Mothering Forum banner

Arguments to persuade feminists/women of the madness of circ

4K views 110 replies 20 participants last post by  Frankly Speaking 
#1 ·
I have a couple of feminist friends who just don't seem to get it on circ. Now, it probably doesn't matter too much because one of them doesn't want children and the other one's dh is adamantly anti-circ (he's circed). But they're close friends, and great women, and it just bugs the crap out of me that two educated, professional women who have dedicated their careers to civil rights and women's health and rights, respectively, can be so clueless.

So I was thinking up some analogies and arguments to appeal to feminists/women (recognizing that not all feminists are women and vice versa), and just thought I'd share. (I don't believe in any of these arguments, but I do think they show logically how insane circumcision is and what a brutal violation of human rights it is). Not all of these are original (heck, all of them might be non-original but I haven't seen some of these laid out other places.)

If it's OK to circ a baby boy because he won't remember it, is it OK to drug a woman and rape her because she won't remember it? Isn't circ worse in that situation - assuming the woman isn't beaten during the rape and assuming her rapist uses a condom and lubricant, so there's no physical trauma, she hasn't been physically harmed whereas a baby boy has had part of his genitals sliced off without his consent.

If it's OK to circ a boy because hell, men aren't as sensitive as women and everyone knows that the clitoris has twice as many nerve endings as the penis, shouldn't the answer be to perform partial clitoridectomies on baby girls so that boys and girls have equal numbers of nerve endings?

If it's OK to circ a boy because he might get penile cancer, shouldn't we amputate the breasts of baby girls at birth, because girls are far more likey to contract and die of breast cancer than boys are to contract and die of penile cancer?

Since girls get far more UTIs than boys, shouldn't we genitally modify baby girls prophylactically at birth?

And I'm sure there are more...any comments. additional analogies, or thoughts (besides puking, I realize these arguments are repugnant - but so is circ!)
 
See less See more
#28 ·
I'm going to ignore all the feminist-bashing on this thread and simply answer the OP.

Tell your friends that feminism is about CHOICE and EQUAL RIGHTS. People have the right to choose what happens with their own bodies. No one has rights to anyone else's body. If females have a right to genital integrity then so do males. Condemning FGM but failing to condemn MGM isn't being a feminist, it's being a hypocrite.

I can't imagine a feminist failing to condemn FGM even if it didn't involve removing all external genitalia, and was done only to infants in a sanitary environment by doctors.

Yes, women are greatly harmed by the patriarchy we live in, in so many ways that it needs its own thread, but not in the circ forum. And yes, women have historically had it much worse than men. However, these facts are completely irrelevent to the question of whether infants' genitals should be protected (ALL infants' genitals).

Please don't refuse to support women's rights just because some people don't make anti-circ part of their agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pugmadmama
I hang out at a few feminst boards. Every few months someone stops by to tell us what else we should be doing as feminists. Everything from collectively adopting Veganism to embracing the anti-choice agenda. Funny thing is, I don't see these same groups putting into feminism what they expect out of it. Why? Because we are all trained to believe that women are supposed to stop what they are doing and start doing whatever work is requested of them.

Male circumcision is slowly becoming a feminist issue. Although, I must say, in NO THANKS to the vast majority of the male circumcision activists, who react so poorly when they find out that women who have dedicated their lives to protesting, marching and working in the feminist movement aren't also ready to adopt their agenda on a moment's notice (reread this thread to get an idea of what I'm talking about.)
Good points! I don't expect Women's Rights organizations to put MGM front and center of their agenda any more than I would expect a Men's Rights organization to put FGM front and center of their agenda.

We individual humans, though, should all support HUMAN rights. No one should be refusing to support any one else's rights. If we don't all support everyone's rights, then no one's rights will be protected. "No one is free when others are oppressed."

We're all in this together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah
What part of Feminism does mutilating males help?
Who claimed that mutilating males helps feminism???

