Can we hope to eliminate Female Genital Mutilation while we still allow Male GM (circumcision)

You voluntarily came onto a thread that was about circumcision. Guess what? Dicks are part of the discussion. I would love to tell you that my rights were taken away from me because they took off my clitoris and sewed my labia together, but I just don’t happen to have that equipment. The point of my comment is not my dick, it is that I was violated.

Please observe 2 click rule for NSFW material.



I didn’t rrealize that there was a new rule that required all information posted to be an answer to a previously posted question. Could you please direct me to this new rule?

It’s sexist to take a current, urgent issue for women and use it entirely as leverage to achieve your own political goals. It doesn’t matter if you agree it’s terrible–I’m sure you do.

No one who has any legislative power in this country is in favor of FGM. The people in favor of FGM in this country are a tiny minority, relatively speaking, and changing the behavior of millions of other people seems like a very difficult sell and a tremendously indirect way to address that issue. In other parts of the world, I can’t see people who practice FGM really using what Americans do thousands of miles away as an excuse.

Now, if you want to argue that in places where FGM is common, public awareness efforts should aim themselves at all genital cutting, well, I would listen to that argument. But I’d really like to hear from an expert for the particular culture in question. T

Mr. or Ms. Moderator: Sorry to be so thick, but maybe I have been away from this message board too long. What is the 2-click rule and what is NSFW material? I’m serious, I really don’t understand.:o

From the FAQ:

Yes we can hope to eliminate female circumcision while allowing male circumcision. No matter what you call it the vast majority of American males don’t think male circumcision should be eliminated and the vast majority of American females think female circumcision should be eliminated. That right there is the kind of socio-political unity among the electorate that is rare to see and unless that situation changes these two different forms of circumcision will be treated differently and the laws will remain the same, if not more stringently in favor of allowing male circumcision and eliminating female circumcision.

Manda Joe, are you a millenial? (I am a baby boomer, almost 70 years young). The reason I ask is that I have noticed millenials use accusations like “sexist” and “racist” to describe anything you don’t like. It gets really confusing to an old fart like me. Like in Toronto last month where a group of ex-Muslims marched in the Pride parade with signs attacking Iran’s persecution of gays. (The marchers were Iranian in origin.) A conservative Muslim (who probably thinks it is just peachy to kill gays) almost got them kicked out of the parade by alleging (wait for it) RACISM!!! Attacking Iran’s murder of gays in a Pride parade might offend some Iranians along the Parade route, and since they are swarthy people, that is RACISM!!! is it not?

If I am charged with sexism, it must be at about the same level of credibility.

Okay, bone, that is quite clear and makes sense. Now I am sorry to be a pain in the a, but I have a technical question. How do I make something two-click? I mean how do I do it technically speaking? Sorry to be such a pest.

Then people in the west who campaign against FGM in other countries will have a chink in their armour, and will seem like hypocrites.

Break the link like Bone did or put the link in a spoiler tag.

Link (close the gap in between the red characters)

You should get a spoiler box like this: link

Who are these people that we should care consider us hypocrites? Who are the people who overwhelmingly believe that both male and female circumcision are equivalent and must be banned? I don’t know that there is no such place but if there is I’m curious where a significant society has a predominant belief that both male and female circumcision should be eliminated.

The problem is that for many, if not most Jews, male circumcision is commanded by G*d and part of male Jewish identity. Historically, they have been pretty resistant to giving it up. I don’t expect them to change on this topic.

I’m sorry you feel violated but if you actually respected people you wouldn’t alienate them on the basis of their identity.

G*d also commands Jews to kill their neighbour if he works on the Sabbath. Also to circumsize all their servants and slaves. Obviously the slave does not get to decide that. But Judaism is an evolving religion that changes over the years. Things once normal can be abadoned as barbaric in a later age.

So how are we supposed to approach this contradiction of outrage about circumcision and the unnecessary spearing of infant female ears? What kind of confusing mixed message are we sending to new immigrants?

Don’t bother telling me that circumcision and ear piercing are too different to be analogical. The point of my argument has nothing to do with the different forms of cutting into the body parts of a male or female child.

My question is: Why is it that we are supposed to outlaw male circumcision without their consent, but nobody says boo about girls having their ears mutilated without their consent?

How have I alienated people on the basis of identity? I respect and admire Judaism and the incredible contribution of Jews to every branch of science, education and learning.

I especially admire Judaism for its ability to evolve over the millenia, and to abandon certain aspects of their religion when they become inappropriate.

In the Scriptures, a bride who is discovered not to be a virgin is to be dragged to her father’s front door and stoned to death. Today, would that be considered murder?

To repeat: historically they’ve been very resistant to change this. In the first century Jews actually started practicing a more severe form of male circumcision than they had previously in response to opposition to the practice from neighboring cultures.

I’ve had this argument with other before on the internet. They reason that because the Jews have changed and adapted in regards to other things they’ll yield on this one, but it ignores that there is a hierarchy of importance for Jewish commandments, with some being able to over-ride others. There are a few that are immutable. I believe that Jewish circumcision is one of them (although it wouldn’t bother me to be wrong on that) and it’s not amenable to rational arguments. Remember that Judaism is a religion and religions by their very nature are not grounded in rationalism.

At most I think you might convince them to adopt a less extreme form of the practice (there is evidence that the original form of circumcision was trimming any foreskin that projected past the glans, rather than removing all of it as is now the current practice). But I don’t think you’ll get them to give it up entirely.

Actually, I’ve been bitching about that for years, and on the same basis - that we have no justification to perform medically unnecessary modifications of an infant’s body. When the girl is old enough to articulate a desire for pierced ears then she can get them at that point, with parental consent if she’s still a minor.

Please provide a cite and context for that, because Judaism has long recognized the re-marriage of widows (who would, of course, not be a virgin) and both divorce and re-marriage after divorce where, again, no one would expect the woman to be virgin. Obviously, this is not a nuanced understanding of the culture.

Likewise, Judaism DOES permit parents to forgo circumcision for their son(s) under very limited circumstances, in the Bible that being when a woman has lost previous sons to a bleeding disorder which is now interpreted as excusing Jewish boys suffering from hemophilia and similar bleeding disorders from the requirement. Which is consistent with the Judaic principle that preservation of human life pretty much trumps all other rules and regulations.

By which reasoning I’d say that if you imposed the death penalty for circumcising infants it would give Jews an “out” for skipping the ritual, but mere jail time wouldn’t suffice, much less fines.

It would be great if some actual Jews would weigh in on this, but in SDMB tradition this question was posted late on Friday and so I don’t expect any of then to respond before this evening.

I actually welcome this question. Thank you for asking it. In any overall moral principle there are grey areas created when one looks at extremely minor violations of a principle.

In strict theory, and just to be consistent, I would say that yes, even piercing the ear of a child who cannot consent is in strict principle wrong.

This can be compared to the principle that one must never beat a child. What parent, unless he or she has the patience of Job, has never once in the first 6 or seven years given an unruly child a quick and painless slap on the bum to underscore a command?

Ear piercing of small children DOES violate the principle of bodily integrity, but consider that the hole left by piercing will close by itself. A foreskin or a clitoris does not grow back.

Ear piercing is pretty minor. Teenage girls do it at slumber parties. I have never heard of teenage boys having a circumcision party to remove each other’s foreskins.

What would you think of a parent that has a child’s body extensively tatooed and then claims God told him to?

I think we would have to end it like we work to end other things like slavery and bigamy. Yes, some immigrants come here with slaves and multiple wives. We tell immigrants when they come here what they can and cannot do and if they dont like it, they should leave.