Women don't like it when FGM is called "Female Circumcision", and I don't blame them. It's important to them to emphasize that it's mutilation. Shouldn't we also be openly outraged about the double standard of MGM being called circumcision?

a_weed_wizard · 2012-07-12T14:02:00+00:00

Why not avoid gender entirely and call it all genital mutilation?

iamaom · 2012-07-12T07:19:35+00:00

Well, MGM is circumcision, by definition. Latin circum=circular cision=cut. Though I agree that to most people "circumcision" sounds much more medical and routine than "mutilation", and might give people the wrong idea.

Xingularity · 2012-07-12T11:31:47+00:00

Yes, we should be outraged. While they may be done to different degrees, both are gross violations of autonomy.

There is no reason why we cannot or should not stand together to challenge involuntary mutilation of ANY part of ANY human being's body.

In Australia, we finally outlawed the cruel practice of "docking" dogs' tails. If we can manage that, we sure as hell can do this for our own species.

2wsy · 2012-07-12T12:47:47+00:00

Someone in /r/AskFeminists said a few days ago:

Trying to compare circumcision to 'genital mutilation' is quite needless.

And that is unacceptable. Circumcision is genital mutilation. Both terms are correct, but suggesting that circumcision is somehow not genital mutilation is disgusting.

McFeely_Smackup · 2012-07-12T18:51:04+00:00

There is so much intellectual dishonesty surrounding the FGM issue that it's difficult to know where to start.

There are basically three different kinds of Female Genital Mutilation:

Female circumcision: removing of the clitoral hood. This is a very close allegory to male circumcision.
Cliterectomy: removal of part or all of the clitoris
Infibulation: removal of labia and fusing the vaginal opening

FGM activists try very hard to pretend that the first, which is almost identical to male circumcision, doesn't exist...because it's not horrifying enough. So they inflate the CONCEPT of FGM to the second and third types.

Try suggesting sometime that female circumcision is pretty much the same as the male version, and you'll be met with outrage. You'll hear "female circumcision cuts off the clitoris!!!", which isn't true...it's a total misuse of the term. Why won't they use the term correctly? Because they want NO suggestion at all that a practice as commonplace and accepted as male circumcision might be ok for girls too.

The problem is instead of championing the cause of not mutilating the genitals of ANY child, they dishonestly twist facts to only be concerned about girls.

enkidusfriend · 2012-07-12T13:47:29+00:00

Cultural context. Tell someone who lives in a culture that openly accepts FGM, and they will be offended that you are calling it mutilation. Most people in America live in a cultural context where circumcision is NOT, for the most part, considered mutilation, and so the same kind of reaction results.

Having people justifiably understand and accept that male circumcision is mutilation is our destination, but we're not there yet.

strangersadvice · 2012-07-12T14:52:46+00:00

Certainly we should also be using the anatomical name common to both the male and female parts; "Prepuce".

JockeVXO · 2012-07-12T19:35:11+00:00

I prefer to call it mutilation in political contexts, however in medical context I call the forms that excise part of the tissue surrounding the glans circumcision, whether it's female or male. The forms that also excise part of the glans I refer to as glandectomy. Anyway, since this is political forum I agree, it's all mutilation and we should refer to it as such.

_Toast · 2012-07-13T02:06:43+00:00

Genital mutilation has stigma, while circumcision does not.

Xenoith · 2012-07-12T08:31:48+00:00

The debate shouldn't fucking be about which one is worse and both sides, feminism and MRA, get it horribly wrong. It's about the basic human right not to have someone alter your body without consent unless it's necessary to survive. MRA constantly compares it to FGM like that's going to accomplish something. Why not just convince people that parents should have the right to make these decisions for their child?

AryoBarzan · 2012-07-12T08:06:52+00:00

I refuse to call it 'FGM' or 'FGC' until male circumcision is ALSO called 'MGM'. It disgusts me that feminists worked so hard to label it 'FGM' but choose to still call its male variant 'circumcision'. The reason it's called 'female genital MUTILATION' is to make it sound WORST and less 'medically'-acceptable.

Falkner09 · 2012-07-12T14:50:40+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Amablue · 2012-07-12T16:36:08+00:00

The reason I have a problem referring to it as mutilation is because sometimes it is a necessary medical procedure. I've seen people say that there is literally no circumstances where circumcision is okay, and that's wrong. I understand that it fits the literal definition, but I've never seen anyone refer to other medical procedures as mutilation unless they wanted to get an emotional reaction. I'd rather just stick to rational arguments as to why its bad than to try to persuade people via word connotations.

