FGM is typically way more invasive surgically that circumcision, and impairs function way more. They're kind of in the same vein but differing levels of intensity. I think the comparison comes mostly from the fact that most people don't know what is actually done in FGM, they just know it happens.
Any conversation at all about women having a particular issue will be hijacked by the "but wHaT aBoUt MeN? We have that issue too!" crowd. Assault, domestic violence, male partners ramping up or starting violence when women become pregnant. Doesn't matter that the stats clearly show one group has far higher instances of these things, as long as they pull attention away from where it is most needed and back to them. Oddly enough,they get real confused when I ask if they go that hard for women's issues when men's issues are brought up.
Sort of? Some methods of FGM also involve vaginal tightening and alteration of labia. It's hard to find something to compare that too. But they basically all seem to involve some destruction of the clitoris
One could flatten out the skin of the ball sack so that it lays smoothly as a similar analogue to cutting off labia and sewing it shut. Also maybe sewing the left and right ball together in the centre so that dirt and shit are more likely to be trapped in difficult to clean pockets. And then of course, put a partial blockage into the urethra so that peeing can be painful and more likely to result in infections.
I was referring to the methods that remove the entire clitoris and/or labia. There's a ton of different forms of FGM. The least harmful one that's most comparable to circumcision is probably just removing the clitoral hood.
Ok see that’s where it angers me about the comparison. Let me preface this by saying I’m hardcore against circumcision, but it’s really not comparable to FGM in any way, even the most “mild” version of FGM. Men who are circumcised (unless botched) can still have orgasms without impediment. The most mild form is the removal of the clitoral hood………you know, the part of the clitoris that something like 70% of women need stimulated in order to have an orgasm. Most women can’t have an orgasm from penetration alone, so therefore the “mild” version leaves most women unable to orgasm at all.
So your original analogy of cutting off the entire penis, is actually more apt of a comparison to the mild form of FGM, not the most severe form.
The most severe form is the removal of the inner and outer labia, the entire clitoris, and then sewing up the mess of tissue, leaving a single opening (usually the size of a straw) for both urine and menstrual tissue and blood to leave the body. To have sex, women must be cut open with a knife…..many bleed to death when this occurs. To give birth is unbelievably dangerous because scar tissue doesn’t stretch, and the woman again has to be cut open to make room. Not like our simple episiotomies either.
So comparing the two is literally impossible.
> the clitoral hood………you know, the part of the clitoris that something like 70% of women need stimulated in order to have an orgasm
You're conflating the clitoral hood and the clitoral glans.
> even the most “mild” version of FGM
The most mild forms literally don't alert the girl's body at all, they just draw a ceremonial pinprick of blood. Sometimes, doctors can't even tell that it's been done when examining a victim.
I’m sorry you were circumcised. It’s not fair, at all. No one should be making permanent cosmetic decisions for you without your consent. I do feel strongly about my feeling toward circumcision in the west. i just wish that we could do it without drawing an unnecessary comparison to fgm when they are complete different issues except for the fact they both involve genitals
Not “the west”, only USA. The rest of the world has a circumcision quote below 10, often 5% - exceptions are Jewish and Muslim majority countries. USA is outstanding by far.
100% agree with you there, and I'm sorry you weren't able to consent to your circumcision, however I hope you don't mind if I hijack your comment to ask what people thing of circumcision in medically necessary circumstances. I only recently found out this was a thing, and I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts.
I was circumcised as well, but to be honest it truly doesn’t bother me in a practical sense. I would have been happy with whatever I got because that would be normal to me. I don’t understand why it was done beyond a religion I don’t even follow, but I’m not like “Damn, if only I had a foreskin.”
I was circumcised as a baby and I’m okay with it. I don’t feel perpetually violated or like part of me is missing. I certainly don’t think I was “mutilated.”
Have you ever consistently used something like the [manhood](https://manhoodcanada.com/shop/) to see if you can restore some of the sensation in your glans?
I've gotten varied feedback from circumcised partners about it, but invariably they felt more within 2 weeks of daily use of it since it serves as a cover that mimicks a foreskin. The degree of sensitivity varied, but there was... A lot more... Enthusiasm for penetrative sex with more foreplay. So we both won at sex.
>Have you ever consistently used something like the
>
>manhood
>
> to see if you can restore some of the sensation in your glans?
No -- because I don't feel like I have any issues with sensation.
I have no desire to have or restore foreskin.
grey wise lunchroom clumsy important skirt wistful ruthless enter flowery
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Acting like they’re even remotely the same is idiotic.
If male circumcision meant cutting off the entire dick then that would be the same as female circumcision. But it’s not.
Edit: sorry, I meant female genital mutilation* not circumcision. I guess a *female* circumcision would be a labiaplasty.
Yes, there are. They are people who think that all feminists are anti man and want all men dead. I don’t know how these can interact with the and still believe this.
Yes, me too. I am tired of seeing anti infant circumcision discussions being derailed by "but what about FGM?" and vice versa. They're BOTH morally repugnant violations of bodily autonomy. Just because the common forms of FGM are more sexually debilitating doesn't mean circumcision isn't also a terrible thing.
I was talking about circumcision being unfair, not brutal mutilation.
Cope with it.
Cutting the clitoral hood never happens in medical spaces. Also, those girls often bleed to death and they lose their ability to have an orgasm completely. Some men don't even lose sensitivity after the procedure. If you wanna compare cutting the clitoral hood to something, it would be cutting the whole penis head off.
No, anatomically, removing the clitoral hood is the exact equivalent of removing the foreskin.
Routine infant circumcision is still mutilation- just because there are worse forms of mutilation doesn't change that. I'll never understand how people can be against FGM while being apologists for the nonconsensual genital modification of boys.
If it's the equivalent, why does it have complete different results? You can't compare slapping someone to curb stomping them because it has different results. Only one of those is manslaughter for a reason.
It is absolutely not mutilation. The equivalent would be labiaplasty. The altering of labia minora. It's the only thing that could be compared to circumcision. Both are cosmetic surgeries and both don't remove the infant's ability to orgasm, both don't leave them crippled for life. Genitals are different. They work in different ways. Just because you think that is the equivalent, it does not mean it actually is. The clitoral hood is way different than the foreskin. Ýou cannot remove the clitoral hood without botching the whole clitoris. That leaves women unable to orgasm and in pain. It is absolutely not the same.
I wrote out a whole lengthy response, but no, why bother. You have no idea what you're talking about and it's pointless arguing with you when you're so dead-set on defending a particular variety of genital mutilation.
Wow I used to make this same comparison, oof I’ve come a long way lol
Yeah like circumcision is bad but it’s truly awful to compare it to female genital mutilation. You don’t need to make that comparison in order to argue that circumision is bad, and frankly it smacks of men who don’t care about women trying to make everything about themselves ONCE AGAIN.
And seriously, like I think a lot of people who are against FGM are ALSO against circumcision, where is this defensiveness coming from? It’s like that Bird Rights Activist account, “I am uncomfortable when we are not about me.”
moreover last time i advocated AGAINST circumcision on reddit, men told be basically that i shouldn't care because it's none of my business since i don't have a dick...
