This is a very reasonable point. The issue isn’t that there’s not a valid comparison, and I haven’t been on the “stop talking about dicks” bandwagon. But I do have to observe that all the emotional energy in this thread got sucked up in the discussion of male circumcision, and that does seem unfortunate.
I would have welcomed a female victim of FGM onto the MGM thread. I wouldn’t have been snidely dismissive toward her. I wouldn’t have reflexively rolled my eyes at the links she would have posted without even looking at them, then hastily googled a blog post denouncing the presentation as bigoted to justify not even looking at the video (“I’m not interested in hearing a woman talk about her vulva for two hours”). In other words, I wouldn’t have treated her like I was treated on that thread.
That’s a good way of putting it, The energy and anger was diverted somewhat and that does not need to happen.
The conversation does not have to be “this is about FGM and nothing else can be introduced” or “you can’t talk about solving FGM until you solve circumcision”. The more productive discussion allows a wider remit than that.
One reason that the MGM aspects takes over is that there ARE posters here who are of divided opinions about it. I have yet to see any post here, in any thread, calling FOR FGM, praising it, claiming benefits for it, saying it should be allowed for religious or social/historical reasons, stating they underwent it and it did/didn’t affect their enjoyment of their sexuality, etc. etc.
There really can’t BE a debate on FGM. I say it’s bad, you say it’s bad, everyone on the board who has ever posted about it says it’s bad. The closest we come to a contentious issue is debating how best to go about getting rid of it, here and worldwide.
Which is a far less personal/immediate/emotional topic, and naturally gets swamped by the MGM debate because there are people with passionate/personal feelings on BOTH sides.
Except large numbers of people who don’t post on this board think the case for FGM is strong enough that in their communities, it is more prevalent than MGM has become in many parts of the U.S.
You were not treated well, but you need to have some perspective when you discuss stuff with strangers on the internet. There’s almost nothing that I will watch for 2 hours. I watch a full-length movie a couple of times a year. There’s no way I’m watching 2 hours of ANYTHING on you-tube just because some guy on an internet discussion board recommends it. Linking that video, and not giving the the tl;dr version, was bound to generate snide comments. The same would have been true if it had been a video of how to roast a turkey or about the horrors of chemical warfare. Many of your other comments were similarly poorly chosen to generate support.
Given the style of this board, where there’s a strong effort to keep threads on-topic, that seems like a good reason to take that discussion elsewhere, to it’s own thread. Which doesn’t mean no mention ever of male circumcision, just an attempt to keep the discussion in this thread related to female cutting. This is the pit after all, it could just have a bunch of people saying “yeah, that’s terrible” and then die out.
(And fwiw, I observe that there’s an enormous range of things done under the name of “female genital mutilation”, and imo, some of them are incredibly horrible, and others seem like not a huge deal if done in a culturally appropriate sort of way. But I do get pissed off when guys equate trimming foreskins to excising the entire clitoris, which is pretty common on this sort of thread.)
The topic of this thread is regarding a specific case. The reason MGM is being brought up isn’t because “guys can’t stop talking about their dicks”, (a similar comment repeated endlessly would never fly on this board if it were regarding women) it’s because it’s relevant to the case which has been brought up a few times:
Now this thread is more about complaining about men complaining about their dicks, so maybe YOU should take that to another thread? You have invited dick talk repeatedly by engaging those talking about dicks and when you say stupid, provocative shit like the following regarding MGM, you are asking for more dick talk:
What’s that have to do with any type of female circumcision? Do you not know you are inviting a debate by continuing with this hijack? You aren’t behaving like someone that cares so much about a thread staying on topic.
Every thread having to do with overwhelmingly female issues gets taken over and becomes, somehow all about males.
Rape threads
FGM threads
Birth control threads
Wage gap threads
Etc.
I’ve been on message boards for over twenty years. It’s always the same. We just can’t talk about this stuff without some man/men deciding that what we should *really *be talking about, what is *really *important is men.
As I said, I’m not unsympathetic to the circumcision cause, but this is so common that it’s just expected that those discussions will just be taken over, again and again.
That assertion is false, depending on what procedures you’re referring to by “FGM”. You really haven’t been paying attention to these threads if you think any such consensus exists.
For instance, I have repeatedly pointed out, in this and other threads, that a significant percentage of ritual female genital cutting procedures as practiced worldwide are not any more drastic or more harmful than male circumcision. I will go look up and post those links AGAIN if you request it.
I don’t think that’s an argument in favor of directly promoting or advocating FGC in any form, but it is definitely an argument in favor of allowing forms of FGC that are not more damaging than male circumcision (assuming that male circumcision is considered allowable).
And over here I just don’t see the overarching similarity. If all other things were equal beyond the cutting, maybe we’d have functional equivalence, but they don’t look equal. The deception, pain, shock and the backroom doctoring are essential parts of FGM, as is the secrecy afterwards. The girls aren’t supposed to talk about what happened to them. Ever. These are factors in all of the personal stories I’ve read, whereas the actual procedures vary.
It would be hard for me, and extremely out of character, to ignore the fact that a surprise attack is the ritual as much as some kind of excision, and that part is left out when people define the parameters to be equal to infant circumcision. It just ceases to exist.
In what way are those things exclusively female issues? Nothing relating to those issues gets improved or solved without men being involved in the conversation.
I am not Modesty Blaise, but I took the objection was not that there is a male presence in the threads, but rather how it gets taken over and becomes completely about the male perspective and experience. Males welcome, but if a discussion of FGM becomes all about the male experience and perspective of FGM- or of MGM, or circumcision, or just “what about my penis!” - it gets tiresome, to say the least.
It sounds like you’re extrapolating from a few accounts of specific experiences to an entire set of practices worldwide, and that’s bound to be inaccurate.
For instance, what about the cultures where FGC is practiced on girls in infancy? Obviously “deception” and “shock” are no more a factor there than they are for infant male circumcision. What about the cultures where FGC is a very mild form of Type IV, and the elements of “pain” and “backroom doctoring” are negligible to nonexistent?
I’m not denying that the examples you describe come across as very strong arguments for opposing those particular forms of FGC that are being described in those examples. But trying to lump all types of ritual FGC procedures together into that same category and condemn them all is at best massively ignorant and careless, and at worst downright xenophobic and bigoted.
It sounds like you’re extrapolating from a few accounts of specific experiences to an entire set of practices worldwide, and that’s bound to be inaccurate.