I don't think that "motive" is what makes the Jewish practice somewhat more defensible. If a religion believes sincerely that FGM (or any other morally problematic practice) is required by its god, that would not render the immoral practice (more) defensible. You cannot legitimize immorality by attributing it to your god. To me, the distinction is instead that the harm associated with male circumcision (or MGM, if it pleases GBG) is far less than the harm associated with FGM. However, because it is still not "no harm" - I was just chatting with a couple of Jewish mothers who reported watching their infant sons' suffering at their bris and found it somewhat traumatizing even to watch; another of my Jewish friends who is pregnant was tremendously relieved to learn she was carrying a girl, so that she would not have to schedule a bris - I have grave reservations about male circumcision and believe that Judaism should move towards replacing the practice with egalitarian naming ceremonies for both genders. If baby girls are truly being welcomed into the covenant with no infliction of physical pain and permanent bodily modification, then it seems that baby boys deserve no less kindness.vison wrote:If "motive" means anything, then the Jewish practice is more "acceptable" to me than the practice of ensuring that sexual intercourse will always be basically pleasureless and very often extremely painful for a woman.
Despite my increasingly open atheism, I have and will always have tremendous love for Judaism. This does not mean that I can endorse every practice in the Torah as though there has been no evolution in religious or secular human understanding since its writing. Nor do most modern Jews believe that everything prescribed in the Torah is to be followed as written in the 21st century. There is severe disagreement as to whether the Torah's animal sacrifice commandments should be followed if the Temple could be reconstructed - or whether reconstruction of the Temple should remotely be a goal. Most modern Jews disavow niddah, the practice of viewing a woman as ritually unclean (and sexually inaccessible) for as much as two weeks out of every month. Both of these practices are textually mandated in the Torah. To me, there is no inconsistency between a tremendous respect and affection for Judaism and believing that a particular Jewish practice (even one that is textually mandated) should be set aside by modern Judaism. A practice that intrudes greatly on an unconsenting infant's right to bodily autonomy, to me, is sufficiently problematic to merit revisiting by modern Judaism. Whether the state should intervene on the children's behalf is, of course, the much more fraught question - particularly in light of many states' painful history of anti-Semitism and the unpleasant reality that many people who support state intervention here are also openly anti-Semitic.
I think that this is not always or even usually accurate, and in any event, depends on the specific tribe and/or country in question. FGM is often inflicted by women ... at the insistence of mothers or other female relatives of the girl on whom the practice is to be inflicted. In many cases, men seem detached from the practice, if not downright ambivalent. I saw one sociology study that indicated that in some tribes, men were not thrilled about the practice because it decreased their odds of sharing consensual intimacy with their spouses, since most (though not all) women to undergo the procedure do not enjoy sex as much thereafter.One practice is a sacrament ordained by god, the other a mutilation ordered by men who hate and fear women, particularly women's sexuality. Often - and this is cute, don't you think? Often those men are also ritually circumcised.
If you have a few moments, Google and read about the women's secret societies of Sierra Leone, which inflict FGM on young girls. Women fiercely guard their domain over these societies and their practices, including FGM; men may not interfere.