Female Genital Mutilation describes three basic practices: (1) clitoridectomy (the partial or total removal of the clitoris) and/or the prepuce (clitoral hood); (2) the partial or total removal of the labia minora, which sometimes accompanies clitoridectomy and/or removal of the prepuce; (3) infibulation, meaning the partial sewing up of the vaginal orifice, which can also involve the other procedures. (Such practices as genital piercing and tattooing, although technically forms of genital mutilation, are generally considered a different issue.) Amnesty International, which regards Female Genital Mutilation as an abuse of human rights, estimates that 135 million women world-wide have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation, and 2 million women and girls undergo it every year.
Female Genital Mutilation takes place primarily in Africa and the Near East, but it also exists in Southeast Asia and among the aboriginal peoples of Australia and South America. Female Genital Mutilation is hallowed by tradition and religion, including Islamic legal works, which specifically command the removal of the prepuce. The vast majority of women who undergo Female Genital Mutilation are Muslim.
The main rationale for Female Genital Mutilation appears to be the desire to reduce sexual pleasure, so as to encourage female chastity and fidelity. Because Female Genital Mutilation is seen as a tool to assure male dominance, Western-style feminists oppose it and have worked to outlaw and suppress it globally. Female Genital Mutilation is also opposed on human rights grounds, because it is seldom voluntary, and on public health grounds, because it is often performed without anesthesia and antisepsis and frequently leads to serious infections and death.
The United Nations has declared February 6th as the “International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation.” Although Female Genital Mutilation used to be confined to the non-white world, massive non-white immigration into traditionally white lands has introduced a host of new problems, including Female Genital Mutilation. Thus, in 1996, the United States passed a federal law banning Female Genital Mutilation on human rights grounds. It is also banned in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, and Australia.
Male Genital Mutilation primarily means circumcision, the removal of the foreskin, although it also technically includes piercing and tattooing. I will be use “Male Genital Mutilation” to mean circumcision alone.
Amnesty International keeps data on Female Genital Mutilation, which it regards as a human rights violation, but it does not keep date on Male Genital Mutilation, which Amnesty International does not recognize as a human rights problem, even though the vast majority of men who are subjected to Male Genital Mutilation have no choice in the matter, which is the very reason why Female Genital Mutilation is treated as a human rights issue.
The World Health Organization estimates that 30% of males worldwide are circumcised, 68% of whom are Muslims. This is a more than one billion males, meaning that Male Genital Mutilation is more than seven times more widespread than Female Genital Mutilation.
Male Genital Mutilation was practiced by the Ancient Egyptians for reasons unknown. It was also practiced by some ancient Semitic peoples, but not all of them. But the effective source of Male Genital Mutilation in the world today is the Old Testament, in which circumcision is allegedly commanded by God as a sign of his covenant with Abraham and his seed.
The rationale, if any, behind this religious commandment is debated. Male Genital Mutilation may have been a substitute for the infant sacrifices that were also common among the ancient Semitic peoples. Instead of buying God’s favors with a whole firstborn son from time to time, the Jews decided it was more advantageous to make him work for tips. Male Genital Mutilation may also have been adopted because it reduces sexual pleasure for both males and females.
Whatever the Jewish rationale for Male Genital Mutilation, the practice was abandoned by Christians who believed that their religion superseded God’s covenant with Abraham. Moreover, many of the new converts to Christianity were Greeks and Romans who abhorred Male Genital Mutilation.
Islam maintained Male Genital Mutilation, both because it was a pre-existing practice among the Semitic tribes and because Islam maintains both the legalistic nature and many of the laws of Judaism.
Male Genital Mutilation is primarily confined to Israel and the Muslim world, but it is also found wherever Jewish and Muslim colonies are found. In Europe, Male Genital Mutilation is confined almost entirely to Jews and Muslims. But in the United States, Male Genital Mutilation became widespread beginning in the 20th century. About 75% American males — the vast bulk of them non-Jewish and non-Muslim — are circumcised today, but the practice has been steadily declining over the past few decades. In 2005, about 55% of American boys were circumcised. Part of the reason for the decline is increased awareness about the barbarous nature of Male Genital Mutilation. But a large part of the decline is probably due to the increasing population of Latin American Mestizos, who do not usually practice Male Genital Mutilation. Male Genital Mutilation is also more widespread in other Anglo-colonial societies like Canada (30%) and Australia (58.7%), although in England it is almost unheard of outside the Jewish and Muslim communities.
The rise of Male Genital Mutilation in the United States is a complicated matter. Although the whole practice is rooted in the Old Testament, it was supported and practiced by the medical profession on supposedly scientific grounds. But the “problem” it was supposed to solve, namely masturbation, is a problem only because of Old Testament beliefs.
Christian America was probably highly susceptible to Male Genital Mutilation because of the “Judaizing” Old Testament tendencies of the Puritans and other Protestant sects that settled America in large numbers. The same factor probably encouraged the rise of Male Genital Mutilation in Canada and Australia.
The likely reason that Male Genital Mutilation did not catch on in the mother country itself is that she exported most of her religious extremists to the colonies. The reason that Male Genital Mutilation did not become as prominent in Canada is probably Catholic Quebec and the fact that Canada was more Anglican, Tory, and Loyalist than the colonies that became the United States.
