Wow, that Jezebel blogger is a mega douchebag.

Why on Earth would you make fun of genital mutilation? It's not a funny subject. I didn't laugh at the comment. It just left a horrible taste in my mouth.

The fact that they're making fun of an individual woman really disturbs me as well.

I really dislike Jezebel, it just seems like a low brow cousin of the other feminist sites.

Wow, that's definitely not funny and it kinda made me queasy. I am surprised that only one person said anything about that remark in the comments. Just let it slip right on by as though it were an innocuous little jab at this contestant.

Anecho: Go to the second page. A few more people commented on the wrongness of it. That made me feel a bit better.

Okay, there needs to be a Godwin's Law to describe the phenomenon of anonymous douchebags trolling FGM threads with disingenuous cries of "what about male circumcision!?"

Smack! I apologize for using that term...I know it's offensive to some. Sorry. I'll leave it at "anonymous trolls."

What the FUCK? I am constantly reinforced in my disgust with humankind.

Tami's comments about humor really hit home for me today. I saw a really offensive sketch comedy show last night and had to express my reaction to the performers, most of whom are friends of mine. I understand the desire to be uncensored in one's writing, but sometimes we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to laugh at these things.

Blitzgal: All genital modification/mutilation without the consent of the owner of the body in order to fit the social/aesthetic preference of the society at large. While FGM is far more severe in most cases, are people who bring up the topic of male genital mutilation (yes, it's mutilation. Read about it. http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_wrong.html) "anonymous douchebag trolls"? They're trying raise awareness to a real issue that most people are blind to. The loss of erogenous tissue in circumcision is not widely acknowledged and because of the damage it causes, the practice needs to end.

Blitzgal: All genital modification/mutilation without the consent of the owner of the body in order to fit the social/aesthetic preference of the society at large is wrong. While FGM is far more severe in most cases, are people who bring up the topic of male genital mutilation (yes, it's mutilation. Read about it. http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_wrong.html) "anonymous douchebag trolls"? They're trying raise awareness to a real issue that most people are blind to. The loss of erogenous tissue in circumcision is not widely acknowledged and because of the damage it causes, the practice needs to end.

Blitzgal, I'm totally with you. I interned at a human rights org last semester, and a guy I worked with brought that up during a discussion on FGM. I got pretty upset at him. And picturesque, I really don't think you can compare FGM and male circumcision. Are most males circumcised after 8 years old? Are they usually circumcised in incredibly unsanitary conditions, without proper tools and by people with no medical training? Does male circumcision often bring with it a host of other health issues and lifelong pain? If so, then by all means, bring it up in a thread like this.

I agree that male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation and we need to stop doing it to our babies.

But, male circumcision would only be comparable to FGM if the penis and all of the surrounded tissue were amputated.

There is a big difference between circumcision and FGM. I am circumcised, and I would hardly compare what was done to me within a week of my birth, with a practice that borders on torture.

Ya, ya guys, I know. We all know the difference in severity between male and female genital mutilation (i mentioned it in my post).

We're not saying foreskin removal is equated with clitroral amputation or anything like that. What anti-circumcision activists are about is the idea that everyone is entitled to not have parts of their bodies modified or removed without their informed consent. Since they're children when this happens, there cannot be informed consent, and since parents are guardians, they should only make decisions that need to be made, not select elective cosmetic surgery for their child.

The age at which a child is cut is not especially relevant (some men are cut as newborns, some at 5-8, or as late as 16, depending on the culture), nor would any form of genital mutilation be appropriate, even in the most sanitary of conditions and with anesthetic. These are not the issues people. We already know the differences between male circumcision at FGM. But at heart you're not against FGM because you think it's unsanitary, it's because it's wrong to impose cultural/aesthetic norms on people's bodies, especially genitalia.

And in fact, erogenous tissue is removed during circumcision. Most men dont know the difference since they were circ'ed near birth. Ever heard of a frenulum? It's the most sensitive part of the penis, on the underside and is almost always partially or fully removed during circumcision. Also, the head dries and desensitizes, reducing pleasure. There are other reasons, like too much skin often being removed resulting in tight erections or in extreme cases bleeding. read http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html or google.

Thank you.

commiewimp: But, male circumcision would only be comparable to FGM if the penis and all of the surrounded tissue were amputated.

Comparable... I do not think that word means what you think it means. They are entierly comparable, being the same basic sort of thing taken to varying degrees.

The word you're looking for is "equatable." Male circumcision would only be equatable to FGM if the penis and all of the surrounded tissue were amputated.

I am against male circumcision/MGM. I am for people raising awareness of MGM by saying during a conversation of FGM "Have you ever thought about how, in some ways, male circumcision is comparable? It's not the same thing, but male circumcision is so much more acceptable in our society that it can blind us to the fact that it, too, is an irreversible change to someone's body done without their consent. And you may have heard of possible benefits to circumcision, but I actually think it's overall much more beneficial to leave the foreskin intact. Just wanted to take this opportunity to spread awareness on the subject. Now, back to FGM..."

The thing is, that never happens. Instead, they always present it as just another what about teh menz. I am against that. Fuck them.

The thing is, that never happens. Instead, they always present it as just another what about teh menz. I am against that. Fuck them.

OK, so did this happen in this convo? I don't think so.

I don't know what "what about the men?" is supposed to refer to, I imagine that you are getting at some whining phenomenon I'm not personally familiar with. Well, in any case, I didn't start studying the issue of male circumcision in our society because I first read about FGM and then thought "oh, what about the poor men?" Instead I came to read about male circumcision, out of curiosity about the practice, and was shocked at what I found was the truth about this seemingly innocuous, accepted & commonplace practice. I think it's important to raise awareness about the issue and I don't think it in any way has to detract from exposing the real brutality that is FGM at the same time.

My reason for posting in the first place had a lot to do with countering Blitzgal's post:
anonymous douchebags trolling FGM threads with disingenuous cries of "what about male circumcision!?"

I am not an anonymous douchebag, nor a troll, and I am not disingenuous about saying that male circumcision is an important and valid topic. If someone like Blitzgal popularizes the idea that FGM is horrible and MGM is irrelevant, I will dispute that. It's wrong.

I wasn't talking about this convo, I was talking about every other online convo on FGM I've seen. I think of this one as different because MGM only came up when someone else said watch, they're going to start doing what they always do. Your response was fine, I'm just saying, I still hate the way the people I have in mind act.

What about the men is a tactic anti-feminists use to say that the women's issue being discussed isn't really important and sexism doesn't really exist because something bad happens to men, too. What I was trying to say above is that I think it's ok for someone to take advantage of an FGM conversation to bring up MGM, because it's a good way to get people to realize that male circumcision is messed up if they've never thought of it that way before. People can also come to the issue other ways, like you, but I recognize that using FGM to open eyes could be very useful. But it's not ok to derail the conversation or to say, how dare you care about this women's issue when there are men being cut too (obviously I can care about both and talk about them one at a time), or stuff like that. The point of those arguments is usually not to get people to care about MGM but to tell people they shouldn't see FGM as evidence of sexism, ie, to oppose feminism. Hence the term disingenuous used by blitzgal.

Thanks for your post, judgesnineteen.