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
#77 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pugmadmama
But it's not babies who are approaching feminists and telling them that they better get onboard with this issue. It's grown men. Some of whom are angry and who don't hesistate to use fairly ugly language when women aren't willing to immediatly sign onto their agenda. So, it comes across as a "men's issue" to some women. And I don't think those women are crazy or wrong, it's how the issue has been presented to them.
That's a very small minority of the men involved in this issue. I think the reason there are not more men involved is because most men work long hours to support their families. I am very lucky in that I was very successful in business and hoarded my pennies to be able to take the time I do with this issue. Most men are not in that position and are not able to take such an active part.

Quote:
When a some women who have dedicated a good part of their activist life to ending FGM hear things like this, it sounds like they are being dismissed. Like what is she doing wasting her time worrying about girls half a world away when boys are suffering right here at home.
In my business life I learned that some goals are attaainable and some are not. I also learned that some goals that are not now attainable will be attainable in the future. For example, I started one of my businesses with 13 competitors. I was determined to narrow the playing field by taking out some of those competitors. Going after the biggest one first was an unattainable goal but going after the smallest one was an attainable goal. Four years later, I only had three competitors and was almost as big as #1. That biggest competitor was trying to get me to sell to them because I was "eating their lunch" every day. My overall goal was to become the largest in the Atlanta area. That was not an attainable goal until I had realized my smaller goals. as I reached each of my smaller goals, the ultimate goal inched closer and closer until it was attainable.

It's the same with genital mutilation. Our overall goal is to end it world wide for all babies and children. The short term attainable goal is to end it for boys here in America. Once we have reached that goal, we'll go global and we will eventually realize our overall goal.

We are getting there. I was thinking just today that when I first came to Mothering.com that there would be maybe 4-6 posts a day. Now, I suspect there are 30-40 posts a day. that's an amazing change in just a few short years.

Quote:
And Frankly Speaking expressed himself calmly, without name calling and anger. Not all intactivsts approach the issue so calmly (again, read over this thread to see the hostility expressed towards some feminists)
To be quite honest, I went through my beligerent, angry and confrontive stage several years ago. I finally got past that at least in the way I post messages and let people get to me. I learned that it is counterproductive. I think all intactivists eventually go through that stage. I have one friend who has been in this fight for years. She used to be the sweetest and most gentle person you could imagine and she finally had her cup run over and now she is in that belligerent, angry and confrontive stage. She will eventually pass through it as she realizes that she is distancing her audience instead of pulling them closer. It just takes time.

Frank
 
#78 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Quirky
I just want to get through to them that you don't have to minimize the suffering of FGM in order to recognize the suffering of MGM, and unlike the former in this country, the latter is something we actually have the power to do something about.
EXACTLY!!!
 
#79 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by pugmadmama
And many feminists, myself included this time, are very wary when encouraged by primarily male-led activists groups to put their efforts into the male issue first, then trust that the female issue will recieve as much attention and effort in the future.
Believe it or not, the intactivist movement is 90% female. There are relatively few males actively involved. This movement is all about mothers protecting their sons and trying to help other mothers protect their sons. Take a look at this site. I am the only man who regularly posts on this subject. There are three other men who post occasionally but irregularly. We are seriously outnumbered by FEMALES! NOCIRC, the pre-eminent orgainzation involved in this issue was founded and is operated by (gasp!) a
FEMALE! Many of the other orgainzations are almost all FEMALES!

Frank
 
#80 ·
If it's about equality, shouldn't the male infants in our country be protected from genital mutilation just as the female infants are?

It's possible to be a feminist without discriminating against males.
 
