Why is female circumcision “bad” whilst male circumcision is “OK”?
You’ve read the latest news reports about female circumcision aka female genital mutilation in the press lately.
And to be sure, I abhor female genital mutilation.
And I abhor the protests in much of the Muslim world right now.
But is it really necessary to apply images of dirty, pedo, perverted, old Muslim men hacking into little girls with rusty old machetes in order to drive home the point that the instigators of those protests are bad guys?
No, of course that’s not what’s actually being written, but c’mon. It’s a bit of a booster for our outrage at the stuff going on in the ME. Everybody knows that.
Hence an ABC reporter is being mocked by the right for suggesting some sort of compromise; controlled circumcisions in hospitals.
To me, that’s an equally if not more abhorrent proposition, but, hey, and maybe I’m more sensitive to weird shit that’s “normal” in other cultures, but I see it as odd the arguments, boiled down, being used against female circumcision are conveniently ignored when it comes to male circumcision.
- it hurts
- it’s usually involuntary
- it can cause medical issues
- it reduces sensitivity, thus making the best thing out there less than what God/nature intended it to be
- it’s pretty darn arcane, kind of like Burkas and slavery
- before regular bathing was commonplace, circumcision was a practical option
So condemn female circumcision aka female genital mutilation as much as you like, but consider a few other things also.