Let's not adopt a "whoever's not with us is against us" attitude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suseyblue
ot- pugmad, if you don't want to be referred to as 'pro-abortion', please don't refer to me (and other pro-life, anti-abortion, whichever- feminists- see my sig) as 'anti-choice'. at least not here on a board where we are not supposed to blatantly disrespect other posters.
If you simply wouldn't have an abortion yourself, then you are anti-abortion. If, however, you think it is your place to make that decision for ALL OTHER WOMEN, then you are anti-choice. If you think I should be denied MY right to choose for MY body, then "anti-choice" is an accurate label. Pro-choice people do not promote abortion, we simply defend a woman's right to choose, so it would be inaccurate to describe us as "pro-abortion."

Quote:

Originally Posted by laidbackmomto2
How a "Feminist" can embrace the effort to end FMG (because it is performed on girls) and not also embrace the effort to end MGM (claiming that it's a "men's issue"), completely boggles my mind. Notice I say "embrace"...not necessarily dedicating their entire waking moments to the cause.
Thank you for making that distinction. Anti-MGMers should "embrace" anti-FGM (and I'm sure most of them do), just as anti-FGMers should "embrace" anti-MGM (and, again, I'm sure most of them do).

Quote:

Originally Posted by pugmadmama
Those women are taught to hate their bodies and all women's bodies. They were not born with that belief, it was taught to them by the misogynist culture they live in (that we all live in ), that gave rise to FGM.
I agree with this, also.

Okay, so I lied. I didn't confine myself to the OP.
 
#29 ·
I think what men have or have not done to women is not the point when we are talking about MGM. These are babies NOT men. They have no idea of the politics of which they are born. That helpless baby doesn't know that his gender has/does cause pain and suffering of women. When he is strapped down and brutally , sexually violated he doesn't know that some men have done the same to women. He has no concept that he is male. I think to say MGM is just a "male" issue is wrong it is about harming babies and children. Gender shouldn't matter , MGM and FGM are the same human rights issue. I honestly don't see how people can seperate them in their minds. Cutting genitals is cutting genitals , no? I guess what I'm trying to say is in the moment of the act of circing a boy , the history of men/women doesn't matter all that matters is that baby being violated. Because women are opressed and also circed doesn't make the act of circing that helpless baby boy any less awful. I don't think I'm explaining this well. The baby boy HAS NO POWER it doesn't matter at all that he will have power when he is man. I think dismissing the horror of MGM on the premise that men are opressors/in power is absurd and illogical.

Quote:
Tell your friends that feminism is about CHOICE and EQUAL RIGHTS. People have the right to choose what happens with their own bodies. No one has rights to anyone else's body. If females have a right to genital integrity then so do males. Condemning FGM but failing to condemn MGM isn't being a feminist, it's being a hypocrite.
WELL SAID!
 
#31 ·
when i was forced into a (legal! so don't tell me this is completely ot; parents having omnipotent control over their children's body IS what this forum is about) abortion at 17, the dr telling me to stop screaming and the nurses holding me down weren't telling me all about my glorious freedom to 'choose'. there couldn't possibly be a pro-abortion agenda within radical feminism, then?

i asked to not be referred to as 'anti-choice', and i'll ask again. if i can be polite enough to call you 'pro-choice' here instead of 'pro-abortion' after that (in no way isolated) incident, because it is how you reference your beliefs (even if i think it is hogwash) you can do the same.

suse
 
#32 ·
Feminism does not condone forced abortions. The pro-choice movement is about each woman choosing for herself whether to have an abortion or whether to continue her pregnancy. Forcing someone to have an abortion is just as anti-choice and anti-feminist as forcing someone to continue a pregnancy.

Even if it wasn't an isolated incident, you can't blame feminism. Blame the doctors who do it.

Again, if you acknowledge that I should be able to choose to have an abortion, just as I acknowledge that you should be able to choose to NOT have an abortion, then you are not anti-choice.

It isn't a matter of politeness, it's a matter of accuracy. I am pro-choice because I support BOTH choices: It's up to the woman. I do not promote the choice of abortion, so therefore it would be inaccurate to label me pro-abortion.

