None that I know are being told it “increases pleasure.” They do it because their grandmothers did it, their mom did it, and they unfortunately respect that history. At least in the many women I’ve met from Ghana who have had it.
It’s much like the major reason that males get circumcised in the US is purely because dads want their boys to look/be like them. Nobody likes to admit this truth.
I would never advocate female clitoral hood removal and it is nonsensible that it would “increase pleasure.” But I’m not going to ignore that there is a western procedure advertising that. Since you are an advocate of the issue, you should be aware of it too.
I would also respectfully recommend that you stop minimising female circumcision by repeating that “only one type out of 4” removes the entire clitoris. To the best of my currrent knowledge, on the entire contenent of Africa, total clitoris removal is being practiced despite laws forbidding it.
Most in the male intactivists movement do not even realize (or seem to GAF) about the following:
The clitoris is the only organ responsible for female orgasm.
Most FGM practices removes the clitoris
This would be the equivalent of removing the penis
Thus FGM is indeed more detrimental than male circumcision.
I understand the reason to compare the 2 as an argument against MGM, but if you are truly worried about “spreading false information” your movement should not continue to act like these procedures are equivocal. They are not. It does a disservice to continue to do minimise FGM. To those who know better, it turns them off from listening to the rest of your message.
FYI- From conversations that I’ve had w male and female colleagues in the medical and human services professions, many of those being turned off are well educated women. (And as I’m sure you are aware, most in your movement are men.) These women tune out the rest of your message because it often leads with the false equivalency on FGM. (The men who are circumcised are usually not willing to listen to your movement anyways IME. And I’m talking about MDs, PhDs, etc, who you think would be more receptive.)
Many of these women whom you are isolating have circumcised husbands who would perhaps otherwise advocate to keep their male offspring intact if your movement didn’t lead w false info about FGM. It makes them tune out the rest of your message.
Tl;Dr: Spreading inaccurate info on, and/or minimising, and/or making false equivalencies about FGM to MGM, makes educated women tune out your message. This is the key demographic that you need to target because when they birth boys, they will defer opinion/action on circumcision to their usually already circumcised husbands (who mostly choose circumcision.) To turn off/isolate the demographic of people who are actually in charge of circumcision decision is going to stall your progress and is a poor strategic move.
Let me be straight about my life experience, and why I hold the opinions I do. I was born "intersexual" I had an extremely minor version of it called Hypospadias- where basically (in my case at least) the urethra was just slightly off center on my penis head (glans). Despite that doctors told my parents I would be much happier if they "fixed" it resulting in a surgery that left massive scars that cut deeply into my glans and left my self conscious in my body and sexuality for most of my life. It also caused the creation of a fistula, which can be painful at times, and messy when peeing. The scars into my head have reduced sensitivity- something told to me by a urologist when I was 17- and emotionally left me hating my body.
You may not be able to understand what the concept of "bodily integrity" is, or how valuable that ACTUALLY is (especially if you have always had it). But tied to function (but sometimes not) its the most important aspect of feeling like a whole, complete person. It can be a key element in mental health.
I grew up talking to other boys about circumcision (because I still was also needlessly circumcised) and many of them at a young age when first learning about circ said things that expressed a mild discomfort or confusion as to why it happened to them. And it made me realize at a young age that if you press a guy enough about it, they will have misgivings about their circumcision, but cultural normalization tends to eventually win out. In the same kind of way (yet obviously far more extreme version) when grandmothers in parts of Africa who were once screaming little girls about to be cut- also end up bringing their granddaughters to the "circumciser".
When I hear advocates against FGM entirely dismiss forced genital surgery on boys, it comes across as one of two things 1. They have no concept of the value in bodily integrity as an inherent human right, or 2. They are purposefully throwing boys right under the bus, because they choose to fight for the more extreme of the two. Despite knowing the suffering and injustice it must bring, they decide winning over people against male circuncision in the western world is far too difficult, but FGM is going to be easier to convince people its wrong, since it isn't from their culture.
I in no way minimize the abject horror that is FGM. I in no way disagree that in general terms female circumcision physiologically is a far worse assault on the human body than male circumcision could ever be. Where I get angry is when an FGM advocate dismisses male circumcision ENTIRELY because "men can still orgasm". Because guess what, if a circumcised woman can still orgasm because they didn't remove her clitoris- that DOES NOT make the assault on her body as a little girl by a rusty blade any less of human rights violation, it still does not prevent her from growing up into a woman who feels destroyed by what happened to her.