#81 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by laidbackmomto2
And MGM is a WOMEN's issue and FGM is a MEN's issue...And I totally agree.
FGM is an issue that it's appropriate for men to concern themselves with, and MGM is an issue that it's appropriate for women to concern themselves with. But MGM is not a matter of women's rights (unless you're talking about a mother's right to complete information about the procedure, or some of the other aspects that Frank mentioned), and FGM is not a matter of men's rights. You know, I think we really all agree, and we're getting all heated up about semantics. When we say it's a men's issue, first of all I think we've made it clear that we don't mean it's ONLY a men's issue, and second of all we're not saying that in order to dismiss the issue. We're just saying that men are victims of MGM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheacoby
You know it really doesn't matter what GROWN MEN have done or not done, when we are discussing infant MGM. BABIES AREN'T MEN, they are freaking babies. To talk about what men have done to women in a conversation like this makes me pissed as hell. I really hate to think that a GROWN WOMAN could look at a baby boy and see hate like this. And not care about his suffering. I guess to me at least a baby is not a man and cannot and should not be held responsible for what men have done. I find it completely irrelevant what wrongs men have done (and yes they have done plenty) when it comes to MGM.
You know, I really don't know what this post is responding to. No one is looking at baby boys and seeing hate. No one is saying they don't care about the suffering of baby boys. No one is saying baby boys should be held responsible for the actions of men. No one is saying that one's position on MGM should be influenced by the wrongs men have done. Where is all of this coming from? A lot of people seem to be imagining thoughts that they think are in our minds, and getting upset about them, even though nothing remotely resembling such thoughts is actually in our minds. Pugmadmama never said that MGM eradication would be bad for women, either, by the way. There is some very serious misinterpretation going on here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking
Please go to the NOCIRC site or any other that is identified as anti-circ and see if you don't see information about female cutting as well.
I have been to an anti-circ site, I can't remember which one, and it certainly did mention FGM, but not to say that it should also be condemned. It was mentioned only as a basis of comparison for MGM, and it seemed to me that the subject was treated with a very heavy bias, as if they were trying to minimize what is done to girls in order to make what is done to boys sould like it is worse than what is done to girls. I was so upset by the way they handled the subject that I actually removed a link to their site from my web page. I even remember trying to find an alternate anti-circ site that I could link to that didn't minimize (maybe "belittle" would be a better word -- the tone was really offensive) FGM, and I couldn't find one.

Any way, I have not been saying that MGM organizations should be fighting FGM as well. I have actually been saying that it's fine for an organization to concentrate on MGM. And so it should also be fine for a women's rights organization to concentrate on women's rights, because they have reasons for not taking up the MGM cause that are just as valid as the reasons Frank gave for the MGM movement not taking up the FGM cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheacoby
I believe the reason why a lot of anti-circ sites focus on MGM has already been addressed and it has nothing to do with being anti-woman
Just as a women's/feminist's site that focuses more on FGM has nothing to do with being anti-man. Okay?

It shouldn't be a touchy point to acknowledge that this is about male rights (and also about human rights and children's rights, which has also been acknowledged). Yes, the victims are defenseless, innocent baby boys. The boys then grow into men, who are still MGM victims, so it's silly to try to say that it has nothing to do with men. Acknowledging this is not a way of dismissing it or minimizing it. But as far as what organizations should be expected to take up the cause, I would say that any human rights or children's rights or male rights organization should be expected to take up the cause, but just as I wouldn't expect any of those organizations to adopt the women's rights agenda, I would not expect a women's rights organization to adopt the MGM agenda. I don't understand why this is perceived as so unreasonable. You wouldn't expect, say, a Latinos' rights organization to fight for Arabs' rights, just because both groups are oppressed in similar ways. It doesn't mean the Latinos are opposed to Arabs' rights. It's nothing personal!

Yes, as human beings we should all oppose all genital mutilation. We all agree on that, okay?
 
#82 ·
Ok, let's get down to brass tacks.

I once followed a link to a men's rights site and from there followed several links to various feminist sites that were addressing the male circumcision issue. The general consensus of the sites was that men have no rights to their bodies, that the issue is much-ado-about-nothing or that is is a submersive issue to feminists issues, is a diversion, is an attack on feminism, that men are over sexed and deserve to have their genitals mutilated for the safety of women and on and on. It was highly disturbing to me and repulsive. It left a permanent bad taste in my mouth for feminists.

Never once, never, have I seen anything like that at an intactivist site and if I did, I would register righteous indignation with the site owner. From what I saw, not only were they not giving us just nodding approval, they were fighting our issue tooth and nail to try to get it put down. Apparently, the women who visited those sites did not register their disapproval of that message with the owners. If there had been an outcry against this inflamatory rhetoric, the offensive information would have been removed.

On the other hand, every intactivist I have ever met also advocated against FGM. It is clear to me that this is a one way street. If feminists really want us to take up their issue and give it respect, they have to at least not fight us about our issue.

Frank
 
#83 ·
It was not my intention to start a war of the websites. I merely shared my own experience, since you brought it up. My experience has been the opposite of yours. I have never read a feminist website (and I've read a lot) that said the kinds of things you're reporting about MGM. I can't tell you how many thousands of feminists I have talked to in my life, and they all believe in EQUAL rights --- none of them ever said anything remotely like what you're describing.

Please do not judge feminists by those websites. That is NOT what feminism is about.

I have never met an anti-FGM person who was dismissive or negative about the anti-MGM movement.
 