I need to be able to distinguish the women who would never have an abortion themselves, because they're personally against it, but who support the right of other women to make that choice for themselves. They are the ones who can call themselves simply anti-abortion instead of anti-choice.
 
#34 ·
I am opening the thread back up.

After consulting with other mods and Cynthia, I am going to leave it open.

However, the discussion needs to stay focused on circumcision. Debates about abortion semantics are inappropriate for this forum. If the posts continue to discuss abortion, I'll have to remove it entirely.

You are invited to start another thread in TAO about abortion verbage, but this current thread can only remain open if you return the discussion to the subject of circumcision.

I hope this will happen because I think this is an important discussion.
 
#35 ·
"Maybe because Feminist organizations and feminist indivdually are already stretched too thin?"

I don't get this. How much thinner does one have to stretch to say "all genital mutilation is wrong" instead of just "FGM is wrong"?


Anyway, back to the OP, while all these arguments and analogies are valid, maybe even persuasive, why should one need them at all? Isn't it enough to say that no person has the right to permanently remove a healthy, functioning part of another person's body? How could anybody possibly argue with that, unless I guess they believe in ownership (slavery)? And feminists don't believe in that. Why is it so hard to bring it to its logical conclusion? You don't force choices on people. Period.
 
#36 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by blueviolet
"Maybe because Feminist organizations and feminist indivdually are already stretched too thin?"

I don't get this. How much thinner does one have to stretch to say "all genital mutilation is wrong" instead of just "FGM is wrong"?

...
It's not a far leap from "why won't you just say this" to "why aren't you fighting for this" to "why isn't this the focus of your fight?" The feminists I know are not unreasonable women, but they also didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They are wary of being sucked into other people's (and, yes, especially men's) causes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueviolet
...Anyway, back to the OP, while all these arguments and analogies are valid, maybe even persuasive, why should one need them at all? Isn't it enough to say that no person has the right to permanently remove a healthy, functioning part of another person's body? ...
Well said.
 
#37 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pugmadmama
They are wary of being sucked into other people's (and, yes, especially men's) causes.
How is INFANT circumcision a MEN'S cause???? These are babies NOT men. What an ugly attidude some people have. If it was grown men being circed then it wouldn't really be an issue now would it, since adults have the legal right and obligation to consent to medical procedures.
I really don't get this perspective at all. Maybe these women should witness RIC and all tribal male circs and see if that'll change their minds.
 
#38 ·
Both MGM and FGM can be classified under "infant issue" and "human rights issue," but MGM can additionally be viewed as a male issue, and FGM can additionally be viewed as a female issue. Some of the people in this forum have sigs that say things like "genital integrity for all," but others have sigs that focus on MGM, like "if men were meant to have a foreskin, they would be born with one." I don't say to people in the latter group "Hey! How come you haven't taken up the anti-FGM cause?!" I'm pretty sure that if I asked them if they are opposed to FGM, they would say yes, but I don't criticize them for focusing on fighting MGM. I think most of the activists in this forum are focused on fighting MGM, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as they don't actually say that FGM is okay. So I don't think there's anything wrong with an anti-FGM activist wanting to focus on FGM or a feminist organization wanting to focus on women's rights. I'm sure most of them aren't ok with MGM, even if they're focused on fighting different issues.
 
#39 ·
I think one reason most here (especially those of us living in the US) focus on MGM is because it is common and accepted here (meaning the US) by many.
FGM is already illegal here (again in the US) so at least on the home front MGM is what we are fighting against.
I would gather that everyone against MGM here at MDC is equally against FGM, but the same can not be said the other way around. I have found that a lot of people I have talked with irl and online do not feel MGM is a human's right violation or even wrong.
I didn't really think we were talking about feminist on a whole taken up MGM on their platform but trying to convince feminist on a personal level why MGM should be something they are horrified by just as they are about FGM. I would love to see a lot of strong women stand up against MGM and see it for what it is though! I do think it would be great if feminist groups would fight for genital integrity in general and not just for females.
 
