Of Menstruation and Prepuces

by David Balashinsky

As long as I have been involved in the movement to end male genital mutilation (involuntary male circumcision) I have been possessed by the conviction that it has a great deal in common with second-wave feminism.  In fact, it is my contention that these movements do not merely share certain fundamental premises, resulting in broad areas of philosophical overlap, but that they spring from the same philosophical well.  It would be more accurate, then, to say that they simply represent different manifestations of the same two fundamental principles.  These two principles are, first (and not necessarily in this order), sex- and gender-equality and, second, acceptance of the human body.

It is a paradox that so many partisans among feminists (especially third-wave feminists) and among intactivists do not recognize their movements' common philosophical antecedents and similarities.  Some intactivists, and MRAs in particular, are wont to condemn feminism as being perfectly and hypocritically unconcerned with the human-rights violation of genital cutting to which males in our society routinely are subjected.   At the same time, some feminists are wont to condemn intactivism as a fulsome and opportunistic male appropriation of feminist claims on behalf of the right to bodily integrity rendering it a veritable paradigm of whataboutism in service of the larger, sinister effort to maintain male privilege.

To some extent, both are right and both are wrong.  It is a valid claim that some feminists have a moral blind spot with respect to involuntary male circumcision just as it is also a valid claim that some intactivists unfairly blame women and feminism, rather than men and patriarchy, for the existence and the persistence of MGM; moreover, that these particular intactivists seem to think that, because men have it that bad, women, in comparison, must have it that good.

Both sexes have advantages and disadvantages, privileges and restrictions, and often these advantages and disadvantages happen to be both at the same time: double-edged swords, so to speak.  Thus, it is often the case that, what one sex sees as a privilege enjoyed by the other sex, the other sex sees as a  disadvantage or a restriction.  Military conscription comes readily to mind as a case in point.  MRAs are quick to note that men have historically been subject to the draft whereas women were not and this has unfairly disadvantaged men while privileging women.  Feminists counter that sexist attitudes about female physical weakness and emotional unfitness for combat is what is in fact responsible for the tradition of male-only military conscription.  This has deprived women of an equal opportunity to serve in combat.  (There is an even more fundamental feminist critique of patriarchal societies that the act of committing violence itself is a privilege conferred exclusively upon males.)  One could go down a list of such examples.  Another is the allegation by MRAs that family courts routinely favor mothers over fathers in custody disputes.  Whether or not such an allegation is valid and even granting, for argument's sake,  that it is (there is considerable controversy as to whether or not this allegation is factually correct but whether it is or isn't need not concern us here), the feminist counter-argument is that, if they are biased in favor of granting custody to mothers, because they are organs of systemic patriarchal culture, these courts are merely reinforcing traditional gender roles according to which women are assigned the role of primary child-rearers and thus consigned to the domestic sphere while men, unburdened with the responsibilities of child-rearing and housework, remain free to go forth into the world in order to seek their fortunes and find professional fulfillment.

I happen to think that, in short, both women and men are perfectly justified at times in exhorting the other to "Check your privilege!"

I do not want to go any farther afield than I have with these examples, although I believe that many more could be adduced.  The point is that, in these conflicts, which may appear superficially to pit the interests of one sex against the interests of the other, there is in fact one common solution which would further the interests of both.  I see that solution as feminism (and in this I identify unabashedly as an old-school, second-wave feminist) but, call it what you will, the principle of gender- and sex-equality, when impartially applied, would yield benefits in most if not all cases to both women (individually and collectively) and men (individually and collectively) and to society broadly.   Allowing women to serve in combat and subjecting women to the draft equally with men would proportionately decrease each man's risk of dying in combat in comparison to his risk under a male-only military-conscription policy.  And it would elevate women to the level of equality with men in the opportunity to serve their country and to achieve such personal and professional fulfillment as a career in the armed forces can offer.  (To say nothing of the statement that it would make that ours is a society that regards women as the equals of men.)  And sex- and gender-neutral granting of child custody that is based on factors wholly separate from stereotyping and uninfluenced by the unfair advantages of one parent or the other on account of sex should be the goal of and in the interest of everyone in our society.

