nobles. Whether one considers circumcision revolting, it's still no excuse for couching said comic in antisemitic stereotypes like evil grins, and besides, there are Christians who've practiced it too, if only for health benefits. So where did Mr. Hess get off resorting to such garbage stereotyping?

Here's some more from Intl. Business Times, and what they say here gives new meaning to "seeing is believing":

Foreskin Man, a comic book series created by MGMBillorg president Matthew Hess, features head of the Museum of Genital Integrity Miles Hastwick, who doubles as the aforementioned Foreskin Man.

The general premise of the comic is Hastwick trying to raise awareness of the evils of circumcision while doubling as the circumcision fighting Foreskin Man.

"Integrity"?!? Oh my god. Does anyone know how head-shakingly bizarre that sounds years later, when now, there's "gender reassignment surgery" going on in leftist bastions that's doing permanent damage to the human body? Gives a whole new meaning to the old adage, "you can't make this stuff up" if you view this through a modern day lens.

The general premise of the comic is Hastwick trying to raise awareness of the evils of circumcision while doubling as the circumcision fighting Foreskin Man.

He fought doctors in the first issue and African tribal leaders in the third issue, but it's the second issue that has generated the most heat.

The issue features Foreskin Man fighting off Monster Mohel from performing circumcision on baby Glick, a young Jewish boy. Hess draws Orthodox Jews as machine gun toting terrorists, intent on circumcising no matter what the costs. Not surprisingly this has upset many within the Jewish community.

This comic has drawn the serious ire of the ADL for a multitude of reasons, but one of the main reasons is the Monster Mohel depiction. In Jewish faith, the mohel is the person that performs the traditional Jewish circumcision and is generally highly respected within the community.

The ADL said, The comic book portrays mohels -- those specially trained to perform the traditional Jewish circumcision ceremony -- as rapacious, bloodthirsty and bent on harming children.

The comic's climax is when Foreskin Man triumphantly battles Monster Mohel and his goons. Foreskin Man is able to fight through all of the goons and save the young boy before delivering him to a safe community.

Sounds almost like a Mary Sue situation. That aside, if the comic's also unfair to African practitioners and medics who're doing it for health reasons, then even there, offense should've been taken. Say, what if it turns out this Mr. Hess never showed any of the same concerns for Muslim girls who were circumcised in what's called Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)? If the same concerns he supposedly had for boys didn't extend to girls, that says all you need to know where he's really coming from.

But now for the challenging question, in an era struck by the tragedy of transsexual surgeries that can serious damage the body: would a crude comic like Foreskin Man be published today, no matter how hypocritical it could look in a time when many of the same people who could've upheld its whole premise back then may now be advocating gender reassignment surgery? The sad answer is probably yes, because if they're prejudiced enough, then it makes no difference to them how contradictory it'd wind up becoming. What matters to them is undermining any belief system they view as anathema to their own repellent viewpoints. In other words, they'd be against circumcision, but perfectly fine with causing damage to many of the same physical organs altogether. Needless to say, these mutilation surgeries are, in their own way, the same thing as FGM, and a form of child abuse. Come to think of, even when performed on adults, it's a form of abuse. The same can be said when it comes to chemical/drug surgery. And goodness knows how many awful propaganda comics have come down the pike in the past decade upholding these repellent operations.

Labels: Africa, golden calf of LGBT, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, politics, science, violence