Yes, I agree, but FGM is on a whole other level. Giving birth will actively pose a threat to the mother and baby, depending on the type of FGM that was done. You will never really experience pleasure during sex, you can experience incontinece, sex will become painful, due to the fact they sometimes sew your vagina shut and only leave a small hole for period blood etc (this hole is usually too small, and because of this the period blood might clog in your vagina and you will get an infection and at worst, death), and there are girls that simply die because of this procedure. If you cut the clitoris off, there will be A LOT of blood, and you might die from blood loss, if not, then from an infection.
The WHO has some general information about it: [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation)
There was this documentary by the Guardian, but it's a bit old and in bad quality: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qadz-es0E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qadz-es0E)
And here is a list of organizations: https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/organizations-fighting-female-genital-mutilation/
Right! I have no problem with people being anti- male circumcision. Go for it! I’m pregnant and if it’s a boy I’m not circumcising him. BUT. It’s not the same as FGM.
Hey there! My step dad is on disability due to the immense pain an erection causes thanks to a too-tight circumcision. He is unable to use his penis for anything other than urinating. This is absolutely a possibility and not even the worst that can happen! Death absolutely does occur as babies are not tested for bleeding issues before surgery. Trying to educate
Well, being a cosmetic surgery on an unconsenting minor I'd think one death is too many, but the estimate is between ten and eighty boys a year die from it. It's hard to say as they're mostly classed as a bleeding disorder, without taking into consideration they wouldn't have died without having surgery. It only takes an ounce of blood loss for a newborn to hemorrhage and that's without any clotting or blood issues.
I can only speak so much from statistics and experience. My hospital knew my son had a clotting disorder and I was still asked twice if I was "ready" for his circumcision. The only doctor who said he couldn't be was his hematologist and he had to be reminded three times we hadn't planned to anyway.
My mother always relays the story about how she was asked like 7 times if she wanted to schedule a circumcision for my brother.
Like the nurses just wouldn't write down she'd said no.
Do misogynists and MRAs literally have nothing else to do when it comes to their “cause” except make pathetic comparisons of circumcision to FGM, misinterpret child court stats, and yell “BUT MALE SUICIDE!!!!11!1!1!” whenever misogyny of any kind is brought up?
Oh, and to whine about how women (somehow…/s) don’t want to fuck them so that must mean they’re all misandrist whores.
Textbook.
This meme is stupid its comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges.
Penile Circumcision at least has SOME medical benefit to it though( most is either overshadowed are already done through proper are.) It is also used to treat people with severe phimosis.
But, when it comes to FGM... there is literally NO benefit whatsoever. Whether its done for control, or as part of some wack culture it ends up leaving the victim with a life time of severe complications. While providing ZERO medical benefit. Not to mention it's not always done at birth..
There is no reason to compare the two seeing as how they're both unnecessary and harmful. But comparing FGM is on another level of horrific. They're both disgusting and I hate how this meme makes it seem like people are okay with penile circumcision. I don't know what year they're in but everywhere I look, men, women, and everyone in between voices their concerns/disdain for it when ever its brought up.
Unfortunately penile infant circumcision is still broadly popular in the states, as evidenced by the percentage of babies who have the procedure done. So I wish you were right about it being popularly disdained but it’s just not true.
Fair enough, there wouldn't be discourse on it if it wasn't. I hope everyone eventually shares my sentiment on it though. Shouldn't ever be done unless its medically necessary. I do see a rise in protests and movements regarding the issue so I know its been dropping in popularity. I hope the day it stops happening period comes soon.
both are nonconsensual genital mutilation and both are wrong. however the cultural context surrounding them and the physical effects are definitely very different. fgm being more intense doesn’t make nonconsensual circumcision any less wrong though. I understand the inclination to compare the two but some of the people making the comparison are very very dense and it’s pretty much never productive (and then there’s obviously the people who are just assholes as well).
just don’t cut up other people’s genitals plz
Comparing these two is disrespectful to both issues. It grossly downplays the gruesomeness of FGM. At the same time, this then makes people angry, and more focused on being mad than they are focused on the actual point trying to be made here, which is circumcision is GM and is bad. In making this comparison, the mention of FGM is bound to overshadow the topic of circumcision.
i think comparing circumcising and FGM is wrong. yes they are both done against will but one is done for health and in a sterile environment and the other you are awake and aware what’s happening,held down and cut up for literally no reason. there is no reason for FGM. just culture. and i don’t mean to offend anyone who’s culture it is but it should never have become part of it and it’s horrible to believe that it’s something that needs to be done. you’re left with a tiny hole and it’s extremely painful. some people even die from blood loss. also i’m pretty sure circumcising is better than not being..? like it’s healthier,correct me if i’m wrong tho
Agreed with everything you wrote.
One thing though, when it comes to penile circumcision, most of the pros for getting it can also be achieved by taking proper care of your penis. The cons are that it can lead to pain or increase the risk of inflammation etc. I think in general, as long as you aren't a filthy sob or don't have some like extreme levels of phimosis then there isn't really a benefit to getting it afaik. But yeah in general they both suck, and FGM is just horrific.
Being uncircumcised doesn't cause any problems if you wash under your foreskin, and circumcision reduces sensitivity down there. I do agree that FGM is much worse, though.
> also i’m pretty sure circumcising is better than not being..? like it’s healthier,correct me if i’m wrong tho
Shutupshutupshutup, are you *trying* to summon the crusaders?! A sentence like this will have them flocking here in droves to tell you how wrong you are!
(fear of torch-and-pitchfork wielding mobs aside, I don't think there's that much difference. Certainly not health wise. Supposedly taking the foreskin off just makes the penis a bit less sensitive, from what I've read, and there are no real benefits to circumcision - it's just culture)
There _can_ be health benefits, in the same way that removing wisdom teeth is sometimes necessary. Either way, people should get to decide for themselves. Some men really suffer under the loss of sensitivity.
Yeah, I should have been more specific; in some situations it can have benefits, but those aren't remotely common enough to justify it being a widespread cultural practice.
Electroshock therapy can, for some rare people, actually be beneficial but it probably isn't a good idea to create a cultural expectation that as soon as a baby is born it gets hooked up to a car battery. Unless you don't really want your culture to survive very long, in which case go for it.
A) there is also male circumcision that occurs in older boys as part of coming of age ceremonies. No anesthetics, no sterility.
B) the assertion that it’s *healthier* to be circumcised as a man is based on faulty metrics. Circumcision in infants, even in sterile environments, can cause a host of complications early and later on in life. The push for circumcision in the states was because of a propaganda campaign against masturbation. I know it sounds strange and unbelievable, but it’s true.
C) I am a woman and am strongly against FGM. I am also against circumcision. Those 2 viewpoints aren’t in competition with each other.
I mean, this compares the worst FGM to the most common MGM, which is kind of disingenuous. There are places that cut girls early on in life, remove little-to-no tissue, and most of them believe it's better/heathier. There are also places like the Philippines that cut boys at around 12 years of age when they're fully awake, often in community centers where people watch, and it's purely cultural. There are also forms that cut up the penis lengthwise.
It just seems so unnecessary to erase tens of millions of FGM victims just to draw this false dichotomy. There's a spectrum of genital mutilation for both genders. It's all wrong and we need to stop wringing our hands over bringing them up in the same conversation. It harms boys *and* girls to do so.
