[Soon]

Originally Posted by Heart

Regarding genital mutilation as it relates to circumcision of boys and girls:

Why is it when something that is detrimental to women and girls is raised, there is always this, "yeah, but it happens to boys/men too!" kind of response? While the intentions may be fair-minded, the upshot is to minimize what happens to women and girls and refocus on injustices to men and boys. Unconscious as it may be, I think its a kind of denial of the horrific realities the patriarchy visits on women and girls.

Yes to this.

I was teaching a poem by Atwood in which she outlined various global injustices perpetuated against women; one of the stanzas dealt with Female Genital Mutilation.

The very first response was from a young man shouting out, "Yeah, well, we get circumcised...what about THAT!?" which was met with head nods all around. The women were silent. I then explained what would happen to the penis if they experienced the same degree of mutilation that the girls undergo during FGM.


Here is my earlier post:

Female Genital Mutilation and Male Circumsion is not analogous--both in intent, cultural justifications, the physical procedure or the consequences. I am not proposing that male circumcision is without its issues or is immune from criticism. I just don't believe that the two procedures can be fairly compared.


FGM involves the cutting off of entire portions of the female anatomy. For boys, the removal of the foreskin is more about removing an “extra” piece of skin than removing a center of pleasure. Removing the clitoris, which occurs in many FGM rituals, is done to help ensure that girls do not derive any pleasure from their sexuality, thus encouraging them to remain pure. The male equivalent of FGM would be the removal of the tip of the penis up to and including the removal of the penis and scrotum.

I am not cool with the description of the *extra piece of skin" portion of the description; however, a clitoridectomy (and other parts that can be cut during FGM--the labia--as well as sewn up--vagina) just does not equate to the act of removing the foreskin of males.



Beyond the dramatic differences in the actual physical procedures between the two, the intent, justifications and ramifications are completely distinct from one another.


Cutting off a clitoris (and labia and sewing up her vagina in many cases) is meant to completely eradicate ANY sexual pleasure--it is used as method of control. There are NO health benefits and many women have lifelong medical conditions afterwards--not to mention an inability to enjoy sex.

Some may say that the roots of circumcision was to not have the boys masturbate as much. This is not the case now. There have been recent studies that show how circumcision does reduce the rate of penile cancer, HIV, herpes and HPV (in turn, which helps protect women who are infected with HPV by men).

If I had a son, I would consider circumcision due to these studies. I don't think that circumcision is a mutilation, and I have a hard time with both these subjects being cast under the same umbrella.

The only common thread that I can see between Female Genital Mutilation and Circumcision performed on baby boys is that they both are performed without consent.

*****************************

Blush,

If you are not setting up a hierarchy or even equating the two, then why would you question the level of horror that people have in regards to FGM over circumcision? Your question is phrased with the insinuation that there should be an equal amount of horror expressed towards circumcision as to FGM. It makes perfect sense to me that people would naturally be more horrified at FGM than circumcision.