Female Genital Mutilation and Circumcision: Comparable?

Article here. Excerpt:

'The AAP makes a valid point on the comparison of FGM/C to male circumcision: "Health educators must also be prepared to explain to parents from outside North America why male genital alteration is routinely practiced here but female genital alteration is routinely condemned." Male circumcision is more invasive than the "ritual nick" proposed by the AAP, yet most Americans don't bat an eye at the procedure. In fact, after my son was born (and not circumcised), a nurse expressed surprise that he wasn't cut. Meanwhile, Jewish families celebrate the ritual with a gathering at home eight days after the birth.

Male circumcisions have been performed under similarly brutal circumstances as FGM/C, and like FGM/C, historical reasons cited for circumcision have included cleanliness and control over sexuality. Religious observance plays a part in both procedures as well. Those defending the AAP's revised stance have cited these points as reasons to legalize FGM/C. What's good for the gander ought to be good for the goose too.

As I see it, the difference lies primarily in the prevailing attitudes behind the two practices. Male circumcision is a religious ritual for some, and a matter of social convention for others. FGM/C is also a religious ritual for some, but one that is rooted in oppression and subjugation. Regional and international human rights organizations campaign actively against FGM/C in any form, including the medicalization of the procedure as proposed by the AAP.'