Is Intactivism itself a form of misandry?

Is it more compassionate to keep men in the dark?

I remember when I embarked on the futile task of confronting my status quo mother on my grief from suffering circumcision. I forget the exact words she used but the gist was “well what can you do about it now.”

Shes right, whats was done is done. Talking about it wont bring back your foreskin. Until we devolpe the technologies or perfect the procedures of foreskin restoration. Or even circumcision abolishment. 

It only accomplishes increases grief. I’ve noticed that men have an abundance of false consciousness and delusion about the world they live in and their true position and status within it. 

The true nature of their relationships with women and the true nature of the woman herself. They tend to adopt the most convenient and emotionally safe beliefs about these things. 

And I dont blame men. Men in reality are treated like shit. Circumcision is the proof of that. And focusing too much on how they are mistreated will likely only result in even more mistreatment from their male hostile species. (“I’ll give you something to cry about” syndrome.) 

So now the original question of this post. 

Is it psychologically harmful to reveal to men that they were indeed harmed, deformed and trespassed by this invasive procedure we benignly call circumcision?

Is ignorance truly bliss? Are men better off not knowing its implications? 

Think about it from the perspective of the misandrist. The misandrist would indeed attack the physical stigmata of the male, the penis. Literally attack his real manhood with real blades and crushing clamps. 

Then the misandrist will to further inflict psychological torture on the man. Reveal to him this atrocity that they committed and got away with while no forthcoming justice is in sight. 

The misandrist will invent a term like “Intactivism” to torment the circumcised man & remind him that he’s deformed and not whole. 

So in this regard. If misandry is the deliberate harming of mens minds and bodies. Yes “Intactivism” could be considered Misandristic. 

Regardless of its noble intent. That could be the damaging effect it has. 

The obvious answer is to not commit the violation in the first place. But unfortunately to do that you have to wake the men up that fact that a wrong has been done. Which men seem to be hellbent on denying and ignoring. 

Contrary to popular belief. Men adore women and organize their lives around gaining and retaining their approval and affection. 

A unspoken clause of womens approval price is male self devaluation. A man can’t prioritize women’s welfare if he’s concerned about his own. 

This is the incentive for male disassociation, delusion and strong man posturing. 

There are many more clauses as to why men tolerate circumcision and many more injustices that women have a direct influence over. 

But thats a topic for another day. 

Thank you for reading. Like & share the post, follow the blog and leave a comment. 

A worthwhile read on a similar topic: https://thewholetruth.data.blog/2025/05/28/circumcision-the-clearest-proof-of-male-disposability-devaluation-and-gynocentrism/

✍️ Written by [J.L. BARRETT]  

🔗 Follow us: @[Wholetruthblog] on [X/Twitter]  

#MaleBodilyAutonomy #StopMGM #Homosympathy