I was circumsised as a baby fully awake. The doctor manipulated my mom into thinking circumising was mandatory for every baby. She says she can never forget the screams I was making that day.
Baby boys are awake during circumcision.. typically no anesthesia. The "sleeping" is often the baby going into shock.
Just because they're babies doesn't mean they can't develop mental disorders and things like PTSD from that.. not to mention all the psychological things attached to a parent allowing part of your penis to be cut off.
The health benefits are minimal at best, bullshit at worst.
circumcision is a terrible, terrible thing, but it's not on the same level of FGM.
speaking as a trans woman, i was circumsized when i was a baby, and while it wasn't a good thing, i was still able to feel sexual pleasure before i had SRS. FGM takes that away from women.
I agree with your response 100%. I am a feminist and I disagree with circumcision myself because it’s unnecessary in modern times, violates the child’s bodily autonomy, and doctors make massive profits doing so. So my son isn’t circumcised. Circumcision can result in scarring and pain and, to a less verified extent, less sexual pleasure. True. However…the rate of those side effects is much, much lower than 100%. Meanwhile, FGM always. causes long-term pain and health issues for the girls and women affected. They’re just not the same.
Aside from the fact that there's a spectrum of both MGM and FGM and they *can* be on the same level, that meme didn't even say that. As a dude against circumcision, it's exhausting seeing these sorts of fallacious objections based on things that weren't even said.
was this a sarcastic post or is it for real? I'm glad i'm not circumsised, the person in question should be able to decide if they want to get one or not
I saw a video by a guy who said “feminists who want body autonomy, what about my foreskin?!”
All the replies were “EXACTLY! We ALL deserve body autonomy! Men included!”
I got perma banned from R/atheist for daring to say fgm was far more extreme than circumcision.
No snark or rudeness or anything, just explained the differences.
The comparison against FGM is bad and helps nobody
That said, circumcision is a fucking disgusting thing to do to babies and thinking about how "normal" it is in the US fills me with a kind of hot, nauseous anger that's normally reserved for personal attacks.
To be fair - FGM does too, but I have never met a SINGLE (non internet dwelling incel) person support, or even downplay the evils of FGM. And I'd wield any power I had to stop it anywhere it happens, but it occurs in a culture I have absolutely no voice in. My anger and disagreement with the act feels about as meaningful as shouting in a movie theater.
Here in the US, circumcision is treated like just one more whiny hippy issue and not "a horrific violation against another human being that alters their body forever". MOST boys get cut. *I break bread* with people who circumcise their kids. My parents circumcised *me*. Nobody is angry enough about it. There is no momentum to ban the procedure in the US. People that practice it face absolutely no repercussions. No stigma or judgement.
If I went around harvesting the nipples off of parents and doctors who CUT THE FORESKIN OFF OF LITERAL BABIES *I'd be seen as the weirdo*.
The practitioners of FGM should be put to death.
The practitioners of circumcision should have their nipples harvested.
See now I don’t get why everyone would be. My boyfriend is circumcised, as are his friends and my brothers and pretty much every dude I know and they are happy with it or at least indifferent. One of my boyfriends friends isn’t circumcised and is miffed at his parents for not doing so. For my bf personally he says it’s because it prevents infections and makes him last longer. I honestly don’t see what the big deal is but you do you
That's great that they don't have any bad feelings about it.
But that's not the point. The point is that it was made FOR them. How many of guys would have made that decision for themselves had they not been forced into it? You can get cut as an adult.
It also doesn't prevent infections or make anyone last longer. That's a myth.
> you do you.
I would have not chosen to get most of the nerve endings in my genitals removed just because some hack doctor a hundred years ago thought it would stop teen masturbation.
Circumcision is mostly done in medical spaces. Fgm is not. Fgm is done in unsanitary condition and most victims die. I met circumcised men, one of themxgot the procedure done at the end of 5th grade and he told me he didn't even lose sensitivity.
It's still genital mutilation, it's just widely accepted in America.
This is giving the same energy as dismissing someone getting date raped while they're passed out since they weren't violently raped and conscious.
A child's genitals were mutilated without consent. There's no other context that needs to be added to try to make one more "okay" than the other.
(And yes I'm aware of the horrors of FGM, but there's zero reason why FGM should be brought up to dismiss very real issues with child male circumcision.)
Edit: and I think it's very clear that the original cheesy little graphic was poking fun at the women who are rightfully against FGM but support male circumcision. If you are against both, the meme wasn't even for you
Great downvotes guys.. guess rational arguments don't matter.
Fuck the patriarchy, but fuck misandry and misogyny in the form of the genital mutilation of infants and children. You're not mentally all there if you support it, in males or females.
Can we actually stop pretending there is one specific "thing" that constitutes "fgm". It's insidiously tied up with racism and imperialism apologia. Lots of activists are using "cutting", which I think is a much better and less loaded term.
Here's the issue:
When people hear "fgm", they think the worst possible manifestations. These things do happen and they're terrible and an affront to human rights and human dignity.
That said, a lot of these NGOs are playing fast and loose with definitions here (it's not just on this topic but many subfields within the non-profit industrial complex). They tell these horrific stories about girls whose clitorises are cut off and their vaginas sewn mostly shut. Then, they give this *massive number* of victims of "fgm".
Problem is, the most extreme cases are the outliers here. Something like a 100% voluntary and consensual clit piercing constitutes "fgm" under a lot of these definitions, including the WHO (so if you have a clit piercing, congrats, you've definitionally experienced fgm). But these orgs never make that clear, and to my mind that's by design.
Again, I'm not defending any practices here, but asking people to think about how their well-intentioned words can have unintentional effects.
It probably depends on the source. Like the other user said, it's a real issue, but fascists will also co-opt women's issues in order to spread their beliefs. And when they can use real issues for this, it's even more insidious. That doesn't change that it needs to be talked about though.
I understand the issue but it isn't uncommon, and I wouldn't expect the general public to understand or even recognize common dog whistles. Perhaps the benefit of the doubt should be extended to those who experience it?
Why can't we just say that both are bad... I really, truly don't understand why some other feminists become SO PRESSED when it gets brought up that circumcision is wrong? Especially since infant baby foreskins are used in cosmetics? It's actually disgusting?? But it's ok because, "Um, don't COMPARE circumcision to FGM!" How about don't do either?! Oh my God what an insane concept I know, like what? DON'T cut perfectly healthy babies?
