Personally, I have to disagree.
Male circumcision, is equally as barbaric to female. What you have described is a simple (or in reality - not so simple) cultural, locational difference.
The main difference in the procedures are that women are (usually) circumcised by a village elder or religious leader in FGM. Males in these cultures or similar are circumcised by similar people - you just hear about it alot less at the current time.
What you are speaking of is circumcision performed in a hospital by trained professionals with sterile equipment. Totally different situations. Even in the UK and in the States, it is still common practise to have the procedure done by a religious leader. Again, this is less 'spoken' about.
To deny that these atrocities (and that is what they are) occur even in a 'developed' country in the states, is not only doing these people an injustice, but also denying the pain and agony suffered by hundreds of children, women and men every year.
Whilst circumcision is largely attributed more recently to religious and cultural phenomenon, the origins of male circumcision was originally christian interference on the state as it was believed that circumcision prevented masturbation. More recently, it has been infered that the procedure is encouraged because of cost and was deemed as unethical.
Penile cancer is not lessened if the child is circumcised. This was a rumour that was flatly disputed by all major cancer research authorties. If you were sold circumcision on this basis within the USA after 1996, then the AAP have concluded that you should consider legal action as you may have a case agaisnt your consultant.
Certain STDs can be lessened by being circumcised, but the dip is marginal. Any male who maintains a healthy cleaning routine and sexual techniques is what is more important.
To conclude. Any genital mutilation - is just that.
Peace and Rapture.
Edit to add* Whilst FGM is often a more violent form of GM, males are 6 times more likely to be suffer circumcision violations.
I also cannot stress more. HIV infection is NOT lessened in circumcised males. About 10 years ago, there was many conflicting reports - however more recent investigation concluded this is not the case. This is based on the concept of men who have an STD are more likely to come into contact with the HIV infection and are also more likely to be weakened for the virus to take effect. Part of the myth has also alot to do with the HIV epidemic sweeping Africa.
