A prototypical masculinist/post-feminist discussion: Circumcision.
So, I'm circumcised, like quite a few guys out there.
I'm... mildly irritated about it. On about the same scale as if, say, my parents had "bought" me a car I didn't want and saddled me with the payments.
That's probably a pretty good analogy for me. It's not actually all that important, it goes into drive when I put it in drive, it brakes when I hit the brakes; functionally, everything checks out, and that's all that's really important to me.
My irritation stems from the fact that something which -should- have been my decision, something -I- am saddled with, something there was absolutely no reason not to consult me about, was done without my consent. I'm irritated at the abridgment of my personal sovereignty of self. It's the same kind of irritation I hold for government when it mandates I buy health insurance, say, or mandates through taxation that I pay for somebody else's - things which by all rights should be up to me to decide.
This isn't a ride I would have chosen, by the way. I don't know if the other car would have driven -better-, but I could have traded it in for this one; I can't really trade this one in for the other. There are techniques for restoring foreskin, true, but it's not the same.
And I see why some guys -do- get mad about it. They have every right to get mad about it. Male circumcision should be treated as being of the same barbaric nature as female circumcision. [Ed: I'm taking as a given the barbarism of female circumcision. I actually think the issue receives too much attention, considering it's primarily practiced in countries where selling twelve year old girls to forty year old men is also normal, something I think is significantly worse than mutilation on the simple grounds that, as torture, it lasts a hell of a lot longer, but that's another topic altogether.] A lot of attention is paid to these; less attention is paid to things like piercing ears.
I think these things need some attention too. I guess I should write a broader post soon.
Incidentally, my parents' reasoning was this: My mother knew somebody who was -deeply- bothered by the difference between him and his father, who wasn't circumcised. She didn't want me to have to deal with this... dysmorphia. As reasoning goes, it's perhaps the only one I've encountered which approaches making sense.
But it only approaches making sense, because you can get circumcised later. It's a dysmorphia which, if encountered, I could have chosen to do something about; I could have simply been informed that it's an optional procedure some guys choose to do, and that it was left up to me to decide for myself.
Arguing over which is medically better is irrelevant. Arguing about dysmorphia is irrelevant. None of these things matter, because the choice is -always- available. It's just not reversible.
Infant circumcision is nothing short of sexual assault. It should be treated as such.