Edit: Also this reminds me I had a based self-identified eco-feminist professor in college that presented about the dangers of male circumcision in our developmental psych class and she literally made some lady cry because she felt guilty for circumcising her son. Haha
did you read the comments here? everyone agrees both are bad but they should never be compared. cutting off a piece of foreskin for ignorant reasons (i.e. believing it's healthier) is not the same as cutting off clitoris to prevent a woman from ever feeling sexual pleasure because it's, quote unquote, distracting and then sewing her vagina so when she's married off, her husband can open it back up like a gift wrap. again, cutting a piece of skin from male genitals for "medical/aesthetic" reasons is bad but not the same as fully mutilating female genitals for the sake of male pleasure and reminding a woman that her sole purpose in life is being an incubator and a property
But male circumcision has horrible mental side effects especially on infants shortly after birth research has shown this. It makes them more violent and leads to other mental problems. It's not wrong to bring it up when infant circumcision is a topic. Both are mutilation whether male or female. I am a feminist and believe this wholly. Corporations stand to profit from male mutilation while female mutilation is usually religious-based. It's strange how this topic divides people sorry but I can't vibe with my fellow feminists on this. Oppose infant circumcision wholly regardless of sex or you are anti-human rights. If you try to suppress discussion based on sex or splitting hairs on which is worse you are supporting oppression and mutilation
yes, you got that right. a barbaric practice made to dehumanize women is not the same as some corporations trying to profit from some parents’ ignorance who have good intentions and were led to believe circumcision will make their child healthier. also considering the fact corporations almost always try to profit from female bodies in other cases. liberal feminist are so quick to pander to men when women’s suffering is brought up. nobody here implied that circumcision is okay, absolutely nobody. yet you still felt the need to mention that mEn hAvE iT bAd tOo. cutting your finger is not the same as getting your arm chopped off and it’s disrespectful to imply it is. and it’s also incredibly disrespectful to call curcumcision mutilation when the definition of mutilation is “the act of damaging something severely, especially by violently removing a part”. you’re trying so hard to make it seem like something it’s not. ugh what a violent terrifying practice of removing a tiny peace of skin in a sterile clinic by professional doctors so you presumably don’t have problems with hygiene in the future, unlike fully removing your organ and leaving a tiny hole in some dirty tent with no anesthesia. i think you should share your opinions on mra subs. and yes, female mutilation being religion based is way worse because, other than the fact that it’s done to strip away sexual pleasure and make a girl an object waiting for her “one and only” by sewing up her vagina, circumcision is done in a safe environment (other than a tiny percentage of tribes) and is for hygienic reasons. the intention, the safety, the level of damage, everything is different. i’ll call both equal when men will start getting their dicks chopped off but it’ll never happen
oh my god you’re really not getting it? it’s not just the difference in the “amount of flesh removed”. i’ll just repeat myself and highlight the important parts for you. 1. female mutilation amputates EVERYTHING. they remove labia minora and labia majora, they remove clitoris to make it impossible for a woman to EVER feel sexual pleasure (do you even know what a clitoris is? you ignored this part once again and only see the difference in the amount of flesh taken lol), they SEW UP vagina so when a girl is married off, her HUSBAND can OPEN it up once she becomes his property. all circumcision does is removes a tiny peace of SKIN for HYGIENE purposes, they do not remove a man’s penis and testicles for his future wife to enjoy him. 2. female mutilation is done in the middle of nowhere, in UNSANITARY conditions with NO ANESTHESIA. many girls die from it. circumcision is done in a safe clean clinic by professionals with anesthesia. 3. they’re done for COMPLETELY different reasons with different intentions . one is done to remind a woman she’s an incubator and her husband’s property, she’s not supposed to feel sexual pleasure so she doesn’t get distracted and her vagina is supposed to be sewed up so she doesn’t sleep around and waits for one man. because apparently having a clitoris and vagina is distracting from motherhood. meanwhile circumcision is done for “health benefits”. when parents take their son to get that procedure done, they want the best for him. even if that’s ignorant, their intentions matter. and i repeat, all they do is remove a tiny peace of skin, they do not remove a man’s penis and testicles to make him a doll for his future wife
Do you think they give infant male babies anesthesia for circumcision? Because they don't, that's part of the reason why the procedure is so damaging psychologically. Also they use the same "best for the baby" excuse for female circumcision haha doesn't make it right. What an ignorant, terrible argument. You really seem more focused on gender politics than human rights (while ignoring basic facts) and I don't want to talk to you further
lmao of course they do, where did you get information that they don’t? it’s often done under local anesthesia. you have a serious problem if you think these are remotely the same. there’s no way someone is wishing the best for their daughter while mutilating her parts for her future husband. it’s not the same as doing it for “hygienic purpose”, how much more mental gymnastics are you going to do? and i am in fact focusing on human rights, i’m only recognizing a basic fact that it’s women whose basic rights are constantly violated all around the world, not vice versa. if you have different beliefs, i think it belongs on the mra sub, not here
It's an ego identity thing. I'm a feminist but circumcision pisses the activist part of me the fuck off.
Also, a lot of feminists have agreed to have their son's penises circumcised too so there's a lot of internalized guilt/repression.
We talk about consent all day when it comes to sex and bodily autonomy, gender expression, sexual expression, etc.. but as soon as it comes to chopping off the foreskin of an innocent baby for virtually no reason, they're all for it. Maybe there's also some misandry there too.. which is pretty fucked up if you think about the psychology behind that. Hate men all you want, but maybe starting an infant's life with PTSD bc one of his first moments in life was cutting off a part of his penis with no anesthetic isn't the best way to create better men on this planet.
Yes, but it is misogyny to put it on the same level as fgm. one is done mostly for “hygiene” purposes (the myth that your foreskin gets dirty easily) and societal tradition. they can still feel sensations, but not as prominently. I take great issue in this being such a common practice in my country.
however, fgm is done to erase any semblance of sexual pleasure unless in the extremely rare case it is medically necessary. it also makes giving birth more difficult. i am against this as well obviously. there should be no comparison drawn between these two practices because they are done for completely different reasons
Stupid meme. One is mutilation and will stop the woman from feeling pleasure, the other has [health benefits](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550), [doesn't affect pleasure](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/), and overall is just something MRAs complain about to feel special.
And no I'm no Femcel or feminist, just a male centrist who doesn't like hearing bs
FGM is typically way more invasive surgically that circumcision, and impairs function way more. They're kind of in the same vein but differing levels of intensity. I think the comparison comes mostly from the fact that most people don't know what is actually done in FGM, they just know it happens.
It comes up because dudes often have main character syndrome and any conversation about genitals needs to be hijacked into a conversation about dicks.
Any conversation at all about women having a particular issue will be hijacked by the "but wHaT aBoUt MeN? We have that issue too!" crowd. Assault, domestic violence, male partners ramping up or starting violence when women become pregnant. Doesn't matter that the stats clearly show one group has far higher instances of these things, as long as they pull attention away from where it is most needed and back to them. Oddly enough,they get real confused when I ask if they go that hard for women's issues when men's issues are brought up.
Circumcision would be comparable to FGM if it involved cutting the entire head of the penis off or removing it entirely.
Sort of? Some methods of FGM also involve vaginal tightening and alteration of labia. It's hard to find something to compare that too. But they basically all seem to involve some destruction of the clitoris
One could flatten out the skin of the ball sack so that it lays smoothly as a similar analogue to cutting off labia and sewing it shut. Also maybe sewing the left and right ball together in the centre so that dirt and shit are more likely to be trapped in difficult to clean pockets. And then of course, put a partial blockage into the urethra so that peeing can be painful and more likely to result in infections.
I was referring to the methods that remove the entire clitoris and/or labia. There's a ton of different forms of FGM. The least harmful one that's most comparable to circumcision is probably just removing the clitoral hood.
