Why is male circ for religious reasons ok, but not female?

[bada]

I don't know all the ins and outs, but some women are done as a way of controlling them sexually, whereas I haven't really heard men are done for that reason. Many forms of FGC causes a lot of long term pain and problems, whereas I guess RIC doesn't really? I don't know.... I'm guilty of those double standards.

Interestingly, RIC in the western world was initially introduced as a way of treating and preventing masturbation.

As MotherNurture said earlier, the most common form of female circumcision is "sunna" which removes the clitoral hood (female prepuce). I'm sure the procedure goes wrong at times and could cause long term pain and problems just as RIC could, but generally speaking the long term issues would be similar in both, likely keratinization (drying, thickening) reducing sensitivity.

[witherwings]

I disagree. First there is no indication that it hasn't existed at least as long as male circumcision so far as I've seen.

actually, wise traveller, judaism has existed for thousands of years before islam (and christianity for that matter).

[my_lot]

Interestingly, RIC in the western world was initially introduced as a way of treating and preventing masturbation. and has nothing to do with religion

As MotherNurture said earlier, the most common form of female circumcision is "sunna" which removes the clitoral hood (female prepuce). and is done for a different reason to male RIC

I'm sure the procedure goes wrong at times and could cause long term pain and problems just as RIC could, but generally speaking the long term issues would be similar in both, likely keratinization (drying, thickening) reducing sensitivity.

Do you think the "long term issues" are more of an issue to one sex than the other?

[witherwings]

To answer the OP, I don't know. But I am not particularly against RIC (at the same time I'm not for it), whereas I do think FGC is cruel. I think they are done for different reasons, I don't know all the ins and outs, but some women are done as a way of controlling them sexually, whereas I haven't really heard men are done for that reason. Many forms of FGC causes a lot of long term pain and problems, whereas I guess RIC doesn't really? I don't know.... I'm guilty of those double standards.

I do think its important to respect other people's religions to a certain extent though. A lot of problems in history are due to people not respecting other people's right to worship their own god. It (religion) often is not damaging to the child and in fact gives them a sense of belonging, and things like RIC *could* give, say Jewish or Muslim boys a large part of their identity in that culture/religion (as the two are often linked very closely). I think the same can be said for FGC, which is why women continue to do it to their daughters (although like I said I do have problems with this practise even though its double standards!)

Also I'm not sure what the muslim/FGC discussion is thats going on in here, but yes, its is tied in with religion, no I don't think the Quran says you have to do it (as someone else said its all open to interpretation) and I wuld safely say most Muslim women aren't circumcised. I have had many Muslim friends over the years (including from countries such as Afghanistan and Indonesia) and none of them are or would do it to their daughters.

Being circ'd is certainly a part of a male jewish identity. My husband was not circ'd because he grew up in a country where ALL religion was banned, and he didnt even know he was jewish until he was a teenager! I dont want that sort of idenity crisis going on with my son.

As an adult, he struggled with deciding whether to get circ'd or not, because of the potential physical and psychological complications that could have come after the procedure. In the end he decided against it. But if his parents were allowed to practice their faith when he was born, then he would never have had to face this problem as an adult.

[Fellow Traveler]

FGM is not done as a religious rite. It is not prescribed in any text. It hasnt even existed for that long.

Comparing it to the Brit Milah is like comparing suicide bombing to circumcision. Suicide bombing is done for "religious reasons" but it is not PART of the religion.

There is a distinction.

I personally dont see any reason why someone would RIC their son unless they were jewish or muslim. But each to their own, and only G-d is the one who can judge.

actually, wise traveller, judaism has existed for thousands of years before islam (and christianity for that matter).

And male circumcision existed before Judaism.

[witherwings]

The earliest evidence of male circumcision is also from Ancient Egypt.

I'm sure that the earliest "evidence" of male circumcision was found in egypt because jews didnt mummify their dead.