#84 ·
The discussion has moved on in the meantime, but I wanted to clarify this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbf
And yet we're making headway with MGM. We can make headway with FGM, too. If we try.
Of course we are and of course we can!
All I was trying to say is that we won't make headway with (uh, against
) FGM by making those people's lives worse than they already are.

Stardust
 
#85 ·
I tried to go back yesterday and find this one essay which was horribly sexisist and cruel to demonstrate the mindset that has been spoken of. I checked all my FGM bookmarks and there were a few which no longer worked. I'm guessing that it was one of them- and if so, I hope that the horrible essay is gone for good and not just relocated to a new url.

The website which was hosting it was an organization, it was not a private individual's website, the head of the organization had posted a letter/essay to any person who might DARE draw a parallel between FGM and MGM... she then explained basicly, that FGM is bad because the horrible opressor- men- do it to women to subjugate them, and MGM can't be comparable because men have never been subjugated and if it was bad, they(men) would have all the power they need to stop it. She then finished the essay with a cruel rebuff to anyone who might have the audacity to ask her to include MGM under the umbrella of child genital integrity which she was ALLEGEDLY working for... she told men to quit their whining because their mommies are busy with a real problem. (to that effect)

Her opinions were shockingly undeveloped from a social standpoint...

I can tell you that the website had black backgrounds and white letters... but beyond that- I forget specifics. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

Love Sarah
 
#86 ·
SBF-

You know what is odd about you talking about websites "minimising" FGM? It's that I think they are representing it truthfully... without the over the top propaganda designed to turn miswestern housewifes into angry fist shaking (at africa) activists. If you showed your favorite FGM website to a group of women on the street in Cairo... they would probably mock your insinuation that they had been harmed... just as if you showed thesexuallymutilatedchild website to a bunch of men in Milwaukee... most likely they would defend their circumcisions and tell you that the claims of damage that website is presenting are a real stretch and don't represent the average man's experience with his circumcision.

The fact is... minimizing the damage is not meant to JUSTIFY it.... it's meant to allow people to identify with the way that cultures can easily embrace or justify a brutal behavior toward their own children. Because we are in just such a culture.

It would be absolutly wrong for me to imply that mothers who circumcise their sons HATE their sons. I KNOW that is a lie. I KNOW that they do it because in their hearts they think that is what is best for them. Even if that BEST means to them, a little bit of acceptable harm... somehow in their mind, a little bit of sexual organ loss is balanced by the social gain....

That's the SAME as in Africa.

African father's don't HATE their daughters.

They don't want them to have pain for the rest of their life.

They want them to get married and not be prostitutes!! They want that social gain for a tiny bit of flesh price. Regardless if it's type I or IV- the social gain outbalances the flesh price.

That's the SAME. It's not minimizing the harm... it's showing a parallel... a parallel which some FGM websites do not want to draw because they feel that their argument against FGM is weakened if men are ever portrayed as loving or caring people. Because their own anti-man agenda which exixts outside the FGM activism... it bleeds over. They do not want the news to get out that African Fathers love their baby girls just like American fathers do. Or that African men can fall in love and marry the girl of his dreams... just like American men can. That an african man's dream of a happy marriage may not be to have his wife doubled over in pain ever time she menstruates.

They are not subjugating them by cutting... they are elevating them by cutting... remember TexasSuz... medical AND SOCIAL benefits? They are (in their mind) trying to do someting GOOD for that child... not HURT THEM.

I looked an American woman in the eye while she grinned at me and proclaimed:

"I have circumcised over 5000 baby boys and the ONLY ones which I feel bad about are the JEWS, because I am taking the MONEY away from the MOHEL."

This woman was a member of ACOG. She could be ANY of our doctors... and you would never know it... but when I put her on the spot- her delight in mutilating men for profit literally made her GLOW. I'd bet you anything that she is against FGM.

Love Sarah
 
#88 ·
Do male extremists represent what men think of the womens movement? of women? Do female extremists represent what feminists feel about mens issues? men?

I think if you polled the board you'd find a great deal of us feminists who are very strongly anti-circ.

There might be feminists who don't care. There are also women who despise feminism who don't care. I'd venture a guess that if you did a survey of feminists and those who dislike feminists about their own children you'd find proportionately more feminists leave their sons intact than the anti-feminist crowds. I could be wrong but that is my assumption based on my experience.

I thought the original poster was just asking what specific arguments woudl appeal to a feminist. I can understand different arguments appealing to different people- however the idea that feminists dont' care is insulting.
 