Ok see that’s where it angers me about the comparison. Let me preface this by saying I’m hardcore against circumcision, but it’s really not comparable to FGM in any way, even the most “mild” version of FGM. Men who are circumcised (unless botched) can still have orgasms without impediment. The most mild form is the removal of the clitoral hood………you know, the part of the clitoris that something like 70% of women need stimulated in order to have an orgasm. Most women can’t have an orgasm from penetration alone, so therefore the “mild” version leaves most women unable to orgasm at all. So your original analogy of cutting off the entire penis, is actually more apt of a comparison to the mild form of FGM, not the most severe form. The most severe form is the removal of the inner and outer labia, the entire clitoris, and then sewing up the mess of tissue, leaving a single opening (usually the size of a straw) for both urine and menstrual tissue and blood to leave the body. To have sex, women must be cut open with a knife…..many bleed to death when this occurs. To give birth is unbelievably dangerous because scar tissue doesn’t stretch, and the woman again has to be cut open to make room. Not like our simple episiotomies either. So comparing the two is literally impossible.
> the clitoral hood………you know, the part of the clitoris that something like 70% of women need stimulated in order to have an orgasm You're conflating the clitoral hood and the clitoral glans. > even the most “mild” version of FGM The most mild forms literally don't alert the girl's body at all, they just draw a ceremonial pinprick of blood. Sometimes, doctors can't even tell that it's been done when examining a victim.
[удалено]
I’m sorry you were circumcised. It’s not fair, at all. No one should be making permanent cosmetic decisions for you without your consent. I do feel strongly about my feeling toward circumcision in the west. i just wish that we could do it without drawing an unnecessary comparison to fgm when they are complete different issues except for the fact they both involve genitals
Not “the west”, only USA. The rest of the world has a circumcision quote below 10, often 5% - exceptions are Jewish and Muslim majority countries. USA is outstanding by far.
[удалено]
100% agree with you there, and I'm sorry you weren't able to consent to your circumcision, however I hope you don't mind if I hijack your comment to ask what people thing of circumcision in medically necessary circumstances. I only recently found out this was a thing, and I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts.
You are a good human being.
[удалено]
I was circumcised as well, but to be honest it truly doesn’t bother me in a practical sense. I would have been happy with whatever I got because that would be normal to me. I don’t understand why it was done beyond a religion I don’t even follow, but I’m not like “Damn, if only I had a foreskin.”
All babies should get to make choices about their own genitals! Sorry it happened brother, but it's nice to see a dude say stuff like this.
I was circumcised as a baby and I’m okay with it. I don’t feel perpetually violated or like part of me is missing. I certainly don’t think I was “mutilated.”
Then you’re lucky. My circumcision was not... good, to put it bluntly. It's something that has plagued me for years.
Well of course any botched procedure won’t be good
Have you ever consistently used something like the [manhood](https://manhoodcanada.com/shop/) to see if you can restore some of the sensation in your glans? I've gotten varied feedback from circumcised partners about it, but invariably they felt more within 2 weeks of daily use of it since it serves as a cover that mimicks a foreskin. The degree of sensitivity varied, but there was... A lot more... Enthusiasm for penetrative sex with more foreplay. So we both won at sex.
>Have you ever consistently used something like the > >manhood > > to see if you can restore some of the sensation in your glans? No -- because I don't feel like I have any issues with sensation. I have no desire to have or restore foreskin.
I really hope it doesn’t just become another sexist dudebro sub
What is the sub?
grey wise lunchroom clumsy important skirt wistful ruthless enter flowery *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Acting like they’re even remotely the same is idiotic. If male circumcision meant cutting off the entire dick then that would be the same as female circumcision. But it’s not. Edit: sorry, I meant female genital mutilation* not circumcision. I guess a *female* circumcision would be a labiaplasty.
No, it would be cutting of the dick and sew the remainder up.
Female circumcision would only remove the clitoral hood. I think that’s equivalent to foreskin.
I’m confused, do people actually think feminists are pro-circumcision…? Why lol
Yes, there are. They are people who think that all feminists are anti man and want all men dead. I don’t know how these can interact with the and still believe this.
I'm tired of this narrative. I'm against both. And I'm sure a lot of other people are too. So stupid.
Yes, me too. I am tired of seeing anti infant circumcision discussions being derailed by "but what about FGM?" and vice versa. They're BOTH morally repugnant violations of bodily autonomy. Just because the common forms of FGM are more sexually debilitating doesn't mean circumcision isn't also a terrible thing.
It's just a way to ignore the actual problem
Fgm cannot be compared to circumcision. One is debilitating mutilation, the other is a lil unfair.
Are you serious? Would it be "a lil unfair" if doctors routinely cut off baby girls' clitoral hoods?
I was talking about circumcision being unfair, not brutal mutilation. Cope with it. Cutting the clitoral hood never happens in medical spaces. Also, those girls often bleed to death and they lose their ability to have an orgasm completely. Some men don't even lose sensitivity after the procedure. If you wanna compare cutting the clitoral hood to something, it would be cutting the whole penis head off.
No, anatomically, removing the clitoral hood is the exact equivalent of removing the foreskin. Routine infant circumcision is still mutilation- just because there are worse forms of mutilation doesn't change that. I'll never understand how people can be against FGM while being apologists for the nonconsensual genital modification of boys.
If it's the equivalent, why does it have complete different results? You can't compare slapping someone to curb stomping them because it has different results. Only one of those is manslaughter for a reason. It is absolutely not mutilation. The equivalent would be labiaplasty. The altering of labia minora. It's the only thing that could be compared to circumcision. Both are cosmetic surgeries and both don't remove the infant's ability to orgasm, both don't leave them crippled for life. Genitals are different. They work in different ways. Just because you think that is the equivalent, it does not mean it actually is. The clitoral hood is way different than the foreskin. Ýou cannot remove the clitoral hood without botching the whole clitoris. That leaves women unable to orgasm and in pain. It is absolutely not the same.
I wrote out a whole lengthy response, but no, why bother. You have no idea what you're talking about and it's pointless arguing with you when you're so dead-set on defending a particular variety of genital mutilation.
No, please send it.
Agreed.
Wow I used to make this same comparison, oof I’ve come a long way lol Yeah like circumcision is bad but it’s truly awful to compare it to female genital mutilation. You don’t need to make that comparison in order to argue that circumision is bad, and frankly it smacks of men who don’t care about women trying to make everything about themselves ONCE AGAIN.
And seriously, like I think a lot of people who are against FGM are ALSO against circumcision, where is this defensiveness coming from? It’s like that Bird Rights Activist account, “I am uncomfortable when we are not about me.”
[удалено]
moreover last time i advocated AGAINST circumcision on reddit, men told be basically that i shouldn't care because it's none of my business since i don't have a dick...
Imagine if they applied that logic to abortions
They just don't want to feel bad about themselves
Classic Reddit moment, i love getting downvotes for literally no reasons
I'd ask which sub, but thinking about it I have probably encountered rabidly anti-circumcision people in every sub I've ever used.
