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.

Nah not really.

Patriarchy has always used its favoured religions to fuck with human beings and their bodies.

It bloody ought to be astonishing and in a sane world it would be. But unfortunately, it's all too unsurprising. I mean, religions have burnt people in the name of their wonderfulness, it's not that surprising that they go around hacking off bits of them.

Bits off of them, that should say

Yes he was berserk - he also had an obsession with regular bowel movements, hence the corn flakes.

SQ - interesting point about cultural norms, and which ones we take on board.

Things like having your ears pinned back or other cosmetic proceedures as a baby I guess are somewhat comparable. Any operation involves a risk, and we do them because we think our children will have a better life, be more accepted in society if they look 'normal' - I guess this is part of the thinking that drives Jewish, American and other people from circumscising cultures to agree to someone taking a knife to their babies private parts.

I think it is barbaric, but then that is an easy thing for me to say since I am under no pressure to circumcise. On the other hand I am going to take my DS with the wonky teeth to the orthodontist.

Herbex - 'Patriarchy' and 'religions' don't do things, people do. That to me is the interesting question - why people do things that are wrong, even with good intentions, and how that can change.

The Dr Kelloggs thing is interesting, I wonder if it also took off in the US because the Jewish community has, in the late 20th Century US been a trendsetter for aspirational tastes - would it have become popularised if it was seen as an ancient African tradition for example?

That's they brilliant 'get out clause thought' Himalaya it's not the system that does it, it's the individual. However, the patriarchy and religions etc set up a culture in which the 'norm' is unquestioningly adhered to, and the consequences are heaped upon the individual.

I think it's a bit like a madly run department in a hospital (or bank, or airline etc) where the system failure creates and environment that fosters mistakes but when something does go wrong, the individual is made to be the scapegoat.

SGM your 11.26 post reads really funny and made me - like you are a contemporary of Dr Kellog and I KNOW youre not that old (unless you've had a helluva lot of work )

Himalaya yes thanks I was starting to feel like I was labouring the point somewhat but I think it is important.

What strikes me as a feminist concern in this is that circumcision of a baby boy has been almost entirely presented as a mother's decision alone. Of course in some communities it would be demanded and there wouldn't be anything to debate, and in Britain most people wouldn't consider it anyway, but in America it's a live topic (Dr Kellog's influence still around). This is very much a male concern and the kids' dads ought to have an opinion! But maybe a lot of fathers leave all decisions about a baby to the mother, which of course is a feminist issue right there.

I don't know, Tei. Before I discovered MN I mainly spent time on a livejournal baby community thing - mainly US based though it was international. I remember being really shocked when I heard how common circumcision is over there and how many women (over half) said "It's a boy thing, so I'll just let my husband decide" and seemed to have no desire to have any input into the decision at all. The rationalisation for this seemed to be "Well he's letting me make the decision of whether to breastfeed or not" which was just..

Oh well then--I think the men are making the wrong decision (and obviously, the first generation in which the nasty cutting was done ended up different from their dads, so why the opposite now?) but at least the guys are stepping up to the plate and doing their duty. It's just that the postings here have mostly put it in terms of what a mother decides to do, when it should be what the parents decide to do. Anyway, I believe circumcision is down to below 50% in the USA now, and continuing to fall.

TheFrozenMBJ - I didn't mean it as a get out clause, more that systems are made up of individuals, so its worth trying to understand why individuals do things, especially in less formalised systems I.e. Cultures where you can't say there are not clear structural reasons e.g. For why people bought Kellogs brand of bullshit, but not some other hucksters.

I find explanations like "the patriarchy and religions etc set up a culture in which the 'norm' is unquestioningly adhered to". People question religion all the time, every generation challenges norms, and yet some are are hard to escape, some catch on quickly but are discarded, some are slow burners.

BertieBott's 10.44 link says that in the US Army it became mandatory around the time of WW2 for 'health' reasons rather than to deter masturbation, which was the reason it had been done earlier, and that army cadets who refused were dishonourably discharged. So no wonder it became commonplace in the US.

But it now appears to be falling out of practice, which is good.

So is it a feminist issue in that women have no say when it comes to the male body parts of their children?

DH is American and was routinely circumcised, but it was never a thought to have ds done. I wouldn't have anyway, cutting bits off babies ffs... well, that's pretty much dh's opinion too, plus he has some choice things to say about the "looking like daddy" crap as well.

And, as a religious person myself, I think "religious" reasons for doing stuff are bullshit and should be questioned, as some people in those religions do and as people have done for years because religion is man-made... which some people can't seem to separate from belief in the existence of God/ess.

