Because Sometimes More is More
Okay, I believe that there are certain arguments one can make that illustrate a weakened male position in some very limited situations. Male disposability, for instance, is a problem. I get that. But until we get even close to the problems from the female side of the equation, we have no place bringing these things up in a forum about misogyny, feminism, or women’s rights. So fuck off with that! It’s exactly comparable to someone trying to bring up male circumcision (which is evil, of course) in a discussion about female circumcision (which is orders of magnitudes more evil). Do you get my drift? Are you picking up what I’m putting down? DOES ANYONE NOT GET THIS?
You do not get to cry about feeling offended in a discussion about rape culture unless you are the predominate target demographic of the raping!
Yes, you can bring them up alone, as individual problems, but do not go about crying misandry until we have dealt with some of the major issues of misogyny. It doesn’t work and only makes the crier look like a complete fool.
You don’t pass over the patient who is bleeding to death to treat a broken finger.
When you discuss female circumcision, you’re not only bringing up the issue of misogyny, but you’re also discussing the broader problem of genital cutting. Male victims of genital cutting (and advocates against the practice) should absolutely be afforded a voice in most such discussions, especially when said discussions happen within a society that condones and contributes to the practice — as they so often do. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that those folks who decry female genital cutting in a way that erases and disregards their own complicity in male genital cutting should be spoken to regarding their ignorance and/or hypocrisy.
And thanks-but-no-thanks for misrepresenting the harm caused by both female and male genital cutting, and thereby telling those who are traumatized by circumcision exactly how much their pound of flesh is worth in your book. As if both practices didn’t vary widely in context and severity (especially in regards to female genital cutting, which varies from a relatively small excision to a catastrophic amputation that is often combined with infibulation), and is if measuring and contrasting the various forms of non-consensual genital amputation was either a simple or a meaningful task.
Also, if you really feel that the loss of liberty and the enormous risk of physical and psychological trauma that comes with conscription is “limited” in either severity or scope, perhaps you should look up that word in a dictionary.