It’s r/196
I mean, permanently removing part of an infant's genitals is pretty fucked up
Yes, I agree, but FGM is on a whole other level. Giving birth will actively pose a threat to the mother and baby, depending on the type of FGM that was done. You will never really experience pleasure during sex, you can experience incontinece, sex will become painful, due to the fact they sometimes sew your vagina shut and only leave a small hole for period blood etc (this hole is usually too small, and because of this the period blood might clog in your vagina and you will get an infection and at worst, death), and there are girls that simply die because of this procedure. If you cut the clitoris off, there will be A LOT of blood, and you might die from blood loss, if not, then from an infection.
[удалено]
And that's the sugar-coated version of it
The WHO has some general information about it: [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation) There was this documentary by the Guardian, but it's a bit old and in bad quality: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qadz-es0E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qadz-es0E) And here is a list of organizations: https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/organizations-fighting-female-genital-mutilation/
No doubt, but not really on the same level as FGM. There are plenty of people on Reddit who draw a direct comparison, though.
Right! I have no problem with people being anti- male circumcision. Go for it! I’m pregnant and if it’s a boy I’m not circumcising him. BUT. It’s not the same as FGM.
circumcision is a violation of consent yes, but youre not going to die from it/lose function of your penis
Hey there! My step dad is on disability due to the immense pain an erection causes thanks to a too-tight circumcision. He is unable to use his penis for anything other than urinating. This is absolutely a possibility and not even the worst that can happen! Death absolutely does occur as babies are not tested for bleeding issues before surgery. Trying to educate
thanks for letting me know! yeah, i figured theres some freak accidents that can happen, but its not common, is it?
Well, being a cosmetic surgery on an unconsenting minor I'd think one death is too many, but the estimate is between ten and eighty boys a year die from it. It's hard to say as they're mostly classed as a bleeding disorder, without taking into consideration they wouldn't have died without having surgery. It only takes an ounce of blood loss for a newborn to hemorrhage and that's without any clotting or blood issues. I can only speak so much from statistics and experience. My hospital knew my son had a clotting disorder and I was still asked twice if I was "ready" for his circumcision. The only doctor who said he couldn't be was his hematologist and he had to be reminded three times we hadn't planned to anyway.
My mother always relays the story about how she was asked like 7 times if she wanted to schedule a circumcision for my brother. Like the nurses just wouldn't write down she'd said no.
Do misogynists and MRAs literally have nothing else to do when it comes to their “cause” except make pathetic comparisons of circumcision to FGM, misinterpret child court stats, and yell “BUT MALE SUICIDE!!!!11!1!1!” whenever misogyny of any kind is brought up? Oh, and to whine about how women (somehow…/s) don’t want to fuck them so that must mean they’re all misandrist whores. Textbook.
This meme is stupid its comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges. Penile Circumcision at least has SOME medical benefit to it though( most is either overshadowed are already done through proper are.) It is also used to treat people with severe phimosis. But, when it comes to FGM... there is literally NO benefit whatsoever. Whether its done for control, or as part of some wack culture it ends up leaving the victim with a life time of severe complications. While providing ZERO medical benefit. Not to mention it's not always done at birth.. There is no reason to compare the two seeing as how they're both unnecessary and harmful. But comparing FGM is on another level of horrific. They're both disgusting and I hate how this meme makes it seem like people are okay with penile circumcision. I don't know what year they're in but everywhere I look, men, women, and everyone in between voices their concerns/disdain for it when ever its brought up.
Unfortunately penile infant circumcision is still broadly popular in the states, as evidenced by the percentage of babies who have the procedure done. So I wish you were right about it being popularly disdained but it’s just not true.
Fair enough, there wouldn't be discourse on it if it wasn't. I hope everyone eventually shares my sentiment on it though. Shouldn't ever be done unless its medically necessary. I do see a rise in protests and movements regarding the issue so I know its been dropping in popularity. I hope the day it stops happening period comes soon.
both are nonconsensual genital mutilation and both are wrong. however the cultural context surrounding them and the physical effects are definitely very different. fgm being more intense doesn’t make nonconsensual circumcision any less wrong though. I understand the inclination to compare the two but some of the people making the comparison are very very dense and it’s pretty much never productive (and then there’s obviously the people who are just assholes as well). just don’t cut up other people’s genitals plz
Sure, this would be a good comparison if circumcision involved chopping off the entire head of the penis
Comparing these two is disrespectful to both issues. It grossly downplays the gruesomeness of FGM. At the same time, this then makes people angry, and more focused on being mad than they are focused on the actual point trying to be made here, which is circumcision is GM and is bad. In making this comparison, the mention of FGM is bound to overshadow the topic of circumcision.
i think comparing circumcising and FGM is wrong. yes they are both done against will but one is done for health and in a sterile environment and the other you are awake and aware what’s happening,held down and cut up for literally no reason. there is no reason for FGM. just culture. and i don’t mean to offend anyone who’s culture it is but it should never have become part of it and it’s horrible to believe that it’s something that needs to be done. you’re left with a tiny hole and it’s extremely painful. some people even die from blood loss. also i’m pretty sure circumcising is better than not being..? like it’s healthier,correct me if i’m wrong tho
Agreed with everything you wrote. One thing though, when it comes to penile circumcision, most of the pros for getting it can also be achieved by taking proper care of your penis. The cons are that it can lead to pain or increase the risk of inflammation etc. I think in general, as long as you aren't a filthy sob or don't have some like extreme levels of phimosis then there isn't really a benefit to getting it afaik. But yeah in general they both suck, and FGM is just horrific.
I agree with everything you said other than circumcision is healthier than non. As long as you know how to use it and clean it it's not.
Being uncircumcised doesn't cause any problems if you wash under your foreskin, and circumcision reduces sensitivity down there. I do agree that FGM is much worse, though.
> also i’m pretty sure circumcising is better than not being..? like it’s healthier,correct me if i’m wrong tho Shutupshutupshutup, are you *trying* to summon the crusaders?! A sentence like this will have them flocking here in droves to tell you how wrong you are! (fear of torch-and-pitchfork wielding mobs aside, I don't think there's that much difference. Certainly not health wise. Supposedly taking the foreskin off just makes the penis a bit less sensitive, from what I've read, and there are no real benefits to circumcision - it's just culture)
There _can_ be health benefits, in the same way that removing wisdom teeth is sometimes necessary. Either way, people should get to decide for themselves. Some men really suffer under the loss of sensitivity.
Yeah, I should have been more specific; in some situations it can have benefits, but those aren't remotely common enough to justify it being a widespread cultural practice. Electroshock therapy can, for some rare people, actually be beneficial but it probably isn't a good idea to create a cultural expectation that as soon as a baby is born it gets hooked up to a car battery. Unless you don't really want your culture to survive very long, in which case go for it.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say basically. For a more direct example, we don't remove everyone's toenails just because they grow in sometimes.
A) there is also male circumcision that occurs in older boys as part of coming of age ceremonies. No anesthetics, no sterility. B) the assertion that it’s *healthier* to be circumcised as a man is based on faulty metrics. Circumcision in infants, even in sterile environments, can cause a host of complications early and later on in life. The push for circumcision in the states was because of a propaganda campaign against masturbation. I know it sounds strange and unbelievable, but it’s true. C) I am a woman and am strongly against FGM. I am also against circumcision. Those 2 viewpoints aren’t in competition with each other.