Not really a feminist take, but it grates me somewhat that many mumsnetters are obsessed with WHO guidelines on breastfeeding, yet are quite prepared to ignore everything else the WHO says.

There are health benefits to circumcision. They include a significantly lower risk of HIV/aids infection (60% lower as per a study endorsed by the WHO) and of transmitting the HPV. Link www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/who_mc_local_anaesthesia.pdfhere

I am not saying everyone should have their sons circumcised, but given that there are health benefits, and the risks are very low (again quoting the WHO), and it offers additional protection to our daughters against HPV, at the very least I would expect not to have it labelled as child abuse. Do you seriously think 90% of American men were abused in the 70s, because that is how prevalent circumcision was back then? And that one in three boys is abused worldwide, because that is how widespread circumcision is today? If so I think this devalues the concept of child abuse.

I know some people will say that condoms are the best protection. I entirely agree, but people do stupid things sometimes, as evidenced by the number of unplanned pregnancy threads on here! The point is, there is still a potential benefit to circumcision. If you don't want it done because it is anathema to your culture, that's fine, but don't assume your position is entirely logical. Also bear in mind some people have less sheltered lifestyles than your own. This could include your sons when they grow up - they may be more exposed to the virus than you were, either geographically (eg by moving to Africa) or through sexual practices (homosexual intercourse).

My daughter will get the BCG vaccine soon. Her risk of catching TB is low, but my inlaws are in India, therefore we were offered it on the NHS. It will hurt, she will get no pain relief, and it will leave a small scar on her arm. Am I happy about any of this? No. Will I be going ahead? Yes, because it will offer some protection against the disease, even though the immunity wears off eventually, and I cannot let my vanity get in the way of doing the right thing for her.

Likewise with circumcision in my view.

I am going to get flamed won't I? :)

I lived in the states for a while and was surprised to find that many boys there are circumcised whether jewish or not for 'cleanliness'. Not really something that happens in the UK is it?

From the WHO recommendations (your link didn't work btw Prima)

Male circumcision should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package, which includes

the provision of HIV testing and counselling services;
treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
the promotion of safer sex practices; and
the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
Counselling of men and their sexual partners is necessary to prevent them from developing a false sense of security and engaging in high-risk behaviours that could undermine the partial protection provided by male circumcision. Furthermore, male circumcision service provision was seen as a major opportunity to address the frequently neglected sexual health needs of men.

"Being able to recommend an additional HIV prevention method is a significant step towards getting ahead of this epidemic," said Catherine Hankins, Associate Director, Department of Policy, Evidence and Partnerships at UNAIDS. "However, we must be clear: Male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV. Men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method must continue to use other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, delaying sexual debut and reducing the number of sexual partners."

Emphasis my own.

There is a huge difference between removing a piece of a baby's body without consent (and years before sexual activity is even a consideration) and immunising against TB. An adult is always free to opt for circumcision as part of a preventative strategy if he so chooses (although something tells me that the majority wouldn't want to when offered the choice)

Linking again www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/who_mc_local_anaesthesia.pdf

I live in South Africa and it is "traditional" for young men (iXhosa or Zulu etc) around 16 or over to go to the bush to be circumsised. Its part of them becoming a man or so the story goes.

Hundreds if not thousands die each year because of unhygenic appalling conditions. Its turned from a traditional custom to economic abuse. You have to provide a bottle of whiskey or similar to say thanks for doing it.

I was pretty relaxed about traditional customs till I moved here, then at the same time each year there are newspaper reports about another 20/30/40 children found dead because of it. It makes me sick

I hear your concerns re aids prevention. If thats so, let the child choose until they are older.

Dont agree with it at all. It can mean men lose percentage of their sexual pleasure (often substantial if you read cases of men who have had to have it during adulthood), its pointless and uneccesary and I dont agree with it in the same way I dont agree with female circumcision. It is a persons body and something they should decide for themselves in later years.

My brother had it done for medical reasons when he was very young. He never hesitates to question routine circumcision, and gets very cross when people say that it doesn't hurt, and that babies don't remember the pain. In his words, "it fucking kills".

I think that we have to think around the issue of women being the default, traditional keepers of traditions, for both FGM and non-medical circumcision of baby boys.

It's another disgusting thing done in the name of culture/religion. How any parent can stand and watch someone sever a part of their child is beyond me.

Men lose a number of their sensitivity receptors in the glans by the exposure too..