Feminism... grr - Page 2

[Sarah]

I agree Ellie- the cleanliness reason is a new made up reason.  Many cultures don't circumcise and still don't have the hot running water and indoor plumbing we now enjoy.  Our own US History, Native Americans, Spanish Explorers, Pilgrims, Colonists, Revolutionary War soldiers, Pioneers, Homesteaders, Immigrants... was made up almost entirely of intact non-circumcising people.  In fact- it seems that almost in sync- we developed plumbing and bathing contrivances right along with introducing medicalized circumcision- but it was moral, not physical hygiene that was the focus.  .  Circumcision was not developed because we were dirty...it wasn't pushed on the population until we were already on the road to bathing more (or more easily) 

"The popularity of tub-bathing grew as the country flourished and expanded. For example, only 200 people resided in Tucson, Ariz., in 1865. By 1871, however, the town would boast 3,000 people, a newspaper, a brewery, two doctors, several saloons and one bathtub."  

http://www.theplumber.com/usa.html

[MyBoysBlue]

What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?

http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html

Originally it was thought that circumcision would prevent masturbation which was considered the root of many illnesses, including insanity.

[Smokering]

There is definitely a tendency to view male circumcision as a sterile, hygienic, rich-white-nice-Western-people procedure, and female circumcision as a dirty, backwoodsy, superstitious-poor-brown-people thing. That's a total whitewash. College-educated parents can get their daughters circed at extremely clean, expensive, shiny hospitals in certain countries (I believe Egypt is one?), and will spout the EXACT same lines as US circing parents. "It'll make sex better for her; it's cleaner; nobody will want to marry/have sex with an intact girl; intact is gross".

There are also plenty of cases of forced male circ on pubescent boys; so even the "newborn vs adolescent" thing isn't as clear-cut as some people make out. Male circ can be a coming-of-age ritual, performed forcibly by "gangs", in entirely non-medical conditions.

I think it's perfectly possible to recognise trends within FGM and MGM - and I would tend to say that averaged out, FGM is probably more dangerous, unhygienic and sexually/emotionally damaging than MGM - without painting it as a black and white issue in FGM is unthinkable but MGM is OK.

[Quirky]

Of course I am totally opposed to all genital cutting, but....

.....it really chaps my hide when people assume that all cut women have been denied all sexual pleasure. YES genital cutting is going to diminish pleasure and YES the most extreme -- and also the least common -- forms have significant impacts in terms of ability to urinate, menstruate, have intercourse, and birth naturally. I think we can all agree that infibulation is worse than RIC as practiced in the US.

BUT -- the external clitoris is only that -- the external part. The internal organ is much larger with legs (the crura) running under the labia on both sides. So even women who have had their entire external clitoris removed report orgasm. According to Hanny Lightfoot Klein, even infibulated women report orgasm! Which is not to say it's universal that all cut women will be able to orgasm but it is also false that all cut women will NOT be able to orgasm.

We need to recognize that, as adaptable as the human body is and able to recover from even horrific physical injury, genital cutting is wrong and is likely to at least decrease sexual sensation in both males and females. And in many it will decrease it significantly, if not take it away entirely.

Plus, male genital cutting in the non-religious context was popularized in the UK and US for the exact reason of diminishing sexual enjoyment and discouraging masturbation. So those who assert that FGC ONLY and not MGC are about decreasing physical pleasure really don't know what they're talking about.

[catholic74]

As a conservative feminist (and yes, there is such a thing and there are a lot of us!), I am well aware that there are different types of feminists that believe different things.  Concerning the Female Genital mutilation, it will just take time for feminists of any kind (conservative or liberal)  to see the connection to circumcision.   It's a cultural denial, rather than a feminist stance, I think.  What I mean is that our culture has it's blinders on on this issue and it will be hard to pull those blinders off.  There is proof of that when we encounter groups that we would think would have sympathy or understanding for the intact view, but they just can't see, not yet, but they will.  I believe in time, we will all see that "human rights" includes so many things....including circumcision.

[jenP]

Originally Posted by catholic74 

 It's a cultural denial, rather than a feminist stance, I think.  What I mean is that our culture has it's blinders on on this issue and it will be hard to pull those blinders off. 

That is a good point, and a good way to put it, thank you catholic74. It's not so much that feminists are so wrapped up in defending females' rights that they ignore male rights, it's that they are Americans and as such see male circumcision as good and healthy and harmless physically, psychologically, and sexually.

[jenP]

Originally Posted by Sarah 

I agree Ellie- the cleanliness reason is a new made up reason.  Many cultures don't circumcise and still don't have the hot running water and indoor plumbing we now enjoy.  Our own US History, Native Americans, Spanish Explorers, Pilgrims, Colonists, Revolutionary War soldiers, Pioneers, Homesteaders, Immigrants... was made up almost entirely of intact non-circumcising people.  In fact- it seems that almost in sync- we developed plumbing and bathing contrivances right along with introducing medicalized circumcision- but it was moral, not physical hygiene that was the focus.  .  Circumcision was not developed because we were dirty...it wasn't pushed on the population until we were already on the road to bathing more (or more easily) 

thank you, thank you, THANK you for pointing that out!!!

It really, REALLY gets under my skin when people say that circumcision is no longer necessary because we have easy access to soap and water in these modern times. I am glad that they DO realize that circumcision is unnecessary, however I hate to see the notion reinforced that it EVER was necessary for cleanliness and health. It is not now and never was necessary for cleanliness and health!! People nowadays may choose to shower or bathe, and retract the foreskin and rinse in the shower, but it is for AESTHETICS; to look and smell nice in order to fit in with our culture which abhors body odors and secretions. It is NOT necessary for health. The "Native Americans, Spanish Explorers, Pilgrims, Colonists, Revolutionary War soldiers, Pioneers Homesteaders, Immigrants..." weren't dropping from penis infections, and neither are people today who don't circumcise and don't have modern indoor plumbing either.

HANDWASHING is important for health. Keeping food preparation/serving clean and away from waste is important for health. Keeping sewage sequestered and treated is important for health. This is why modern plumbing/washing/sanitation keep us healthier. Keeping your armpits and crotch washed and sweet-smelling may be important for your social life, but it really doesn't matter to your health.

I wish more intactivists would get this. When they say, "Bah! You don't need to circumcise your son, he can just choose to wash his penis!" - well, their heart is in the right place and that is great they would argue against circumcising, but they are at the same time reinforcing the very wrong idea that if you don't circumcise your son, he will need to wash very thoroughly and regularly or else face infections and problems....the idea that an intact penis is risky and high maintenance...which is why lots of parents end up circumcising!