The Kind Of People We Are Dealing With

Lest you, in a moment of weakness, accidentally sympathise with the feminist mindset.

Today I draw your attention to a piece written by Neil Howard and Rebecca Steinfeld, entitled ‘Time to ban male circumcision?’ They are, of course, weighing in on the debate currently raging in San Francisco, which is soon to be offering its citizens some sort of referendum on whether circumcision of male infants should be banned.

Howard and Steinfeld, incidentally, come down on my side of the fence: it would really be for the best if genital mutilation were to be made illegal, whether it is genital mutilation of boys or girls.

One would think, one could reasonably hold this position, and leave it at that.

But let me quote from the article, and then you can tell me what you think.

Both male and female genital cutting can have profound psychological consequences. Circumcised women often experience trauma, stress and anxiety, and can have relationship problems. Some circumcised men describe feelings of loss, anger, distrust, and grief, while others have reported problems with subsequent intimacy, long-term post-traumatic stress disorder, and a sense of powerlessness …

… Female genital cutting, which can involve removal of the clitoris, may reduce the likelihood of orgasm and cause complications during childbirth. Similarly, male circumcision can result in excruciating pain, nerve destruction, infection, disfigurement and sometimes death.

Keeping all that in mind for a moment …

… certain feminist groups consider the idea of comparing male and female genital cutting to be both offensive and unsubstantiated.

Here is a comment underneath the piece, posted by somebody named CrowBlack, which exemplifies the feminist mindset:

The similarities end at the ‘cutting’ – male circumcision does not result in the same physical abuse as that inflicted on girls. I am appalled that this article seeks to draw a parallel between the two practices.

Well, quite frankly, I am appalled that anybody could be appalled by the parallel the article is seeking to draw! Given that male circumcision “can result in excruciating pain, nerve destruction, infection, disfigurement and sometimes death,” it might just be an appropriate parallel to draw.

Anyway. It is a ‘teachable moment’, you could say, when you observe how reactionary and downright traditionalistic those self-identified ‘progressives’ can be, when it’s not their interests that are being threatened.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar