It isn't comparable in terms of pain or long term effects. The cultural and religious issues surrounding them are totally different. You can stretch it to make it relevant (50 years ago they circumcised boys so they wouldn't masturbate! That's totally like circumcising a little girl so she'll never enjoy sex!), but its like equating removing a non-cancerous mole with removing a leg.
@clevernamehere: Here's the thing--if your issue is safety and misogyny, then male circumcision has no place in this conversation. If your issue (as many people's are) is CHOICE, then (infant/childhood)male circumcision is the EXACT same issue. I don't think those of us who bring it up are in any way arguing that male circumcision is as dangerous--it's not, not even if you put both instances in a hospital setting. My biggest issue here is the people it is being done to have no agency whatsoever.
@clevernamehere: It certainly does ignore the horrors of FGM to EQUATE FGM with male circumcision. At the same time, it's a difference of degree rather than kind. I am opposed to both.
Cultural relativism: the refuge of apologists everywhere. Culture isn't static, and it sure as hell isn't defined by the women actually harmed by this practice.
Sums it up. I realize that religious practices are inarguable to those who subscribe to whatever particular religion. I get it. This realization does not in any way convince me that cutting up little girls is okay. It's just not. And for any of those who argue that circumcision is the same thing as FGM, here's the difference: FGM was designed specifically to make sex unenjoyable and undesirable for girls so they aren't promiscuous and so they won't cheat on their husbands. That is its' sole purpose. Circumcision is also a religion-derived practice BUT IT IS NOT PERFORMED TO PREVENT INFIDELITY OR REDUCE SEXUAL ENJOYMENT. That's why it's different. The only similarity is that boys are typically circumcised against their will because they are infants and unable to protest.
@LaComtesse: Yeah it's absolutely horrible. I can't understand how some people justify it by saying that since they're babies "they can't feel anything". Total B.S.
I realize that the optimal choice would be for this stuff not to happen at all. But, barring that, can't they give the girl a local anesthetic? Can't they NOT do it on a floor? And if the mother is so proud of her tradition, why doesn't she have the guts to tell her daughter what she's doing to her up front? This is all bullshit, pure and simple.
Since God created female genitalia as beautiful and intricate as it is, how is it respectful to "God" to cut off what She/He has so artfully produced?
This is sickening. Wrong. Heartbreaking. Enraging. And "culturally" fucked up. I come from a heavy Irish background and my culture is filled to the brim with alcoholism. Sure, it's in the culture, but the savagery that comes with alcoholic rage is ravaging. Fuck cultural horror shows. They need to stop. Period.
@LaComtesse: Jews and Muslims are circumcised, but this is just the removal of the foreskin. It hurts, I'm sure, but in no way compares to having your labia removed or your clit cut out. That would be like cutting off the head of a penis. Also, some of these female circumcisions involve sewing up the vagina so a woman has her period for up to 20 days as there is only a tiny pin hole for the blood to come out. When she is ready for sex, she must be torn open first by a doctor and then by a penis.
@lipslarue: In terms of medical safety, you can't compare the way most female circumcisions are done to the way most (Western) male ones are done. And yes, female circumcision has more risks. However, I've always felt like that is like saying it's better to cut off your pink than your hand. I don't want ANYTHING cut off.
I look at it from the point of view of you are mutilating a body part of a person who has zero say in the matter. Not cool.
Stop worrying about respecting other cultures, people. That's all fine and good if the cultural practice in question is eating some weird food you've never heard of or wearing certain garments you'd never think to wear. But MISOGYNY and VIOLENCE are not cultural practices worthy of respect. They are WRONG, no matter who's doing it.
I have no problem with an aspect of one culture being defined as more humanistic than an aspect of another culture. It's not 'better', or more advanced, or what the hell ever, its more humane, it has more dignity, its more respectful of a person's innate right to the things that we as human beings are entitled to. That child is screaming in terror. THAT IS FUCKING WRONG. And then the mother has the fucking gall to stand there and say "we don't know why we do it, but its something we always did!?". You know what else some cultures did because they always did it? Bury girl babies alive.
