As has been noted (ad nauseum) here over the years, MGM does not get the same reaction of horror and disgust as FGM does. We have usually been arguing about this along gender lines (i.e. "MGM isn't as important an issue because it concerns boys/men" or "FGM is not done in a sterile, medical environment, it is more brutal").
I was thinking though, maybe it's all just timing.
FGM has been a part of certain cultures for eons but only recently has gotten the attention of the media, medical community and special interests groups. It IS a horrible, brutal unnecessary thing. But so is MGM. Both procedures do the same thing -- they both remove part of the genitalia from a child. MGM, however, is more accepted (is, in fact, the norm in some modernized countries like the states), and no one really thinks twice about it. Is that maybe because it has been so long ingrained in our mindsets as a normal or standard practice?
If it were introduced today, would MGM be as normalized or would we reject it as vehemently as we do FGM?
I was thinking though, maybe it's all just timing.
FGM has been a part of certain cultures for eons but only recently has gotten the attention of the media, medical community and special interests groups. It IS a horrible, brutal unnecessary thing. But so is MGM. Both procedures do the same thing -- they both remove part of the genitalia from a child. MGM, however, is more accepted (is, in fact, the norm in some modernized countries like the states), and no one really thinks twice about it. Is that maybe because it has been so long ingrained in our mindsets as a normal or standard practice?
If it were introduced today, would MGM be as normalized or would we reject it as vehemently as we do FGM?