One would think that our common humanity and common interests would encourage all intactivists and all feminists to recognize within the philosophies of the other the bedrock principles that are common to both and to which both groups subscribe, or at least profess to subscribe.  It is bewildering to me (though, in my more pessimistic moments, not entirely bewildering) that they don't.  But they ought to.

Along comes an essay that strikingly illustrates why they ought to because it can be used to demonstrate almost perfectly the thesis that the claims on behalf of sex- and gender equality and on behalf of acceptance of the human body in general that are made by both intactivists and feminists are not dissimilar, let alone antagonistic to one another, but are, in fact, identical.   Such an essay is a piece that appeared in this morning's New York Times,  Menstrual Pads Can't Fix Prejudice by Chris Bobel.  What is so particularly striking about this essay and the reason that it is so illustrative of this thesis is that almost everything that Ms. Bobel states here about menstruation - especially with respect to its cross-cultural and historic stigmatization - could be stated with equal validity about the male prepuce.   (Of course, it is probably not a coincidence that we should find ourselves the heirs of a millennia-long tradition of stigmatizing both menstruation in women and the prepuce in men given their common intrinsic relation to the genitourinary system and our species' penchant for defining our bodies and our bodily functions - female and male - as worthy of revulsion.)  In other words, Bobel's overarching point about the stigmatization of menstruation fits almost to a T intactivists' point about the stigmatization of the male prepuce, so much so that Bobel's essay could almost serve as a template for the intactivist claims on behalf of the male prepuce.   In fact, so striking are the similarities between Bobel's arguments about menstruation and intactivists' arguments about the male prepuce,  and so illustrative of the thesis that the feminist and intactivist arguments about body-rights and body-shaming ultimately are identical is Bobel's essay, that I can think of no better way to demonstrate both than by providing here a series of excerpts from it, each followed by my own paraphrasing in which menstruation has been replaced by male prepuce or other such similar substitutions.  Bobel's words appear first and my paraphrasing  follows each excerpt in italics and with my own substitutions written in red.

"The period is finally having its moment."

 The foreskin is finally having its moment.

"In the last decade, the difficulties women and girls across the globe face during menstruation have inspired a raft of grass-roots campaigns." 

In the last several decades, the difficulties men and boys across the globe face because they have foreskins have inspired a raft of grass-roots campaigns.

"Access to safe, accessible bathrooms and materials to manage menstruation is now recognized as a human rights issue. . . ." 

Growing up with one's whole penis is now recognized as a human rights issue.

"For centuries, around the world, menstruation has been treated as a source of shame, rather than as a normal, healthy part of women’s lives.  Initiatives to 'make menstruation matter' are both welcome and overdue."

For centuries, around the world, the male prepuce has been treated as a source of shame, rather than as a normal, healthy part of men's bodies.  Initiatives on behalf of "foreskin pride" are both welcome and overdue.

"Why, then, after years studying these efforts, do I feel ambivalent?  Because too many of them have opted to focus on providing women with new products, failing to substantively fight the core problem surrounding menstruation: cultural stigma."

Why, then, after years studying these efforts, do I feel ambivalent? Because too many of them have opted to focus on rationalizing and justifying involuntary male circumcision while failing to substantively fight the core problem surrounding the male prepuce: cultural stigma.

"[A] woman’s fear of inadvertently revealing she is menstruating remains a distraction and burden."

A man’s fear of revealing that he has a prepuce remains a distraction and burden.

"These fears and stigmas are prevalent in the rich world, too. As the historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg has shown, in the United States at the turn of the century, menstruation became increasingly medicalized: Doctors, who were mostly men, and increasingly viewed as experts, coached mothers to socialize their daughters to keep tidy and discreet. Menarche, the first menstrual period, was effectively reduced from a sign of womanhood to a 'hygienic crisis.'”

These fears and stigmas are prevalent in the rich world, too. As numerous historians have shown, in the United States during the nineteenth century, male circumcision became increasingly medicalized: Doctors, who were mostly men, and increasingly viewed as experts, coached parents to subject their sons to circumcision.   The male prepuce was effectively pathologized and reduced from an intrinsic and functional part of the penis to a vestigial structure and a potential hygienic crisis.  

"Even now, American girls are socialized to see menstruation, and more generally, their bodies, as problems to be solved through use of the 'right' products. Today, we are exporting this view around the world."