The basic pattern of advancing religious practices and values under the guise of science continues today, as circumcision is now alleged to prevent the transmission of HIV.
The arguments against Male and Female Genital Mutilation are essentially the same.
(1) The presumption should always be on the side of maintaining the integrity of the body. Removing or altering a healthy part of the body is mutilation. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
(2) Genital Mutilation is almost always imposed by adults upon infants and children who are not old enough to make such decisions on their own. Individuals should be given a choice about permanent alterations of healthy parts of their bodies.
(3) Genital Mutilation reduces sexual pleasure for both sexes.
(4) Genital Mutilation sometimes goes wrong, producing more disfigurement than planned, causing infections, and even leading to death. (A good step toward banning Male Genital Mutilation would be to pass federal legislation creating a national database on Male Genital Mutilation mishaps, illnesses, and deaths.)
(5) Genital Mutilation on grounds of religious freedom should not be tolerated any more than any other violation of human rights for religious purposes. Human sacrifice on religious grounds is illegal. So too should be Genital Mutilation.
Yet the United Nations has not declared a world-wide day of “Zero Tolerance for Male Genital Mutilation.” Female Genital Mutilation a federal crime in the United States, while Male Genital Mutilation is legal. Indeed, recently Brad Sherman, a Jewish California state representative, has proposed state legislation against local bans on Male Genital Mutilation. Why the double standard? Several factors are relevant here.
(1) Female Genital Mutilation is a relatively new and foreign evil, while Male Genital Mutilation is an old and familiar evil. Many people do not even see the analogy between Male and Female Genital Mutilation.
(2) Men make most laws, and men love their penises, cut or uncut. Thus there is deep psychological resistance among victims of Male Genital Mutilation to acknowledging that anything important could have been lost. The fact of loss, moreover, makes it psychologically difficult to admit that the loss was for nothing. (This is why disastrous wars often provide arguments for their own continuation, since ending them requires admitting that the losses were in vain.) Protecting women from genital mutilation, on the other hand, appeals to instinctive male gallantry.
(3) American politics and culture are overwhelmingly dominated by Jews and express Jewish sensibilities and agendas. Female Genital Mutilation is primarily practiced by Muslims, who are presently the most active enemies of Jews world-wide. Banning Female Genital Mutilation, which was spearheaded by the Jewish-dominated feminist movement, serves the overall Jewish agenda of heightening tensions between white Americans and Muslims, which is a necessary condition for continued American subservience to Jewish political and military ambitions in the Middle East.
Male Genital Mutilation, however, is a paradigmatically Jewish practice, even though the majority of its victims are not Jews. Male Genital Mutilation became widespread in the United States long before Jews assumed their current political and cultural hegemony, although Male Genital Mutilation is ultimately rooted in the power of Jewish religious teachings among American Protestants. But although the current Jewish hegemony is not the cause of widespread Male Genital Mutilation, it is certainly the main impediment to legislation against it. This is true even though among Jews in the United States and Israel, there is significant and growing opposition to Male Genital Mutilation.
Every time a circumcised man looks at his penis, he should see a sign of Jewish power carved into his own flesh before he was even self-conscious. And the mainstream of the organized Jewish community is committed to ensuring that Male Genital Mutilation is perpetuated for Jews and non-Jews alike.
In light of Jewish cultural and political power, anti-Male Genital Mutilation advocates (“intactivists”) tend to go to great lengths to avoid the charge of “anti-Semitism,” including spotlighting their Jewish allies. According to the Intactivists website, “Intactivists’ only issue with Judaism is circumcision. A significant proportion of Intactivists are Jews. Several of its founders and leading lights are Jewish—Edward Wallerstein, Ronald Goldman, Leonard Glick, Mark Reiss.”
San Diego-based intactivist Matthew Hess played by these Semitically-correct rules. But he discovered that such self-imposed restraints did not prevent Jews from targeting him. Hess wrote a bill to ban Male Genital Mutilation and sought a state legislator somewhere in the country who would sponsor it. In 2010, Massachusetts State Senator Michael Morrissey championed the bill, but it was killed in committee. (It would be interesting to know who was whispering in the committeemen’s ears.) Hess also authored a measure to ban Male Genital Mutilation in the city of Santa Monica, but it was dropped when Jena Troutman, its principal backer, was charged with anti-Semitism by Jewish advocates. Another Hess-written ban is on the ballot in San Francisco in November of 2011. It too has come under attack from the organized Jewish community.
This might throw some light on Hess’ Foreskin Man comic book, specifically issue no. 2, “Monster Mohel,” which has garnered national media coverage and foaming denunciations from leading Jews and their tools for its Der Stürmer-esque aesthetics (as so ably chronicled by our own Andrew Hamilton). Did Hess reason that, since his legislation could just as well be killed softly with a Jewish whisper campaign, it might be more advantageous and instructive to goad his highly-strung and hyper-aggressive opponents into a public temper tantrum? Is Hess calculating that his enemies might empower him through free publicity as they defeat themselves through hubris and hysteria? If so, he is rediscovering the playbook of another publisher of edifying comic-books, George Lincoln Rockwell. Whatever the outcome in November, many previously slumbering Californians will learn lessons that will not easily be forgotten. White Nationalists grappling with strategies to challenge Jewish power should pay special attention.