Let's not kid ourselves. Male circumcision is genital mutilation too. Many forms of female circumcision do a lot less damage than the usual form of male circumcision, and even the extreme forms of female circumcision don't seem to prevent women from having orgasms. There was something published very recently about this that I can't find, but this is from 1989:
"A five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that 'sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by the majority ['nearly 90%'] of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences." http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/00224498909551521
There are several cases of voluntary female circumcision btw. One of the leading activists against female circumcision actually ran away from home in order to be circumcised, because her parents were against it.
There are also several cases of forced male circumcision, and I'm not just talking about doing it to babies, who are unable to defend themselves.
There is no fundamental difference between cutting parts off female genitals and cutting parts off male genitals. Anyone that sees such a difference just happens to live in a culture where one is practiced and not the other.
91 young men died last year of male circumcision is just one province of South Africa btw, and there were also several amputations and partial amputations. The death toll this year is up to 44 already despite having been slowed down by the World cup:
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it: Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than cultural imperialism.
Everyone, male or female, should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they have parts cut of their genitals. It's *their* body.
"A five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that 'sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by the majority ['nearly 90%'] of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences."
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/00224498909551521
There are several cases of voluntary female circumcision btw. One of the leading activists against female circumcision actually ran away from home in order to be circumcised, because her parents were against it.
There are also several cases of forced male circumcision, and I'm not just talking about doing it to babies, who are unable to defend themselves.
There is no fundamental difference between cutting parts off female genitals and cutting parts off male genitals. Anyone that sees such a difference just happens to live in a culture where one is practiced and not the other.
91 young men died last year of male circumcision is just one province of South Africa btw, and there were also several amputations and partial amputations. The death toll this year is up to 44 already despite having been slowed down by the World cup:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-07-14-eastern-cape-circumcision-death-toll-rises-to-44
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than cultural imperialism.
Everyone, male or female, should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they have parts cut of their genitals. It's *their* body.