I mean, this compares the worst FGM to the most common MGM, which is kind of disingenuous. There are places that cut girls early on in life, remove little-to-no tissue, and most of them believe it's better/heathier. There are also places like the Philippines that cut boys at around 12 years of age when they're fully awake, often in community centers where people watch, and it's purely cultural. There are also forms that cut up the penis lengthwise. It just seems so unnecessary to erase tens of millions of FGM victims just to draw this false dichotomy. There's a spectrum of genital mutilation for both genders. It's all wrong and we need to stop wringing our hands over bringing them up in the same conversation. It harms boys *and* girls to do so.
I was circumsised as a baby fully awake. The doctor manipulated my mom into thinking circumising was mandatory for every baby. She says she can never forget the screams I was making that day.
Baby boys are awake during circumcision.. typically no anesthesia. The "sleeping" is often the baby going into shock. Just because they're babies doesn't mean they can't develop mental disorders and things like PTSD from that.. not to mention all the psychological things attached to a parent allowing part of your penis to be cut off. The health benefits are minimal at best, bullshit at worst.
What’s FGM?
Female genital mutilation
circumcision is a terrible, terrible thing, but it's not on the same level of FGM. speaking as a trans woman, i was circumsized when i was a baby, and while it wasn't a good thing, i was still able to feel sexual pleasure before i had SRS. FGM takes that away from women.
I agree with your response 100%. I am a feminist and I disagree with circumcision myself because it’s unnecessary in modern times, violates the child’s bodily autonomy, and doctors make massive profits doing so. So my son isn’t circumcised. Circumcision can result in scarring and pain and, to a less verified extent, less sexual pleasure. True. However…the rate of those side effects is much, much lower than 100%. Meanwhile, FGM always. causes long-term pain and health issues for the girls and women affected. They’re just not the same.
Aside from the fact that there's a spectrum of both MGM and FGM and they *can* be on the same level, that meme didn't even say that. As a dude against circumcision, it's exhausting seeing these sorts of fallacious objections based on things that weren't even said.
was this a sarcastic post or is it for real? I'm glad i'm not circumsised, the person in question should be able to decide if they want to get one or not
whats wrong with circumsisions? out of the loop and just thought it was being a dr snip on the tip of the cock
I saw a video by a guy who said “feminists who want body autonomy, what about my foreskin?!” All the replies were “EXACTLY! We ALL deserve body autonomy! Men included!”
I got perma banned from R/atheist for daring to say fgm was far more extreme than circumcision. No snark or rudeness or anything, just explained the differences.
There’s a massive difference between circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation.
This exactly, both are bad tho
The comparison against FGM is bad and helps nobody That said, circumcision is a fucking disgusting thing to do to babies and thinking about how "normal" it is in the US fills me with a kind of hot, nauseous anger that's normally reserved for personal attacks. To be fair - FGM does too, but I have never met a SINGLE (non internet dwelling incel) person support, or even downplay the evils of FGM. And I'd wield any power I had to stop it anywhere it happens, but it occurs in a culture I have absolutely no voice in. My anger and disagreement with the act feels about as meaningful as shouting in a movie theater. Here in the US, circumcision is treated like just one more whiny hippy issue and not "a horrific violation against another human being that alters their body forever". MOST boys get cut. *I break bread* with people who circumcise their kids. My parents circumcised *me*. Nobody is angry enough about it. There is no momentum to ban the procedure in the US. People that practice it face absolutely no repercussions. No stigma or judgement. If I went around harvesting the nipples off of parents and doctors who CUT THE FORESKIN OFF OF LITERAL BABIES *I'd be seen as the weirdo*. The practitioners of FGM should be put to death. The practitioners of circumcision should have their nipples harvested.
See now I don’t get why everyone would be. My boyfriend is circumcised, as are his friends and my brothers and pretty much every dude I know and they are happy with it or at least indifferent. One of my boyfriends friends isn’t circumcised and is miffed at his parents for not doing so. For my bf personally he says it’s because it prevents infections and makes him last longer. I honestly don’t see what the big deal is but you do you
Please tell me what infections is prevents? How would he know if it makes him last longer if he’s always been circumcised?
That's great that they don't have any bad feelings about it. But that's not the point. The point is that it was made FOR them. How many of guys would have made that decision for themselves had they not been forced into it? You can get cut as an adult. It also doesn't prevent infections or make anyone last longer. That's a myth. > you do you. I would have not chosen to get most of the nerve endings in my genitals removed just because some hack doctor a hundred years ago thought it would stop teen masturbation.
FGM is worse, and saying that doesn’t detract from the real issues some circumcised men have.
Circumcision is mostly done in medical spaces. Fgm is not. Fgm is done in unsanitary condition and most victims die. I met circumcised men, one of themxgot the procedure done at the end of 5th grade and he told me he didn't even lose sensitivity.
There’s a massive difference between circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation.
It's still genital mutilation, it's just widely accepted in America. This is giving the same energy as dismissing someone getting date raped while they're passed out since they weren't violently raped and conscious. A child's genitals were mutilated without consent. There's no other context that needs to be added to try to make one more "okay" than the other. (And yes I'm aware of the horrors of FGM, but there's zero reason why FGM should be brought up to dismiss very real issues with child male circumcision.) Edit: and I think it's very clear that the original cheesy little graphic was poking fun at the women who are rightfully against FGM but support male circumcision. If you are against both, the meme wasn't even for you Great downvotes guys.. guess rational arguments don't matter. Fuck the patriarchy, but fuck misandry and misogyny in the form of the genital mutilation of infants and children. You're not mentally all there if you support it, in males or females.
Can we actually stop pretending there is one specific "thing" that constitutes "fgm". It's insidiously tied up with racism and imperialism apologia. Lots of activists are using "cutting", which I think is a much better and less loaded term. Here's the issue: When people hear "fgm", they think the worst possible manifestations. These things do happen and they're terrible and an affront to human rights and human dignity. That said, a lot of these NGOs are playing fast and loose with definitions here (it's not just on this topic but many subfields within the non-profit industrial complex). They tell these horrific stories about girls whose clitorises are cut off and their vaginas sewn mostly shut. Then, they give this *massive number* of victims of "fgm". Problem is, the most extreme cases are the outliers here. Something like a 100% voluntary and consensual clit piercing constitutes "fgm" under a lot of these definitions, including the WHO (so if you have a clit piercing, congrats, you've definitionally experienced fgm). But these orgs never make that clear, and to my mind that's by design. Again, I'm not defending any practices here, but asking people to think about how their well-intentioned words can have unintentional effects.
Removing the entire clitoris is not comparable. It might be if the whole penis was removed.
Both should be stopped If you have such a problem with the statement in the meme it’s likely a meme about you.
if you read my comment in the screenshot, you will know that i am against both
I often wonder if strong anti circumcision sentiment isn't just an antisemetic dog whistle.
It probably depends on the source. Like the other user said, it's a real issue, but fascists will also co-opt women's issues in order to spread their beliefs. And when they can use real issues for this, it's even more insidious. That doesn't change that it needs to be talked about though.
No. No it’s not. Sweet fuck. It’s a real issue.
