How is 'routine' male circumcision perceived by feminism/feminists?

[AgentZigzag]

I'm just on another thread in AIBU and didn't want to hijack it and so thought I'd take the plunge in the best section to answer the question in the title.

The discussion between posters about why male and female circumcision are viewed differently by people/society made me wonder what kinds of pressures are on the mother of a baby to perform this surgical procedure on their child.

Looking specifically at male circumcision (because that's what the other thread is about, if it's possible to separate the two) is this a pressure entirely generated by men (in religious institutions/families etc) and which is colluded with by the father, who may voice his expectations for the mother to conform in an attempt to influence the possibility of the procedure going ahead with her permission?

Or does this as an explanation of why women have their sons circumcised falsely portray women as powerless in determining what happens to their children, when in fact they're quite able to make decisions for themselves and their families without being coerced by anyone.

I'm tempted to say something like 'I'm probably talking rubbish' or 'please go easy on me' but I won't because that would unmask the lack of confidence I feel I have in discussing feminism and may lead to me being shot down in flames for pointing out my weakness.

All the men in my family are circumcised and I assumed that would be what I would for my son. It was only when a few good friends reacted with horror that I thought more about it and did further research. Not sure how you compare degrees of genital mutilation, but I don't think it is as bad as FGM. However I decided not to do it, and my parents were unimpressed. When my SIL also decided not to have my nephew circumcised they kind of gave in.

Which is fine - I mean we all draw our own line with this stuff. And I agree that cutting up penises is not something I agree with.

However I think we need to be very aware that we are not free of our own unnecessary practices when we talk about these things.

Sorry my 20.03 post is a continuation of my 20.01 post.

SardineQueen - to put it bluntly it's illegal to go around touching boys willies - so why is it OK to chop parts of them off?

And why do mothers think this is OK?

Why don't they put their foot down and say "no, actually, I don't agree with this, it invades my baby's human rights - and no, I'm not going to let it happen"?

The mother's basic instinct is to protect her baby - but for some reason the mother finds it hard to push through the status quo surrounding this penis chopping ritual.

I agree that the pressure must be pretty tough.

But surely it is a father's instinct to protect his child too? So why aren't they pushing through the status quo as well, Animation? I don't think it is just down to women to police this.

Animation - I am currently doing this exact thing. I am a feminist and agnostic at best. DH is a fairly devout Muslim and is under considerable pressure from family and friends to have DS circumcised.

Just because I don't have religious conviction doesn't mean I don't feel as strongly about protecting my DS and currently am putting my foot down (well sobbing mostly, but you get the idea). It is very difficult and there isn't any room for compromise on this issue - you either do, or you don't.

I have significant concerns about DS being somehow rejected by his father and community though if we don't go through with it.

I think it's more a humanitarian issue, in that a completely unnecessary procedure is being allowed for reasons of tradition, religion and spurious claims of prophylaxis.

What if the tradition was to remove a small square of skin from the arm (for example) which was then stitched up and allowed to heal?

Yes, it wouldn't probably do any long-term harm, would just leave a scar etc. etc. but there are no good reasons for doing it and anyone who asked a doctor to do that to their baby soon after birth would rightly be refused and questioned on their morality and ability to make judgements as a parent.

Just because it's normal in some cultures and traditional it doesn't mean it isn't deeply wrong and although I think the level of mutilation which it entails is not really comparable with FGM it shouldn't be put down the agenda because it's not as bad.

HandDrivel - yes I agree.

To some extent the father is a circumcised victim himself and I don't know how that manifests.

Actually, what possible point does FGM have?

Medically, none. To control women's sexuality and create a nice tight orifice for her future husband is the point. It's utterly fucking disgusting and although linked to male circumcision in that they are both operations on the genitalia of children, I really don't think it's helpful considering the two things together.

Thanks for your replies.

'Why don't they put their foot down and say "no, actually, I don't agree with this, it invades my baby's human rights - and no, I'm not going to let it happen"?'

The answer to Animations question is really what I'm wondering about.

What is it about the cultural, religious and familial norms that leads women to the decision to take this course of action.

I don't subscribe to the idea they're just doing it 'because it's the done thing', for some maybe, but surely the majority of women would question the procedure, even if it's in private?

I also believe the 'done thing' idea minimises the importance of those norms and their effects on women, it's not a case of just ignoring them and rejecting the procedure.

The emotions attached to it, (in that it can be a newborn baby, and it's an important part of a mans body) make it so difficult to get a grip on the subject.