#40 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheacoby
I think one reason most here (especially those of us living in the US) focus on MGM is because it is common and accepted here (meaning the US) by many.
FGM is already illegal here (again in the US) so at least on the home front MGM is what we are fighting against.
I have a world-wide perspective. Things don't bother me less just because they happen on the other side of the ocean. FGM is common and accepted in other parts of the world, and not enough people are doing anything to stop it. There needs to be global outrage and international pressure. Even here, where it's illegal, it still happens sometimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheacoby
I would gather that everyone against MGM here at MDC is equally against FGM, but the same can not be said the other way around. I have found that a lot of people I have talked with irl and online do not feel MGM is a human's right violation or even wrong.
I think most people who believe in genital integrity believe in it for both sexes. I think there's an equal number of people who take a stance against MGM who don't take a stance against FGM as there are people who take a stance against FGM but not MGM. Historically, feminists have helped other causes, but haven't been helped BY other causes. [The feminist movement has been one of the strongest promoters of equal rights for all races, but the anti-racism movement hasn't really returned the favor of helping women achieve equal rights.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheacoby
I didn't really think we were talking about feminist on a whole taken up MGM on their platform but trying to convince feminist on a personal level why MGM should be something they are horrified by just as they are about FGM.
I think we've been talking about both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheacoby
I would love to see a lot of strong women stand up against MGM and see it for what it is though!
There are a lot of strong women standing up against MGM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheacoby
I do think it would be great if feminist groups would fight for genital integrity in general and not just for females.
Would you say the same thing about anti-MGM groups? That they should fight against FGM? Let's not have a double standard. It would be easier for an anti-MGM organization to simply oppose all genital mutilation, male and female, without spreading itself too thin (or having to alter its focus or its message), than it would be for a women's rights organization, which is trying to defend ALL areas of women's rights.
 
#41 ·
The reason MGM is such an issue is because it is here and now. It touches every family in America either directly or indirectly. It is an issue that we can all have a part in ending and we can see the results in the work we do.

FGM is a different story. It is practiced half way around the world by people we can not reach. All of the avenues we have to fight it will never reach those who support and do it.

We can end MGM in this country and I have no doubt that there will eventually be a MGM law to match eht FGM law. Unfortunately, we can not pass laws in other countries. We can only spread our influence. Unfortunately, FGM continues unabated and mostly unaffected by our laws and condemnation just as MGM continues here. Fortunately, the US responds to global condemnation of it's practices and there is a growing condemnation of MGM around the world as evidenced by stronger and more definitave statements of the world's medical organizations against MGM and a growing awareness in the world's media of our dirty little practice. It's all having an effect and that effect is noticeable and is documented.

I suspect that everyone here is really an intactivist for both males and females but realize the difficulty of changing practices on the other side of the globe by a population that is largely uneducated and unreachable by the means we have available to us. We are simply doing what we can with theresources we have available to us. I don't think this same thing applies to the feminists who support genital integrity for females and not for males. I just don't see it as dividing their efforts and making them less effective in their primary cause.

Frank
 
#42 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
FGM is a different story. It is practiced half way around the world by people we can not reach. All of the avenues we have to fight it will never reach those who support and do it.
You don't think American opposition to FGM could help end the practice? I happen to think it's the only thing that could end the practice, and that the practice will never end without it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
FGM continues unabated and mostly unaffected by our laws and condemnation
We're not condemning it enough. We need the kind of opposition that we had to S. Africa's appartheid. We were certainly able to affect that, weren't we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
We are simply doing what we can with theresources we have available to us. I don't think this same thing applies to the feminists who support genital integrity for females and not for males. I just don't see it as dividing their efforts and making them less effective in their primary cause.
The women's rights movement also has limited resources, and a LOT to accomplish. I really don't think there are a lot of feminists who support genital integrity for females but not for males -- it would go against the feminist principle of equal rights between the sexes. Do you acknowledge, though, that MGM isn't particularly a women's rights issue? I mean unless you're talking about a mother's right to be fully informed about the procedure: that aspect of it.
 
