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!)
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!)