#89 ·
Frank, this topic has interested me for a while now. In fact, I know someone who has an entire thesis on this very subject! Personally, I don't understand this feminazi approach. Why would you want your man to have LESS? The more the better I say- more for me to nuance him with!
(Oh yeah- I forgot... most women are only interested in themselves....
)
 
#90 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan1097
...feminazi ...(Oh yeah- I forgot... most women are only interested in themselves....
)
I'm outta here. I will never understand how people can feel good about associating the Nazi's with a group of women who are fighting for women's equality. Or how they can feel good about miniminizing Nazism itself by using the term in such a flip way.

I can find this kind of woman-hating anywhere in society, I don't need to be confronted with it here at Mothering.
 
#91 ·
And circ isn't a women's issue? I don't buy it that is "all cuz the fathers want it". Yeah... sure! It isn't about women's equality. If it WERE, ANY genital cutting of females wouldn't be ILLEGAL! How how is that "equal"? And btw, I don't hate women- I AM one! I just don't like to see women using feminism as a way to have power over men- no matter if they SAY "its to make us equal". What more power could we HAVE? Who is it vehemently debating the pro side of circ on boards? Women! Why?!?! And don't think I don't know... I used to be just someone like that! Its a deep-seated NEED to have it done. Go look at some debate boards for a while and see what kind of mental gymnastics go on re: why a woman would be so pro-circ. "I like the look"; "I like the feel"; "I don't want him to 'get there' that fast; he'll last longer", etc. etc.! SICK!
 
#92 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan1097
Frank, this topic has interested me for a while now. In fact, I know someone who has an entire thesis on this very subject! Personally, I don't understand this feminazi approach. Why would you want your man to have LESS? The more the better I say- more for me to nuance him with!
(Oh yeah- I forgot... most women are only interested in themselves....
)
Well, for one not all women WANT men.


Women seeking equality should not be compared to a group of violent men who held the power and were murdering a minority group.

And since when are most women only interested in themselves? Speak for yourself please.
 
#93 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan1097
Who is it vehemently debating the pro side of circ on boards? Women! Why?!?!
Reverse the question- who is most commonly debating AGAINST circ? As far as I know Frank is the only active male here on this forum. how many women do we see saying "how do I convince DH?" There are women on both side of the fence. From your most conservative to your most liberal feminist.
 
#94 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainbow
Well, for one not all women WANT men.


Women seeking equality should not be compared to a group of violent men who held the power and were murdering a minority group.
And how is a woman taking her son in to be circ'd not her holding power over a male "minority"?

Quote:
And since when are most women only interested in themselves? Speak for yourself please.
Since I gather you don't "date" men, I won't get into this. But suffice it to say, the mindset of women toward men is VERY selfish, on the whole. (Especially when it comes to circ'ing their boys because they "like the look" or "it looks exciting to me" or whatever....)
 
#95 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainbow
Reverse the question- who is most commonly debating AGAINST circ? As far as I know Frank is the only active male here on this forum. how many women do we see saying "how do I convince DH?" There are women on both side of the fence. From your most conservative to your most liberal feminist.
And how many women TAKE THE KID IN THEMSELVES ANYWAY?! Blaming the father is a scapegoat!
 
#96 ·
Sarah and Frank, I have also been to a similiar site (maybe the same one) and someone on this forum linked me to it a year or so ago. It was disgusting and I hate that shit passes for feminist.
Maybe I have read more into some of the post on this thread (I however don't think so) but my feel for what some are saying is infact that MGM isn't something feminist should be concerned with and I think plenty of examples have be used of what men have done to woman to justify that. If you don't want people to make such a connection then maybe we should leave out all the wrong grown men have done when we are discussing genital mutilation of baby boys.
Pugmama, did say that plenty of men's rights have not been good for women, now in a discussion about infant circ how are we supposed to take that?
 
#97 ·
Sarah, the antiMGM site I was talking about was not talking about the social parallels between MGM and FGM. It was talking about the physical procedure of FGM and trying to minimize it to make it sound like MGM is more severe a procedure.
 
#100 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan1097
And how is a woman taking her son in to be circ'd not her holding power over a male "minority"?

Since I gather you don't "date" men, I won't get into this. But suffice it to say, the mindset of women toward men is VERY selfish, on the whole. (Especially when it comes to circ'ing their boys because they "like the look" or "it looks exciting to me" or whatever....)
ROFL- actually I'm married to a man. I've never once heard any woman claim it was because they preferred it circ'd. Different circles we run in I guess. I run in feminist circles to, so that is confusing.
 
#101 ·
Come to think of it I don't know any circ'd boys right now whose father wasn't 100% insistant that they be circ'd. The only 2 circ'd boys I know had mothers who very much didn't want it done and gave in to their DH's wishes. What "group" of people are you around that feels this way?
 
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