Wow, the mom says this about her daughter's "circumcision":
"This is the practice of the Kurdish people for as long as anyone can remember," said her mother, Aisha Hameed, 30, a housewife in this ethnically mixed town 50 miles north of Baghdad. "We don't know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it."
Religion has compelled people to do some really fucked up things in this world. And continues to do so.
I always have a hard time understanding how documentarists can film such things without doing anything.
I realise it's probably unrealistic, I assume it would be done anyway, maybe just later, but to just stand by and let it happen?
She films it because it's wrong, and so it seems wrong not to try and stop it. Or maybe it is, on a larger scale, easier to stop other mutilations by documenting this one?
I think I might be getting kind of rambly and repetitive, but I just don't get it...
@Aeooo: They can't stop it. It isn't even illegal, so unless they are willing to kidnap the girl (who they probably couldn't get on a plane so they'd have to live in Kurdistan) there's nothing they can do.
I couldn't be the person filming it, but I see why they do. One Western documentary can bring in NGOs, money and pressure to change the law.
@leesie: The circumcision that is performed on baby boys is nothing like this. You can't even compare the two. And cutting off a little bit of skin on the penis will not stop the boy from future sexual enjoyment. It really confuses me when people say both are equally bad. I'm Jewish and if I have sons they will most certainly be circumcised because that is part of my religion.
Obvi, FGM is terrible though because it is NOT for religion and causes women a lifetime of pain.
STOP CHOPPING BODY PARTS OFF UNWILLING PARTICIPANTS!!!! (Yes, I hate caps as well as exclamation points, but this warranted both.)
If girls want to have their clits/labia removed and choose to do so: FINE. If guys want to do so: FINE. But CHILDREN cannot make this decision nor should it be made for them unless medically necessary somehow.
I was just bitching about this the other day. It's horrific and heartbreaking! Female genital mutilation is practiced in order to insure the sexual "purity" of a young woman until marriage. At which point, her husband can sully her up as much as he wants and sometimes without her consent. Some women are forced to cover themselves in order to discourage men from falling into lust by gazing at them. Everyday I'm flabbergasted by the concessions women have to make in order to assuage the desires of men. Why is it that the men are never asked to alter or change anything about themselves. Why can't they sew their penises to their tummies or glue their eyes shut? The "sinning" is taking place in your head, so why do the women suffer from men's assumed inability to exercise self-control. I hate this belief that women are so libidinous and seductive that the only way to control the hearts and minds of men is to compromise the rights of women.
"Why is it that the men are never asked to alter or change anything about themselves."
But in many cultures, it's the males who are circumsized. Granted it's done when they are younger and usually far less extreme than what is done to these girls but it still happens.
Why can't people of ALL genders stop listening to crazy talk from the book of some invisible sky daddy? How can you mutilate your own child in the name of some imaginary character?
@truckasaurus: I'm pretty neutral on male circumcision, but I think anyone who brings up male circumcision in a discussion of female circumcision deserves an automatic fail. It isn't at all the same thing in terms of pain or results.
@clevernamehere: Did I say it was the same thing? I was just pointing out that contrary to the OP's original statement, men are in fact asked to change things about themselves. Not to mention that I clarified my response by saying that male circumcision a lot less extreme than FGM.
My point wasn't that they are one in the same. I just wanted to point out that it DOES happen and both practices are unacceptable.
@truckasaurus: She is talking about women having to change themselves for men (or the fear of what men might do) and how there isn't the same push for men to do things for women. Male circumcision is pretty much never argued for on grounds that women prefer it, so its irrelevant.
@clevernamehere: You're definitely right that it's primary focus isn't because women prefer it. But what was once a religious practice - done as part of the covenant - has in reality become a cultural practice. Circumcised men are the norm in most of North America, Jewish or not. I know girls who are grossed out by uncircumcised men and guys who feel uncomfortable with the existence of their foreskin. Most people in the US do it to their babies because of the idea - true or not - that it "looks better" and is cleaner.
