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.

I'm sceptical about mc providing significant protection from STIs, at least in comparison to the benefits of a foreskin. It's very unlikely that a body part would evolve that was detrimental to the health of the individual, especially if it was healthier to surgically remove it. It just doesn't make sense. There is no other healthy body part in any living thing that actively disadvantages its owner.

I think studies have shown that there is slight, negligible, improvements. But like the HIV argument it makes males a little more complacent and so has a detrimental effect.

Hmm I think it's a hammer to crack a nut. It's a very extreme way of trying to prevent HIV and it only provides partial protection. It's a bit like saying that all women should have mastectomies when they develop breasts, so that they don't get breast cancer. Well, yes, that's one way of avoiding it (mostly), but it's not really a goer is it?

Don't know about it being a feminist issue, however, I cannot understand why any parent would believe that is in any way suitable for a newborn that they profess to love.

The only time a circumcision should be carried out, IMO, is for medical reasons with proper anesthetic (sp?). And I speak as a parent whose child had to undergo an emergency C (under anesthetic) at around 7 years of age.