Even now, Americans of both sexes are socialized to see the male prepuce as a problem to be solved through the use of surgery.  Today, we are exporting this view around the world.

"The outsize attention paid to products reduces menstruation to a hygiene issue when it should be much more. The monthly shedding of the uterine lining is part of a cycle that lasts, on average, for 40 years. It is a vital marker of health and a pivotal developmental milestone for half the world’s population."

The outsize attention paid to pathologizing the male prepuce  reduces it to a hygiene issue when it should be much more.  The male prepuce is a natural and essential body part for half the world’s population.

"We must resist the well-meaning impulse to improve the lives of menstruating girls through consumption. The greater need is for people to understand that periods aren’t something shameful and best kept hidden. When menstruation is treated as normal, it becomes more than a nuisance, a punch line or a weapon wielded to keep women in their place."

We must resist the well-meaning impulse to improve the lives of boys and men through involuntary circumcision.   The greater need is for people to understand that the male prepuce isn't something shameful and best amputated.  When the male prepuce is treated as normal, it becomes more than a nuisance or a punch line against which involuntary circumcision is wielded as a weapon to remove the male prepuce from its rightful place.

"Our aim must be to transform the revulsion into respect, to shift from 'eww' to 'oh.' We need to redirect resources toward promoting innovative, inclusive and culturally sensitive community-based education about the menstrual cycle. And the audience must be not only girls, but also everyone surrounding them — boys, parents, teachers, religious leaders and health professionals."

Our aim must be to transform the revulsion into respect, to shift from “eww” to “oh.” We need to redirect resources toward promoting innovative, inclusive and culturally sensitive community-based education about the male prepuce.  And the audience must be not only boys, but also everyone surrounding them — girls, parents, teachers, religious leaders and health professionals.

"But menstrual activism won’t be meaningful if it is reduced to Western-style 'better living through more consumption.' After all, periods remain taboo in high-income countries where commercial products have been the norm for decades. Challenging the social stigma and disgust directed at the female body must be our main mission — in the developing world and everywhere else."

But intactivism won’t be meaningful if it is reduced to Western-style lawsuits and legal proscriptions.   After all, the male prepuce remains taboo in the United States as well as in one or two other industrialized countries and most of the Islamic world.   Challenging the social stigma and disgust directed at the male prepuce must be our main mission — in the developing world and everywhere else.

Need I say more?

But I will.  I have not paraphrased Bobel's essay in order to mock it or because I disagree with any of it (and I encourage the reader to read Bobel's essay in its entirety and entirely on the basis of its own merits) but simply to illustrate my point that feminism and intactivism not only are much more alike than they are dissimilar but that they both stand on exactly the same philosophical foundation.  And, more particularly, that the same body-rights - including bodily self-ownership and the right not to have parts or functions of one's body stigmatized - that feminists claim on behalf of girls and women are no less intrinsic and important to boys and men.

The underlying principles of feminism could be extended to the animal rights movement, as well.  As a matter of fact, a few years ago I wrote an essay that I called Of Cats' Claws and Foreskins which I published as an open letter to a member of the New York State Assembly, Linda Rosenthal (after sending it to her as a private email and receiving no response), who had introduced a bill to make it illegal to subject cats to declawing when not medically indicated.   Rosenthal had made an impassioned and eloquent statement in support of her proposed legislation and I was struck at the time by the realization that exactly the words that she had used about cat declawing could be used with equal validity about involuntary male circumcision.  In my essay I threw Rosenthal's words back at her but paraphrased in the manner with which I have just paraphrased Bobel's.  Rosenthal stated

There's no reason to do it unless the animal has [an] infection that is never going away, or if there is a cancer or tumor-related issue in the claw.  It's basically done because humans want it done, and I don't think it's our right to mutilate our animals for our own satisfaction. 

Merely substituting "infant" for "animal" and "prepuce" for "claw," I paraphrased Rosenthal as follows: 

There's no reason to do it unless the infant has [an] infection that is never going away, or if there is a cancer or tumor-related issue in the prepuce.  It's basically done because humans want it done, and I don't think it's our right to mutilate our infants for our own satisfaction.

Respect for the fundamental rights of all sentient creatures and, at the very least, behaving toward all of them with empathy and compassion:  that, when you get right down to it, is what feminism and intactivism both are all about.