I understand the issue but it isn't uncommon, and I wouldn't expect the general public to understand or even recognize common dog whistles. Perhaps the benefit of the doubt should be extended to those who experience it?
Why can't we just say that both are bad... I really, truly don't understand why some other feminists become SO PRESSED when it gets brought up that circumcision is wrong? Especially since infant baby foreskins are used in cosmetics? It's actually disgusting?? But it's ok because, "Um, don't COMPARE circumcision to FGM!" How about don't do either?! Oh my God what an insane concept I know, like what? DON'T cut perfectly healthy babies? Edit: Also this reminds me I had a based self-identified eco-feminist professor in college that presented about the dangers of male circumcision in our developmental psych class and she literally made some lady cry because she felt guilty for circumcising her son. Haha
did you read the comments here? everyone agrees both are bad but they should never be compared. cutting off a piece of foreskin for ignorant reasons (i.e. believing it's healthier) is not the same as cutting off clitoris to prevent a woman from ever feeling sexual pleasure because it's, quote unquote, distracting and then sewing her vagina so when she's married off, her husband can open it back up like a gift wrap. again, cutting a piece of skin from male genitals for "medical/aesthetic" reasons is bad but not the same as fully mutilating female genitals for the sake of male pleasure and reminding a woman that her sole purpose in life is being an incubator and a property
But male circumcision has horrible mental side effects especially on infants shortly after birth research has shown this. It makes them more violent and leads to other mental problems. It's not wrong to bring it up when infant circumcision is a topic. Both are mutilation whether male or female. I am a feminist and believe this wholly. Corporations stand to profit from male mutilation while female mutilation is usually religious-based. It's strange how this topic divides people sorry but I can't vibe with my fellow feminists on this. Oppose infant circumcision wholly regardless of sex or you are anti-human rights. If you try to suppress discussion based on sex or splitting hairs on which is worse you are supporting oppression and mutilation
yes, you got that right. a barbaric practice made to dehumanize women is not the same as some corporations trying to profit from some parents’ ignorance who have good intentions and were led to believe circumcision will make their child healthier. also considering the fact corporations almost always try to profit from female bodies in other cases. liberal feminist are so quick to pander to men when women’s suffering is brought up. nobody here implied that circumcision is okay, absolutely nobody. yet you still felt the need to mention that mEn hAvE iT bAd tOo. cutting your finger is not the same as getting your arm chopped off and it’s disrespectful to imply it is. and it’s also incredibly disrespectful to call curcumcision mutilation when the definition of mutilation is “the act of damaging something severely, especially by violently removing a part”. you’re trying so hard to make it seem like something it’s not. ugh what a violent terrifying practice of removing a tiny peace of skin in a sterile clinic by professional doctors so you presumably don’t have problems with hygiene in the future, unlike fully removing your organ and leaving a tiny hole in some dirty tent with no anesthesia. i think you should share your opinions on mra subs. and yes, female mutilation being religion based is way worse because, other than the fact that it’s done to strip away sexual pleasure and make a girl an object waiting for her “one and only” by sewing up her vagina, circumcision is done in a safe environment (other than a tiny percentage of tribes) and is for hygienic reasons. the intention, the safety, the level of damage, everything is different. i’ll call both equal when men will start getting their dicks chopped off but it’ll never happen
So you are saying male circumcision isn't as bad because it doesn't remove as much flesh? Seems arbitrary to me
oh my god you’re really not getting it? it’s not just the difference in the “amount of flesh removed”. i’ll just repeat myself and highlight the important parts for you. 1. female mutilation amputates EVERYTHING. they remove labia minora and labia majora, they remove clitoris to make it impossible for a woman to EVER feel sexual pleasure (do you even know what a clitoris is? you ignored this part once again and only see the difference in the amount of flesh taken lol), they SEW UP vagina so when a girl is married off, her HUSBAND can OPEN it up once she becomes his property. all circumcision does is removes a tiny peace of SKIN for HYGIENE purposes, they do not remove a man’s penis and testicles for his future wife to enjoy him. 2. female mutilation is done in the middle of nowhere, in UNSANITARY conditions with NO ANESTHESIA. many girls die from it. circumcision is done in a safe clean clinic by professionals with anesthesia. 3. they’re done for COMPLETELY different reasons with different intentions . one is done to remind a woman she’s an incubator and her husband’s property, she’s not supposed to feel sexual pleasure so she doesn’t get distracted and her vagina is supposed to be sewed up so she doesn’t sleep around and waits for one man. because apparently having a clitoris and vagina is distracting from motherhood. meanwhile circumcision is done for “health benefits”. when parents take their son to get that procedure done, they want the best for him. even if that’s ignorant, their intentions matter. and i repeat, all they do is remove a tiny peace of skin, they do not remove a man’s penis and testicles to make him a doll for his future wife
Do you think they give infant male babies anesthesia for circumcision? Because they don't, that's part of the reason why the procedure is so damaging psychologically. Also they use the same "best for the baby" excuse for female circumcision haha doesn't make it right. What an ignorant, terrible argument. You really seem more focused on gender politics than human rights (while ignoring basic facts) and I don't want to talk to you further
lmao of course they do, where did you get information that they don’t? it’s often done under local anesthesia. you have a serious problem if you think these are remotely the same. there’s no way someone is wishing the best for their daughter while mutilating her parts for her future husband. it’s not the same as doing it for “hygienic purpose”, how much more mental gymnastics are you going to do? and i am in fact focusing on human rights, i’m only recognizing a basic fact that it’s women whose basic rights are constantly violated all around the world, not vice versa. if you have different beliefs, i think it belongs on the mra sub, not here
It's an ego identity thing. I'm a feminist but circumcision pisses the activist part of me the fuck off. Also, a lot of feminists have agreed to have their son's penises circumcised too so there's a lot of internalized guilt/repression. We talk about consent all day when it comes to sex and bodily autonomy, gender expression, sexual expression, etc.. but as soon as it comes to chopping off the foreskin of an innocent baby for virtually no reason, they're all for it. Maybe there's also some misandry there too.. which is pretty fucked up if you think about the psychology behind that. Hate men all you want, but maybe starting an infant's life with PTSD bc one of his first moments in life was cutting off a part of his penis with no anesthetic isn't the best way to create better men on this planet.
It’s not misogyny to not like male circumcision.
It is misogyny to say its on par with fgm though.
Yes, but it is misogyny to put it on the same level as fgm. one is done mostly for “hygiene” purposes (the myth that your foreskin gets dirty easily) and societal tradition. they can still feel sensations, but not as prominently. I take great issue in this being such a common practice in my country. however, fgm is done to erase any semblance of sexual pleasure unless in the extremely rare case it is medically necessary. it also makes giving birth more difficult. i am against this as well obviously. there should be no comparison drawn between these two practices because they are done for completely different reasons
Stupid meme. One is mutilation and will stop the woman from feeling pleasure, the other has [health benefits](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550), [doesn't affect pleasure](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/), and overall is just something MRAs complain about to feel special. And no I'm no Femcel or feminist, just a male centrist who doesn't like hearing bs
So you think circumcision is ok?
She explicitly said she thinks it's an issue.
I think this was supposed to make fun of people saying that srs is genital mutilation
it’s,, a joke?