I also can't see why the nonconsensualness of it is a huge deal. Everything your parents do to you has a child is non-consensual. Every religious ceremony, medical procedure, ear piercings, meal, trip, everything, is technically nonconsesual at that age. Most studies I've seen don't show a significant difference is sexual satisfaction, even among adults who've had it done and have experienced sex both ways.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a good thing that it happens unnecessarily, but the people asking that we be outraged confuse me. I'm annoyed by it, sure, but I'll save my outrage for the greater number of men who commit suicide or other major issues. Yes, it is an issue, but it gets disproportional coverage compared to more important matters.

It annoys me the same way that abortion debates do, it seems like everyone has an opinion on the matter because it's easy to, and everyone wants to share those opinions but really there are more important things to discuss. I mean, a politician can have a strong, well founded set of beliefs on how to improve the economy, how to handle trade with other states or countries, how to reduce crime, etc. etc., but those are all 'boring' issues. As soon as his stance on abortion comes up, that's all that seems to matter anymore. It's just silly to me.

TheOneCurly · 2012-07-13T00:49:55+00:00

Male circumcision leaves all the working parts intact. ie, sexual pleasure. With FGM the point is to destroy that feeling, it's more equivalent to male castration. Circumcision may be wrong but not for the same reason.

rightsbot · 2012-07-12T05:34:17+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

MFLB_copilot · 2012-07-12T08:25:59+00:00

Female circumcision usually involves cutting off the whole clit, not the clit hood. The male equivalent would be getting the whole HEAD of your dick removed. Kiiiiinda different. Although THAT I would call MGM.

Windex007 · 2012-07-12T16:12:42+00:00

I'm going to be real with you guys:

I can't even comprehend why people get so upset about circumcision. It's a passionately debated topic and I just don't get why I'm supposed to be upset. I'm cut, and I'm 120% happy with everything down there.

Are people who are against it generally cut or uncut? I'm just curious if I can chalk it up to "Eww, thats different than me, how could they justify doing something that makes them different than me?" or if there is the more legitimate "How dare my parents do this to me!".

spagma · 2012-07-12T15:52:49+00:00

Though I can't even begin to agree with the practice of circumcision, I hesitate to call it MGM. Though I would agree that it is completely unnecessary mutilation, I feel that making such an overt comparison to FGM makes us seem a little wacko. I think the MRA should be about more calm, focused, common-sense rhetoric (keeping justified anger to a dull roar) instead of the wild sensationalist fury that characterizes feminism.

Just a thought, and a hesitation. It is mutilation.

Leprecon · 2012-07-12T09:35:30+00:00

Female genital mutilation encompasses any alteration of the female genitals. This can be a minor snip of the labia to the complete removal of the clitoris and lips and sewing shut of the vagina save a pee hole.

Male circumcision basically is at its worst removal of the foreskin perhaps leading to erectile dysfunction later and weirdly placed skin/hair. If it would be comparable to the female counterpart then male circumcision would range from cutting off the penis and balls to snipping of a small part of the foreskin.

There also is a giant difference for the reasons. Male circumcision is usually done out of a misguided belief that it is cleaner or safer, whereas female circumcision is done specifically to inhibit women.

Interestingly enough, male circumcision in the US started for that same reason. It was advised as a tool to prevent people from masturbating, and over time the reasons were changed to fit in with something more socially acceptable.

My-Work-Reddit · 2012-07-12T14:27:22+00:00

No ... because it is NOT mutilation.

Falkner09 · 2012-07-12T14:44:47+00:00

[permanently deleted]

jeny_i_got_ur_num · 2012-07-12T15:02:17+00:00

I see what your saying.

1) Don't be outraged. Emotions take away our masculinity, and when you think about that, that is really what the feminists want.

2) Denying circumcision to male infants is ACTUALLY MISANDRY, considering the various heath benefits of circumcision (according to webmd): i) reduced risk of std ii) reduced risk of urinary tract infection iii) reduced risk of penile cancer/cervical cancer in your gf iv)Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin) v)Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location)

Good hygiene could also reduce these risks, but few people take that much care of themselves. Female circumcision does not have any health benefits, and is, logically, much more painful. It would be like comparing rubbing away a callus to cutting off a toe.

Comments