Catherine Bennett, a well-known British feminist, has an op/ed at the Guardian that is to date the sanest, calmest, most complete and most unaswerable treatment of the circumcision question.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that a feminist is saying these things. Feminists got on the right side of this issue from the very beginning, or many did. But more importantly the vocabulary of concepts for discussing infant MGM as a form of misandry and a human rights abuse comes out of feminism, all of it. Thank you feminists. Thank you feminism. Now shout down those people who dismiss concerns about circumcision as trivial or somehow misogynist(!) as anti-feminist.
Can I get the MRAs to say “Thank you feminists. Thank you feminism”?
The comments are the usual hot mess of misinformation, disinformation, hysterics and then sweet reason counter-attacking. The op/ed is good, but the comments are where the real meat is.
You get all the usual idiocies: MGM is in no way analogous or as severe as FGM, how dare you compare them? FGM is equivalent to penectomy, not circumcision. (This one is just straight anatomically illiterate.) Circumcison is sacred, how dare you try to ban it, how bigoted of you. Then there is the intentional and misleading conflation of infant and thus nonconsensual circumcision with adult circumcision. It’s all the usual dishonest tricks.
It should amaze me though it does not that anyone can argue for infant circumcision as a religious right, that they can assert their own individual rights, in complete disregard of someone else’s individual rights. People should be reminded that they live in some rather fragile and exposed glass houses.
Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016