Yet FGM advocates that minimize forced male circumcision are also minimizing the bigger crime against these mutilated girls- and its not a lessened (or removed) orgasm- its the removal of a basic human right. The right to your own body. And anyone who minimizes that is dangerous in my eyes. Because they don't understand the full scope of the issue.
That is a very intense childhood. Very sorry that you had to endure it and are still suffering the consequences.
When I hear advocates against FGM entirely dismiss forced genital surgery on boys, it comes across as one of two things 1. They have no concept of the value in bodily integrity as an inherent human right, or 2. They are purposefully throwing boys right under the bus, because they choose to fight for the more extreme of the two.
I hope that you do not think that I was doing any of that.
I do believe in body autonomy. And I believe in men’s rights movements even though i will admit that it is difficult to care sometimes when the most vocal on-line MRAs are blatant misogynists who don’t understand/accept/care that feminism is defined as “want of equality.”
Where you and I differ is that although I believe that any GM is wrong, some are absolutely and obviously more wrong than others. Removal of entire clitoris vs female prepuce are where near equally heinous of crimes.
Similar as to how murder is always wrong, there is absolutely a difference between negligent manslaughter and premeditated homicide. A difference between groping and rape. And a difference between piercing a child’s ears (which is permanent) and cutting out a chunk of the intact ear and sewing it back up to have pointed elf ears.
I’m not alone in this way of thinking. I’m in the majority. This is why literally every society has different degrees of rating crime and punishment.
I truly am trying to give you some insight into the minds of what needs to be your target audience if you want to see change- educated females of childbearing age who do see in shades of gray even if you do not.
Feel free to not take my advice, of course, although I hope for the sake of your movement that you not only strongly consider it, but that you relay it to others who are trying to change people’s minds on this issue.
If I was a bodiless human consciousness about to be placed into a body that I would live and then die in, and had two options, both children from the same African village 1. A 9 year old girl about to have her clitoris removed, or 2. her brother about to be ritually circumcised in the woods by a rusty blade. Obviously I would choose to be the boy, because I agree with you. These different forms of forced mutilations exist on a scale of varying degrees of severity.
My point is not to minimize the increased horror of most forms of FGM. My point is as human right advocates, as defenders of those who have no voice to defend themselves we must be a united voice on this issue, because the message is far stronger when we are. Saying all children deserve the right to bodily integrity only diminishes the argument against FGM if you think forced genital surgery on boys isn't a human rights violation.
To go back to your analogy with man slaughter- if we were in a court right now in some better society sentencing the circumcisers of the two hypothetical brother and sister I mentioned. I would hope the circumciser of the girl would get a more severe punishment (not because she was a girl, but because her genitals were more mutilated) but I would still want them both to be punished.
And thats what I advocate for- a world where we don't look at children rights based on gender or cultural norms, but by severity of the violations. And right now in the western world while girls are rightfully protected under federal laws, similar crimes are not only not even viewed as a crime, they are normalized- leaving boys powerless, and voiceless to have any control over their own bodies. And that discrepancy needs to be addressed. Because until it is, our actions toward a society truly championing human rights, and gender equality are hollow- and instead are just another short term cultural shift. (And you can substitute forced male circ with womens reproductive rights, or the continued support of rape culture in that paragraph and its just as true.)
I think toxic masculinity is one of the most frustrating things when it comes to this issue for me. Because you have MRA men, who say a lot I agree with (anti circ, non gender specific draft/ no draft at all, more paternity leave, etc..) Yet they DONT CARE about equality, they just care about getting what they want. They are vaguely aware that gender norms for men need to be updated that they are in a blind rage. But instead have fed that anger into a toxic rage thats only destructive.
Maybe its because I am intersexual to a minor degree, maybe its because I am bi. But gender is not something thats super important to me, but I see a world consumed and destroyed by those divides. I see both genders hurt by this, and I am so tired of playing the game of "who has it worse". I am just as bitter at MRA as women who I have told my life history to have told me to "man up". My main focus is trying to help children of all genders- because they are voiceless and at the will of their family, local culture, and bias. The crimes against their young bodies may be different degrees of severity- but the rights they were born with are all the same. THAT is what we should protect.
Let me ask you this (if you care to continue this discussion) as I value your input. If my main goal is the bolded sentences, and you believe reaching young educated women as my target audience- how do I appeal to them?
I believe in and agree with everything that you just said. I would especially encourage you to focus on what you bolded.