But you are totally missing the point. Male Circing is part of judaism. It is not part of being islamic, ancient egyptian or greek. Furthermore, FGM is not engrained in the african or egyption or any muslim female psyche. It is not a widely practiced ritual that has spanned more than 4000 years, for an entire nation.

[bada]

Witherwings, I was responding to your comment that FGC has not been around that long

As far as I am aware neither female or male circumcision is mentioned in the Qur'an. So you are right in saying that circumcision is not part of being Islamic, none the less there are Muslims that regard both to be essential parts of being Islamic. Just as there are Jewish people who don't regard circumcision as an essential part of being Jewish, and others who do.

I posted this in the "religion" thread also, but it applies here too and I'm interested to hear you opinion,

Jews believe that failure to do circumcise will lead to karet, or excision from being one of Gods people, as stated in Genesis. Indeed, circumcision is so much a part of Judaism that grown men, if they convert to Judaism, must be circumcised.

The fallacy of relying on Genesis or Leviticus for guidance on the importance of circumcision is that so much of the Tanakh is ignored by modern Jews already. So why stick with circumcision? A few examples of ignored laws:
Leviticus 5:1-10 If you commit a sin then you can expurgate your sin by sacrificing a goat by gouging it through its neck. If you can't afford a goat then two turtle doves are okay.
Leviticus 20:13 Gay men must be stoned to death.
Leviticus 25:44 Slavery is perfectly acceptable;
Lev 25:46 Any slave you own is hereditary property that you can happily pass onto your children when you die;
Deut 21:1-29 If you find a dead human body on your land then you must decapitate a female calf and wash your hands in its blood over a swiftly running stream.
Deut 21:10:14 Rape is perfectly acceptable as long as it is an enemy woman you are raping.
Deut 21:18-21 If your son doesn't do as he says, then feel free to flog him. If he still doesn't do as you ask, the priests will organize some blokes to stone him to death on your behalf.

I could go on and on with the number of rules and commandments that have been abandoned (quite rightly too) by modern Judaism. If the Tanakh is the inerrant word of God, then all these rules must be kept. If the Tanakh is not the inerrant word of God, then why is circumcision so utterly important? Cannot circumcision be ignored just like most other archaic laws are ignored?

And indeed there is a growing movement of contemporary Jews who do not accept the Tanakh's requirement to circumcise. This movement has developed a ceremony called the Brit shalom , or Covenant of Peace that takes the place of the traditional Jewish Brit Milah or Covenant of Circumcision. The movement relies on Leviticus 19:28 (Do not make gashes in your skin) and Deuteronomy 14:1 (Do not mutilate yourself) for its religious basis. And thus it is clear that being Jewish doesn't mean that circumcision must be a requirement to maintain the faith.

David Vernon

Doing something just because it's been done that way for a long time, is no justification to continue a practice that violates basic human rights.

[Fellow Traveler]

I'm sure that the earliest "evidence" of male circumcision was found in egypt because jews didnt mummify their dead.

But you are totally missing the point. Male Circing is part of judaism. It is not part of being islamic, ancient egyptian or greek. Furthermore, FGM is not engrained in the african or egyption or any muslim female psyche. It is not a widely practiced ritual that has spanned more than 4000 years, for an entire nation.

The difficulty here is that for some, female circumcision is very much a part of their cultural identity. Read here to see one woman's take on the issue and how she feels its cultural relevance and meaning has been misrepresented by pressure from the west. This individual, a Professor at the University of Chicago if I recall, also participated in a series on this issue in the New York Times about two years ago.

[Jakois]

I find it confusing and a touch hypocritical that someone can be for RIC but be against FGC.

The argument of RIC not being as evasive or severe is IMO a load of tripe.

In reality both procedures are not necessary.

[andrewJ]

As an adult, he struggled with deciding whether to get circ'd or not, because of the potential physical and psychological complications that could have come after the procedure. In the end he decided against it. But if his parents were allowed to practice their faith when he was born, then he would never have had to face this problem as an adult.

by 'face this problem' you mean 'choose for himself'.
lucky him