#43 ·
Yes, our opposition will help but it is the men and women who went to Africa that came back and reported to the media that made a difference. You also have to remember that other nations took up this cause far before the US did. All of the industrialized nations of the world now have anti-FGM laws yet it still persists in Africa. Since internet access is not available to a large portion of the population there, it is difficult for every day citizens like us to have any direct influence. It is a far different situation here in America for MGM. The answer is to keep influencing the media here to keep them writing about it to keep it on top of the politicians minds. I think that's the most effect we can have in Africa.

America had little effect in the ending of aparthied. We certainly supported it once it started and I have no doubt that we had some influence in keeping the movement going. However, the end of aparthied was a movement that started in S. Africa and we would have made little difference had we tried to start the movement. We have to give the credit to the South Africans for that. Unfortunately, Africans have not started the movement to end FGM yet and they view our efforts as meddlesome in their affairs. Once they see the issue, I have no doubt we will be influential in ending the practice along with the rest of the industrialized world.

I certainly think MGM is a feminists issue. How can you advocate for rights for yourself while denying rights for others? That just doesn't jive. To benefit from your rights, you must support rights for all. I believe women have a right not to have to comply to social conventions and cause pain to their offspring. I think they have a right to have a bond with their sons that circumcision interferes with. I think they have a right not to have to explain to their sons why they took liberties with his most personal and private parts. There are some who speculate that male aggression has roots in circumcision. Don't women have a right not to be subjected to that aggression if it's true? Don't women have a right not to be subjected to abrasive and overly vigouous sexual realtions with their SOs? Don't women have a right to have a partner who is not prematurely impotent because of circumcision? Don't American mothers have the right to know that circumcision will not benefit their beloved son in any way? Is it right for mothers to have to tend to their son's circumcision wounds? Is it right for mothers to lose their sons because of circumcision accidents?

There is no question that male circumcision affects women and I think it is their right to not be affected when there is no benefit to be derived from the procedure. I certainly see this as a women's issue because women are definitely affected. They may not be directly affected but women in America are not directly affected by female circumcision in Africa. They are certainly more affected by male circumcision in America yet they don't take up the banner. Why is that? Because they don't see the harm that it causes them. As we educate the rest of America, we will also educate the feminists. While they may never see the benefit to them, they will certainly benefit.

Frank
 
#44 ·
SBF... I want to tell you about my mom. She talks about me all the time. She tells people that I am an activist against circumcision... and they say (the PRESUME)... "Oh yes, what they do in Africa is so terrible"

and my moms says... "No... right here, in America, what they do to the boys is also terrible."

and they look at her like, "Why on earth would someone WASTE THEIR TIME advocating for the rights of American boys when they could (SHOULD) advocate for the rights of African girls?"

My own sister in law- she tried to stop a conversation about my work against male circumcision by saying... "But you know what is REALLY terrible... what they do to WOMEN."

My friend in Austria... she also presumed that male circumcision was really something that needs no attention and all the effort and focus needs to go to FGM... no one had ever told her that males also need protection for cultural mutilations. After being told she was willing to consider it. The antiFGM rhetoric in Europe is strong, but the fear of anti-semitism keeps the Austrian noses out of what (in a country where the majority of male circumcisions are jewish rituals) might be considered "A jewish issue"

As long as our culture is going to protect our own sacred cow we can't be judgemental of other cultures. We have to fix it at home before we can be so judgemental of other people's resistence to change. If we can't trust american men who live in condos with hot and cold running water to believe that they can wash their own genitals and be "clean"... why would we turn around and think we are going to convince a family who lives in a hut with a community well that their daughter does not have to be cut to be clean?

You say: "We're not condemning it enough. We need the kind of opposition that we had to S. Africa's appartheid. We were certainly able to affect that, weren't we?"

OK... what do you propose? We boycott doing business with "nations" who pay for genital mutilations of children with taxpayer money? Oops... that's US.

The Africans pay for their OWN genital mutilations... there is no African FGM medicaid reimbursment.