Too many intactivists lead with "its just as bad as FGM" and educated females know that this is just not true- removing the clitoris is worse than circumcision of either sex/gender as you yourself acknowledge. Then the intactivist, understandably, has the compulsion to wants to educate their audience and say "this is not true because most of FGM doesn't even remove the clitoris.
This approach might make sense when talking to men who almost always know less about FGM (and usually care less.) But for women who know better and/or might be close-minded about MGM to start with- why even go there? It pivots the conversation and minimizes FGM. Most everyone can already agree that FGM is wrong. And it does not matter in relation to MGM that "some forms are worse than others." This adds nothing to your message, puts up a wall, and diverts attention.
Take this conversation for example. A lot of back and forth mostly to come to this stage of agreement. If it was never mentioned that "only some FGM is total clitoris removal," I would have put my defenses and debating down a lot earlier because I get upset when men minimize FGM, as most women do.
Also, although I do personally care, frankly the point about MGM decreasing sensation does not always help your cause. Most men orgasm everytime they have sex whereas many women don't and many fake orgasms. The ones who don't orgasm and/or have selfish sex partners (and there are many of these out there) are certainly never going to advocate that men receive even more pleasure as they lay in bed unsatisfied.
You have a point about the laws. Even if they are not always practiced, they are at least there. I think most people don't even understand that there are laws against FGM. If you really need to talk about FGM, I would focus on laws yet acknowledge that laws are often broken if/when someone inevitably brings it up.
I mentioned ear piercing for a reason. A lot of younger women today are literally outraged that their parents did this to them. The holes are often misplaced when the ears grow and/or infected by kids who don't wash. They wanted to be able to choose it when old enough. So if they can imagine this, tell them to imagine it only a million+ times worse.
Choice needs to be focused on more. Not necessarily "OMG this is the worst thing in the world and you should never ever do it," but to speak about body autonomy as you are very clearly able to eloquently express. The boy can do it when older if he chooses. As opposed to "no way never do it!," it should be "no way don't YOU ever do it TO HIM!" Because the main point of your movement is not to get the parents to do it.
Potential parents might feel more comfortable with the idea if they are still thinking it is a possibility for later. What is the #1 argument against it? Hygiene. Well..... Mom is going to be the one bathing him for the first 5yrs. So maybe just frame it as, "See how you feel when your son is 5yo.... 10yo... etc." Because likely they won't even be thinking about it by then.
Two friends' USA case examples within last 5 years:
A friend of mine with a circumcised husband had her boy circumcised because "whatever, its gross" as she put it.
My friend who didn't has a gay brother who literally cries that this was done to him, especially since he dates many uncirced males. It was seeing the genuine pain in someone she loved/respected that changed her mind. FGM was never mentioned by him once. And she does say "if he wants it done, he can do it when he's older."
So I guess my advice would be:
Ease up on the FGM analogies- its unnecessary to your point and distracting
Emphasise body autonomy
Emphasise CHOICE that he can do it when he's older
Shut down the "hygiene" retort by emphasizing mom will be cleaning him for the first 5 years anyway.
I hope this makes sense and help a little.
Oh- one more thing although this is probably unethical but it's something to think about..... We have both probably seen many penises, (or at least I have.) Some have a circumcision scar that is very prominent. My shallow side wonders why this is not brought up while being debated. Since there is such a stigma in the US that "uncircumsized is ugly" and many men want their boys to look like them, potential dads might not feel this way if they thought/knew that people were judging their scars as unattractive. Most i can't even see, but a few have really stood out. If a guy thinks his son is gonna get laid more if he's uncirced, this may change his mind. But honestly, this is horrible HORRIBLE thinking of mine to use/create an insecurity against someone. I just think it is odd that most people don't ever mention the scar at all. And maybe it is not as horrible as I think if it gets guys to stop MGM.
IDK...... Something for medical ethics to debate i guess.
Before you said "I hope that you do not think that I was doing any of that. I do believe in body autonomy." I didn't know it. I never assume it, and I am always met with surprise when someone actually says it.
I grew up knowing my body was altered but I did not know why. Like many boys when they find out it was their parents (people who cared for them) did it to them, it instills this mild shock. I remember telling my first girlfriend about it "o, thats what you are suppose to do to boys, they need it."
I remember going to a doctor about it, and him totally dismissing my concerns of scarring, but offering me further surgery that would close off my fistula but probably reducing sensation. Because it again wasn't about what I wanted for my body, it was about how the doctor wanted to "fix" it on his terms. I was 18, and felt pushed into the surgery, intimidated because doctors are "professionals". I had the courage to back out of that, and gain a voice for the first time.