I guess I just have a real problem with circumcision in all it's forms. Clearly if one has to be wiped out first I certainly hope it's FGM but I don't think that male circumcision should be looked at as if it's no big deal.
(I would also like to apologize if my first comments came off as nasty. I re-read them and they definitely had a tone I didn't intend)
@truckasaurus: The reason I'm neutral on male circumcision is because the vast majority of men have no negative feelings about it and there isn't any conculsive evidence that it does any damage. FGM is designed to scar women.
I do think it is a little messed up to cut off a part of a baby, but I don't have a penis. Its not my place to tell men how they should see their own experience when the change is more cosmetic than anything else.
Comparing the two is very "What about the Menz!" but it also can weaken the case againist FGM since so many guys are okay with the fact they were cut and can then start thinking FGM is somehow on par.
@clevernamehere: I am not comparing the two or saying they are the exactly same, only similar. I'm not negating the horrors of FGM by bringing up male circumcision in order to prove my point that cultural norms aside, it's never right to cut off pieces your child.
As far as negative feelings about male circumcision, I think the lack of outspoken criticism is a perfect example of ignorance of the issue in the west. Just as the Kurdish women in the above story see no harm in their actions and see it as a cultural thing, so do people who choose to circumcise their sons. Would you condone a Kurdish man who said of his daughter "well, I don't agree with FGM, but I don't have a vagina, so it's up to my wife"? That's how these things continue. Apathy and the blind following of social norms because they've always been that way and not many people openly have a problem with it.
I am in no way trying to say that male circumcision is on par with female circumcision. No one can argue that functionally handicapping someone is the same as removing what may well be superfluous skin - but both of them are mutilation of an unwilling participant. I can be against both, even if one is way worse than the other. To say otherwise is like saying someone who is against beating a child with a baseball bat can't also be against beating a kid with a hand. Both are abuse but on different levels.
@truckasaurus: Some uncut men eventually need to be circumcised because of infections or physical problems. I have yet to hear of a woman who needs to have her labia sewn shut or her clitoris removed, even from the most traumatic childbirth. Male circumcision has minor health benefits and no proven damage. It is not the same and you trivialize one when you bring up the other.
Back in high school, in my women's sociology course, FGM was always the most heatedly debated topic. It seems for the most part, people were torn between respecting the honoring of cultural traditions and the fact that it IS mutilation, and for the most part, incomparable to male circumcision.
I am still wary of this topic. I was always of the mind that this is a horrific experience, but I was always countered back then by being accused of disrespecting their culture. The whole thing makes me scowl.
12/29/08
It isn't comparable in terms of pain or long term effects. The cultural and religious issues surrounding them are totally different. You can stretch it to make it relevant (50 years ago they circumcised boys so they wouldn't masturbate! That's totally like circumcising a little girl so she'll never enjoy sex!), but its like equating removing a non-cancerous mole with removing a leg.
It is the ultimate "What about the Menz!"
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
Male circumcision is closer to piercing an infant's ears than it is to FGM. It ignores the horrors of FGM to equate the two.
12/29/08
At the same time, it's a difference of degree rather than kind. I am opposed to both.
12/29/08
@SarahMC: Well put.
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
Sums it up. I realize that religious practices are inarguable to those who subscribe to whatever particular religion. I get it. This realization does not in any way convince me that cutting up little girls is okay. It's just not. And for any of those who argue that circumcision is the same thing as FGM, here's the difference: FGM was designed specifically to make sex unenjoyable and undesirable for girls so they aren't promiscuous and so they won't cheat on their husbands. That is its' sole purpose. Circumcision is also a religion-derived practice BUT IT IS NOT PERFORMED TO PREVENT INFIDELITY OR REDUCE SEXUAL ENJOYMENT. That's why it's different. The only similarity is that boys are typically circumcised against their will because they are infants and unable to protest.
12/29/08
I can't believe this is done at all, let alone without any sort of anesthetic.