How about we publicly persecute people who cut the genitals of children? Oh... another sacred cow huh? In Africa it's some poor travelling gypsy cutter... but they are a pretty high powered group of people in the USA... we couldn't do that! In the USA the harvest is sold to labratories and made into other products... at least in Africa they have the decency to feed the mutilated genital meat to the dogs... instead of creating a whole second economy of genital mutilation flesh. You think selling horse meat overseas is bad business. They are using our children's genital flesh to test products all over the world! Give those animal rights Brits their "cruelty free" What if we (Americans) were getting a wonderful beneficial product from African Female Genital flesh? Would we be so quick to condem? Perhaps we would be willing to put on some blinders to protect OUR OWN interest in them continuing to slice them up... just like Europe wears when they ignore the plight of our American sons.

What if we pass laws which protect children by refusing to honor religious motivations for child mutilations? Oh... we did that already... but only religions which are cutting females... the religions which cut males are exempt.

What action do you propose we take against a culture where FGM exists which would not be absolutly hippocritical while we continue to protect the culture of male child mutilation?

Love Sarah
 
#45 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
How can you advocate for rights for yourself while denying rights for others?
Can you appreciate the difference between denying rights for others and not making rights for others part of your group's agenda? Both women's rights groups and anti-MGM groups do the latter, but neither of them does the former.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah
As long as our culture is going to protect our own sacred cow we can't be judgemental of other cultures.
Watch me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah
OK... what do you propose? We boycott doing business with "nations" who pay for genital mutilations of children with taxpayer money? Oops... that's US.

The Africans pay for their OWN genital mutilations... there is no African FGM medicaid reimbursment.
They don't pay for their own everything. They depend on us for a lot. Certainly we can refuse to trade with them. That's what we did with South Africa, and it worked. I'm convinced apartheid wouldn't have ended as soon as it did if it weren't for us. The only difference in this situation is that not as many people care about women's rights as about rights of different races.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah
What action do you propose we take against a culture where FGM exists which would not be absolutly hippocritical while we continue to protect the culture of male child mutilation?
I am not hypocritical. I am not protecting MGM. Why do you think it's hypocritical to act against both FGM and MGM, but you don't think it's hypocritical to act against MGM while at the same time arguing that we shouldn't take action against FGM?

I definitely think that all individual people should oppose all GM, and that we should try to convince everyone to oppose all GM. I made that clear on my first post on this thread.

I defend organizations, however, who devote themselves to one cause but not another. All organizations do this, including anti-MGM organizations.
 
#46 ·
SBF- You misunderstood me... I am saying that ANY policy which would be enacted against a nation where FGM exists which was enacted while MGM exists here... would be hypocritical.

What, are we supposed to not do business with ourselves?

Or are we only supposed to not do business with nations where FGM exists, but continue to do business with nations where MGM exists?

I mean? Could we have an Alliance with Isreal and boycot Somalia?

Could we refuse to buy textiles from Egypt... but buy foreskin facecream from California?

That's what I mean. Until we fix our own autrocities- we don't have a foundation to stand on when it comes to political action against nations supporting child mutilation. We can do cultural support work simultaniously... but it would be outrageous to apply different sets of standartds to other countries but not our own

(a similar example I can think of it that the WHO code applies to other WHO member nations but not our own WHO memebr nation when it comes to marketing artificial breastmilk substitutes)

Love Sarah
 
#47 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pugmadmama
They are wary of being sucked into other people's (and, yes, especially men's) causes.


Again, I'm one of the "they." I'm a feminist. And I fight for men's causes as well as for women's causes, because we're all human beings. This attitude is what gives feminists a bad name.

Kind of off-topic: This reminds me of something that happened when I was in college--a young man I was dating opened the door for me and I said "thank you." He said, "I'm surprised you liked that, since you're a feminist."

What, I can't be a feminist and feminine at the same time?

We're not all angry man-haters. And saying that "we" or "they" just don't "have time" to fight MGM makes it seem like we are just angry man-haters.
 
#48 ·
And I think the original question centers around approaching someone who is already against FGM to expand that thinking a little and see how easily MGM fits in with that cause. After all, if more people saw it that way, then MGM would be easily eradicated in the U.S.
 
#49 ·
Something else here is troubling me; I'm not sure I can quite articulate it....but I'll try.