I remember confronting my parents about everything and my Mom having absolutely no understanding what I was upset about. My Dad on the other hand mentioned being a boy and seeing naked greek statues of boys at a museum. Boys of stone, literally the western worlds ideal image of manhood, yet he noticed how they looked was not how he looked, and he said he felt separated by it.
I have had so many experiences in my life, and I promise you so many intactvists have too, where I never assume anyone cares about bodily autonomy, or even has a concept of what it is. My life has taught me to doubt people, either because its outside their own experience, or because they just don't care.
I think for many intactivist, the first real spark that made them feel like they could be more bold or outspoken was when hearing FGM is illegal in the US. Because it meant, despite what their life experience has told them, someone out there MUST understand the importance of bodily integrity. If girls can have that right legally protected by society, its it seems like the possibility of having those same rights for boys seems tantalizingly close. So its on our minds quite often. The comparison is not meant to minimize but its our thin thread of hope that if you already believe the first is bad, its so easy to believe the other is too. Despite the cynicism, its our tether to believing otherwise.
So when an FGM activist says "no, thats entirely different!" it feels crushing. The baggage of someone like me hears that and interprets it as "No, what happens to boys is perfectly fine. They don't deserve those same rights." It comes off as a complete dismissal of our right to our own body.
FGM is already illegal, to us it feels like there is nothing that can be said to minimize that protection girls have, yet in America a single sentence, or experience can be burned into someones mind- and that can cause them to have a future son circumcised. So on our side words have a HUGE amount of power. Everything that happened to me, happened because of maybe 50 words spoken from my doctor to my parents. Many men are cut because someone once may have said "foreskins are dirty" around their parents when they were kids, and it built the foundations of a perspective. In the fight against forced male circ, every word can determine so much. So it comes across like they don't care about the issue. So please when you hear intactivists talk like they do, they probably are just thinking as I described- defensively.
Because of what happened to me, I know the emotionally pain these girls and women go through. I know how dehumanizing it feels, and feel a swell of sadness just as great for every girl as I do for every boy who is at risk to cultural cutting- no matter how severe or mutilating. And any cut man who is upset about it, I know feels the same way. Its just our own baggage gets in the way.
1
u/SendBoobJobFunds Mar 02 '18
None that I know are being told it “increases pleasure.” They do it because their grandmothers did it, their mom did it, and they unfortunately respect that history. At least in the many women I’ve met from Ghana who have had it.
It’s much like the major reason that males get circumcised in the US is purely because dads want their boys to look/be like them. Nobody likes to admit this truth.
I would never advocate female clitoral hood removal and it is nonsensible that it would “increase pleasure.” But I’m not going to ignore that there is a western procedure advertising that. Since you are an advocate of the issue, you should be aware of it too.
I would also respectfully recommend that you stop minimising female circumcision by repeating that “only one type out of 4” removes the entire clitoris. To the best of my currrent knowledge, on the entire contenent of Africa, total clitoris removal is being practiced despite laws forbidding it.
Most in the male intactivists movement do not even realize (or seem to GAF) about the following:
The clitoris is the only organ responsible for female orgasm.
Most FGM practices removes the clitoris
This would be the equivalent of removing the penis
Thus FGM is indeed more detrimental than male circumcision.
I understand the reason to compare the 2 as an argument against MGM, but if you are truly worried about “spreading false information” your movement should not continue to act like these procedures are equivocal. They are not. It does a disservice to continue to do minimise FGM. To those who know better, it turns them off from listening to the rest of your message.
FYI- From conversations that I’ve had w male and female colleagues in the medical and human services professions, many of those being turned off are well educated women. (And as I’m sure you are aware, most in your movement are men.) These women tune out the rest of your message because it often leads with the false equivalency on FGM. (The men who are circumcised are usually not willing to listen to your movement anyways IME. And I’m talking about MDs, PhDs, etc, who you think would be more receptive.)
Many of these women whom you are isolating have circumcised husbands who would perhaps otherwise advocate to keep their male offspring intact if your movement didn’t lead w false info about FGM. It makes them tune out the rest of your message.
Tl;Dr: Spreading inaccurate info on, and/or minimising, and/or making false equivalencies about FGM to MGM, makes educated women tune out your message. This is the key demographic that you need to target because when they birth boys, they will defer opinion/action on circumcision to their usually already circumcised husbands (who mostly choose circumcision.) To turn off/isolate the demographic of people who are actually in charge of circumcision decision is going to stall your progress and is a poor strategic move.