WHY is it that many american women are against GM in the World,but support it at home?only on baby boys!?

Question

Isn't this a contradiction,or intentionally?
This continues to be a mistery to many EDUCATED & INFORMED people here and in other countries.

Sorry for those of you who answered me previously,but someone of censorchip tendencies reported the same question,and Y/A complied(!?)

Asking not for opinions or votes,but some cluez into these women contradicting position
(if a pinky finger or nail could be more worthy)

To Jo,because..I don't mean to attack if you want to twist it,my asking,so.
I do'nt mean to exclude men with like clout,but for those championing against GM around the World the homework seems shortcomming,if you don't mind me too to do compare precisely there

Answer 1

Many here will talk of how girls have died from cliteral removal, but they don't mention - so have boys died from circumcision.
They often also refer to FGM (ensuring 'mutilation' is part of the word) so as to ensure maximum horror impact, while referring to MGM as a medical (i.e. clean & professional) procedure. Additionally, my experience with feminists is they refer to FGM as being done in third world countries in dirty & barbaric conditions while failing to note that MGM's also happen in third world countries... unclean & barbaric.

I've seen a video of a group of young boys (not babies) being circumcised and it WAS barbaric - equally as females endure. They were held down, their penis's pulled far out using metal tongues and then chopped down with a large blade. The boys fell to the floor holding themselves & crying... not quite the image feminists admit to knowing of.

Meanwhile there are MANY side affects to circumcision such as dysfunctional sex life for the remainder of their life and in extreme cases, just as with girls, death.

Another point too, is some women point to the fact that circumcition is largely done by fathers (or rather, at the wish of) - but they fail to note that FGM is almost exclusively at the hands AND the wishes of the females in the family, not the males.

Answer 2

maximum folk of human beings disliked the British because of the fact they made lifestyles difficult on them. the U. S. replace into doing each and every of the paintings and the British have been creating a collection of money off the U. S. because of the fact they had a monopoly on the commerce so almost each and every thing leaving the U. S. might go quickly to Britian and then they might sell it from there for a competent income. the U. S. purely wanted to have some form of self government or some form of say interior the British government because of the fact their have been tens of millions of folk who have been compelled to stay decrease than British rule yet they had no say interior the course the rustic might go. Taxes have been the suited straw in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it had to do with far extra issues they disliked. It wasn't because of the fact they wanted to flow west and the British did not have a manage the nearby human beings. they simply made bargains with the nearby human beings after the U. S. became self reliant. They particularly reported in the event that they fought the U. S. they might supply them weapons and money. 2/3's of human beings weren't against the revolution. The majoirty supported the alternative. there have been purely a small variety of folk who remained unswerving to the British and this variation into purely because of the fact they theory their replace into no way that the U. S. might desire to conquer them.

Answer 3

Very simply put, it is hypocrisy; sexism.

Because feminism has undertaken making the women to be more worthy, more equal, the sexual mutilation of one is seen as worthy while the mutilation of the other is seen as barbaric based solely on the sex of the one being mutilated.

The women who approve of mutilating boys while raving against female mutilation are, in a word, hypocrites.

This is the typical modus operandi and why feminism has so many detractors and rightfully so.

Answer 4

i have no opinion on male circumcisions. i have seen articles noting its benefits, but do not have an opinion on it. some articles note it can help prevent getting hiv if i'm not mistaken.i'm not sure why some men take this up as a great alarm. perhaps you can mention the side effects?

in regard to female circumcision, females can be permanently injured, suffer pain, perhaps fistulas, and die from the procedure. not to mention, the consequences it will have on sex for the rest of their lives.

edit- you ask the question of women and not men? why? why the attack against females? i would imagine husbands have more of a say in whether a boy got circumcized or not - heck, i wouldnt' be able to decide. i'd ask my husband or the doctor. (i'm not shifting blame, i am just always surprised how easy some men find it to attack women and feminists in particular when we often dont have the decison making power to begin with. seems awfully cowardly to me.)

edit- i don't have an opinion b/c i dont' want to get into an argument. also, i have seen no evidence of the harmful effects of male circumcision - provide links - please enlighten us on the subject rather than beating us over the head with the lesson - you'll get a lot further.

Answer 5

My son is not circumcised.

I don't understand why people take dangerous risks with lyposuction either, or get breast implants..or pierce their nipples. But it's their choice. Sometimes parents opt for circumcision bcause they don't want their sons to look or feel different in the locker-room...if lots of guys are circumcised, and your son is "different", I suppose one could hypothesize that he may feel alienated. I don't know how much this is true or not, since I'm a woman. All I know is that circumcision seems rather barbaric, and is medially unnecessary. But I have also wondered if I made the right choice for my son. After all, he was too young to make this decision himself. Now that he's 19, he's definitely old enough to get it done if he wants it done. I wanted to leave this decision to him to make. I hope I did the right thing.

Answer 6

Why do you keep coming back asking the same question? There is a BIG difference between mutilating a girl's clitoris, and circumcising a baby boy's penis! A male will STILL be sexually functional afterwards, while a girl will live with ongoing pain for the rest of her life! She can bleed to death if the operation is botched, she can split open during sex, causing potential internal infections, etc.

So, WHY, WHY, WHY, do you keep comparing the two operations? They are NOTHING alike!

Answer 7

You asked the same 'question' last night . Why are you back. It was refuted then and will be again.

Circumcision is not the same- type of operation - and many American women don't believe in it either. I don't. I watched many a infant have it performed in my nursery- I didn't like to see it and if I could dissuaded parents from having it done.

Sometimes husbands make the decision when it concerns their sons. Talk to the fathers - they have to agree as well.

Answer 8

There is far more damage done to a female being mutilated than there is to a male being circumcised. The two can't be compared. Neither me, or any other woman I know have ever had a baby circumcised. That is a custom invented by males. Don't blame women.

Answer 9

My opinion... as requested....

Do you mean - circumcision?

the difference between that and the GM that is done on females in some places in the world is ASTRONOMICAL!
(pinky,nail, worthy, what?????????)

The degree of destruction to necessary body parts.... the intent to control the personal lives of these people through harsh and abusive, and outrageous surgery....

these bear no comparison with the removal of excess skin, at one to seven days old... which reduces the incidence of infections and diseases. -causing no harm or loss of function...

I wonder at the level of education and information that is available to those people...... GM is horrific, damaging the urethra, causing infections, restricting the normal flow of urine (why?) - so that men don't have to worry that she'll enjoy the act?

A Clue... You ask for insight (into the thoughts of American Women) and reject it when offered.

I do not recall hearing any circumcised male complain of his lack of a foreskin.... they seem to be pretty happy.

Answer 10

Circumcision is not barbaric, not genital mutilation and not in the same league as FGM.

If I had had a son he would certainly have been circumcised.

What's stupid is insisting a woman shave her public hair.