Saying that MGM is a "men's issue" almost makes it sound like.......men deserve it? They deserve circumcision? They've messed up women's lives in so many ways....and men perpetuate FGM in other countries......so they deserve it? They deserve the pain? We ("they," whoever) are almost snickering quietly that men have something painful perpetuated upon them? We shouldn't be as adamant about stopping it because.........then life would be easier for men? And that wouldn't be ok?

Does anyone else feel this type of attitude in calling MGM just a "men's issue"?
 
#50 ·
And back on the original question...... ( note: I keep reposting instead of editing because the "edit" function doesn't work too well for me.)

I read something once about "why feminists should care about MGM." I'll try to find it again, if I can. But the basic premise was---that we are told (mostly by men) how are births should be---you should lie flat on your back, you should have an epidural or a C-section, you shouldn't eat during labor, you should have an episiotomy, it should be in a hospital, you should have your son circumcised, etc.

There is a growing movement to "take back" birth--to do it our way (whether that means having a homebirth, or using a doula, or whatever.) Saying "no" to the establishment is incredibly empowering, and recognizing that the resulting child is OURS from moment one is empowering, as well. So, sticking up for him and his pain level and future sexuality is an extension of sticking up for ourselves during the birth process.

The original writer said it much more eloquently. Hopefully I can find the article.
 
#51 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah
Perhaps we would be willing to put on some blinders to protect OUR OWN interest in them continuing to slice them up... just like Europe wears when they ignore the plight of our American sons.
Hey, we don't! Not all of us that is.
In fact, we're in a position even more uncomfortable than American intactivists, because it's not just "Why do you care about this men's issue as a woman?", it's also "Why do you care about this American issue - they are able (and supposed) to deal with the problems they created themselves". And then there's: "As a Christian, you have no right to have an opinion about the religious practices of Jews and Muslims." Yeah. Right.


Quote:

Originally Posted by sbf
They don't pay for their own everything. They depend on us for a lot. Certainly we can refuse to trade with them. That's what we did with South Africa, and it worked. I'm convinced apartheid wouldn't have ended as soon as it did if it weren't for us. The only difference in this situation is that not as many people care about women's rights as about rights of different races.
I'm sorry, but I really don't think you got it right. FGM won't and can't be ended in the way apartheid was ended. It is not the state that is supporting FGM and neither is it the class of people that would be affected by political and economic sanctions the way the dominating (white) class in South Africa was affected. Actually, quite a few African countries already have a law against FGM, only they have no chance of enforcing that law in the remote rural places where it's done.

Many (most?) of the families who are practising FGM are poor anyway, and living off the land the way they have done for centuries, and they couldn't care less if the US or another nation started shunning their country. Or if they are indeed depending on foreign aid, cutting out this support would put them in danger of starving. But as worse as those people might be off, they wouldn't be persuaded to stop cutting their girls that way. Raging wars, genocide, drought and famine haven't stopped FGM either, because they cling to this cultural practise with the same relentlessness as Americans do cling to male circumcision - or Jews and Muslims for that matter. They'll probably hold on to it even harder if their situation gets worse.

What will help is to go there and educate every single family about genital integrity and the adverse effects of FGM - or give the government or local NGOs money to educate the people themselves. I'm not saying that the industrialized nations are sufficiently aware of the problem or that they couldn't do more to fight FGM. But the type of fighting that you're proposing is not an effective way for most of the countries concerned (Egypt might be one of the exceptions).

And to finish off a bit more on-topic: I understand and accept that not all feminist and women's rights organizations or single feminists/activists can include MGM on their agenda. What really irks me, though, is when they purposely exclude MGM from their agenda, never mention that aspect of GM at all or even go as far as claiming that male circumcision is "something completely different and sooo harmless compared to FGM" (it used to happen a lot over here, but it seems to have changed in recent years). What's so difficult about saying: "I/We think that cutting the genitals of children of either sex is wrong, but the cause I/we are dedicated to is the female side of it" and then go on linking/referring to MGM activist sites/organizations?

Stardust
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top