wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Why is it whenever there are articles and films exposing female suffering, some woman/women have to bring up the male point of view?

This is a film about exposing the genital cutting of 85% of the girls in Mali, and NOT a debate on whether male circumcision is more or less barbaric.

Why can't we as women, come to the aid of other women without having to prove some gender neutral point?

Frankly, I don't want to discuss male "circumcision" here, while there are obvoiusly women all over the world that are looking for some support towards their plight, from what should be well-educated supportitive women in the western world.

Kudos to the makers of Mrs. Goundo’s Daughter.

Check out this new organization:
www.intactamerica.org
It's about saving all babies from genital cutting.

With all due respect, male circumcision has serious side effects and consequences. Only those of us who have performed circumcisions and looked into the issue are fully aware of these problems. Babies suffer tremendously. Males lose the most sensitive and pleasurable portion of their penis. Many males have also lost a portion of their glans; some have lost their lives. Female circumcision has many different types: some minor and some major. It is barbaric, but no less so than neonatal male circumcision. We just choose to think of it as being less serious because it is culturally more acceptable here. The full effects of male circumcision in this country have yet to be determined. Neonatal circumcision is where sex and violence first meet, which explains a lot about our society. Both males and females deserve protection from bodily intrusion. Maybe then we can have peace on earth.

First, a response to comment 2 - I agree. There is no logical reason why circumcision of baby boys should be performed as a matter of course. The social pressure to circumsize boys is fierce. And because the practice is so ubiquitous, it's impossible to know what the long-term ramifications are.

However, the brutality of male circumcision pales in comparison to what is euphemistically called female circumcision or "cutting." Men retain their capacity for sexual pleasure and orgasm and run a very low or non-existent risk of infection or serious physical problems later on. On the other hand, women are having their primary sexual organ - the clitoris - hacked off, along with the labia. To put it bluntly, female genital mutilation is a form of amputation. It disturbed me to hear the guests refer to this barbarism as "cutting." I understand the desire not to offend the cultures that engage in this misery, but let's be real: you "cut" your hair or your fingernails, but somebody else "mutilates" your genitals.

Female genital mutilation is horrific. What most Americans do not think about, though, is that we also remove healthy genital tissue from our children - to the tune of 1.2 million infant male circumcisions performed in U.S. hospitals each year, for no medical necessity.

These baby boys are not sick. They are normal. They did not and cannot consent to the permanent and painful removal of their foreskins. Because they are not sick and do not need this surgery to save their life or health, under accepted principles of bioethics their parents' consent is invalid. Yet we persist, meanwhile lamenting what other cultures do to their daughters.

Its a sick and very insecure male society that would want to rob women and their own wives of being capable of experiencing sexual pleasure and desire. Just as it it is sick to fantasize about a heaven with 72 virgins, my heaven would have 72 experienced women