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
This is sickening. Wrong. Heartbreaking. Enraging. And "culturally" fucked up. I come from a heavy Irish background and my culture is filled to the brim with alcoholism. Sure, it's in the culture, but the savagery that comes with alcoholic rage is ravaging. Fuck cultural horror shows. They need to stop. Period.
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
I look at it from the point of view of you are mutilating a body part of a person who has zero say in the matter. Not cool.
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
I have no problem with an aspect of one culture being defined as more humanistic than an aspect of another culture. It's not 'better', or more advanced, or what the hell ever, its more humane, it has more dignity, its more respectful of a person's innate right to the things that we as human beings are entitled to. That child is screaming in terror. THAT IS FUCKING WRONG. And then the mother has the fucking gall to stand there and say "we don't know why we do it, but its something we always did!?". You know what else some cultures did because they always did it? Bury girl babies alive.
12/29/08
12/29/08
"This is the practice of the Kurdish people for as long as anyone can remember," said her mother, Aisha Hameed, 30, a housewife in this ethnically mixed town 50 miles north of Baghdad. "We don't know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it."
Religion has compelled people to do some really fucked up things in this world. And continues to do so.
12/29/08
12/29/08
I realise it's probably unrealistic, I assume it would be done anyway, maybe just later, but to just stand by and let it happen?
She films it because it's wrong, and so it seems wrong not to try and stop it. Or maybe it is, on a larger scale, easier to stop other mutilations by documenting this one?
I think I might be getting kind of rambly and repetitive, but I just don't get it...
12/29/08
I couldn't be the person filming it, but I see why they do. One Western documentary can bring in NGOs, money and pressure to change the law.
12/29/08
Those poor girls.
12/29/08
Obvi, FGM is terrible though because it is NOT for religion and causes women a lifetime of pain.
12/29/08
12/29/08
If girls want to have their clits/labia removed and choose to do so: FINE. If guys want to do so: FINE. But CHILDREN cannot make this decision nor should it be made for them unless medically necessary somehow.
12/29/08
12/29/08
"Why is it that the men are never asked to alter or change anything about themselves."
But in many cultures, it's the males who are circumsized. Granted it's done when they are younger and usually far less extreme than what is done to these girls but it still happens.
Why can't people of ALL genders stop listening to crazy talk from the book of some invisible sky daddy? How can you mutilate your own child in the name of some imaginary character?
12/29/08
12/29/08
My point wasn't that they are one in the same. I just wanted to point out that it DOES happen and both practices are unacceptable.
12/29/08
12/29/08
I guess I just have a real problem with circumcision in all it's forms. Clearly if one has to be wiped out first I certainly hope it's FGM but I don't think that male circumcision should be looked at as if it's no big deal.
(I would also like to apologize if my first comments came off as nasty. I re-read them and they definitely had a tone I didn't intend)
12/29/08
I do think it is a little messed up to cut off a part of a baby, but I don't have a penis. Its not my place to tell men how they should see their own experience when the change is more cosmetic than anything else.
Comparing the two is very "What about the Menz!" but it also can weaken the case againist FGM since so many guys are okay with the fact they were cut and can then start thinking FGM is somehow on par.
12/29/08
As far as negative feelings about male circumcision, I think the lack of outspoken criticism is a perfect example of ignorance of the issue in the west. Just as the Kurdish women in the above story see no harm in their actions and see it as a cultural thing, so do people who choose to circumcise their sons. Would you condone a Kurdish man who said of his daughter "well, I don't agree with FGM, but I don't have a vagina, so it's up to my wife"? That's how these things continue. Apathy and the blind following of social norms because they've always been that way and not many people openly have a problem with it.
I am in no way trying to say that male circumcision is on par with female circumcision. No one can argue that functionally handicapping someone is the same as removing what may well be superfluous skin - but both of them are mutilation of an unwilling participant. I can be against both, even if one is way worse than the other. To say otherwise is like saying someone who is against beating a child with a baseball bat can't also be against beating a kid with a hand. Both are abuse but on different levels.
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
I am still wary of this topic. I was always of the mind that this is a horrific experience, but I was always countered back then by being accused of disrespecting their culture. The whole thing makes me scowl.