Exactamundo - making it so that women don't enjoy sex and would therefore only have sex with their husband (and then only if they had to) is a pretty good "reason" as far as tradition goes.

BelleCurve - I was in a similar situation to you (although I could not describe DH as devout.....). We found that there was an....expectation that our DS would be circumcised. I think DH would have liked it to be done too - for cultural reasons, I guess, as, as I said, he's not religious. TBH I considered it but something in me recoiled at the idea so it was never done. And I'm glad. I'd be ashamed of myself now if I'd let it happen. Oh, and the ILs have not mentioned it since - luckily for us.

Fair enough if DS decides in years to come that it's an important part of a religious identity that he chooses to adopt. He can have it done then.

Have never really thought about it from a feminist slant before surely a mother has a duty to think about the welfare of all her children, whether boys and girls, and try to ensure the best for them. That may mean very tough debates (or worse) with family - often older people to whom considerable respect (and deference) is accorded simply as a result of their age. And, moreover, those people who might be pushing for circumcision may well be women as men. Cultural expectation and upbringing has a lot to answer for.

"I don't subscribe to the idea they're just doing it 'because it's the done thing', for some maybe, but surely the majority of women would question the procedure, even if it's in private?"

You see I think that male parents have the same protective instincts towards their babies as women, so if women do question it I'm sure men do too.

And I think you underestimate how many people do it because it's what you do. The point about deeply ingrained cultural practices is that they are seen as totally normal and so people don't think to question them.

Like when I point out procedures that are culturally entirely normal in our society yet are nonetheless unnecessary, they are seen as being entirely different. They aren't different, they are the same. The ones of other cultures just seem ridiculous / stupid / cruel as we do not understand the point of them and have not been raised to think they are normal.

By all means question the value of the things that happen in different culturse and draw the line where you please, but be aware that you - as in everyone including me - are blinkered to what their own society deems normal and it's hard to carry out this exercise on your own practices.

I don't have a clue what the feminist perspective is on this, I suspect there isn't one as such, different feminists will identify differently about it. My personal attitude is that only a patriarchy could come up with the idea that cutting off one the most sensitive part of a baby's body, which would some day adversely affect his sexual function, was a sensible thing to do.

Lenin - my guess it has nothing to do with preventing disease and everything to do with preventing children marrying out of the tribe. Same as food taboos, it is a way of marking out others as dirty and disgusting and keeping group coherence.

For me feminism is part of a broader belief in human rights. Cutting off a babies foreskin violates his human rights.

I feel that male circumcision is a ridiculous practise and an analogy could be draw with say, routine, preemptive removal of everyone's appendix, as after all, it does very little (that we know of) and has the potential to cause a serious and possibly life-threatening illness - appendicitis.

AFAIK, the studies pointing to reduced transmission of HIV/AIDS in sexually active men in Uganda are more difficult to interpret than it looks initially because although both groups (circumcised and uncircumcised) were given the same amount of education and support safe sexual practices, it is very difficult to truly asses the behaviour changing effect of an intervention vs. no intervention.

Did I explain that well? I mean, you can't say whether the simple act of circumcision has any effect on the level of adherence to condom use or the avoidance of risky behaviour, or not.

So although the study did show a small reduction in transmission in circumcised makes, it is by no means conclusive.

I don't think that one can (or should) compare FGM with male circumcision. they are both barbaric and wrong in my opinion but FGM has a very different purpose from mc.

FGM is designed to subdue and control whereas (in general) mc is a used as a mark/brand if being part of a 'special' or 'chosen' group.

The argument that it prevents disease always seemed rather odd to me. The theory, afaik, is that the foreskin traps and 'incubates' the disease - but surely the disease can only get under there in the first place by the man having unprotected sex, which is dangerous for cut or uncut men.

I think it's just the idea that dirt can get trapped under the foreskin.

Which only happens if men are dirty gits who don't wash.

Did you know that circumsicion in the US was originally pushed for by Dr Kellogg (yes, the one of corn flake fame), because he believed it prevented masturbation in boys, which at the time was considered to be immoral and possibly dangerous (misunderstanding of STDs, etc). He was actually quite a sick individual with some really messed up ideas of sexuality, especially in children.

Just looked this up and it seems he was advocating it as a punishment and you don't want to know what he recommended for girls caught masturbating :(

Basically adults should not mess with childrens' private parts. Private parts are just that, private - they are none of the adults' business, and they should leave well alone. That's generally the law of the land. So how do adults get round that then - they find a loop hole - bloody religion. In the name of religion it is OK to mess with childrens' private - and even cut parts off.

Absolutely astonishing!