Strangely—or, perhaps not—I think you answered your own question.
Ever read Kenyatta's
Facing Mt. Kenya? If not, you might wish to; it includes a rather striking defense of clitoridectomy. It took me
years to get past the whole let-cultures-be-cultures argument about FGM. Indeed, if we were to go rake through my posting history here, we could probably find several points on the transitional curve.
But, to your question, cultural psychology is not so far removed from individual psychology. Your point comes from a psych who specializes in traumatized people, such as asylum seekers and abused women? You will find part of the answer to the why question in that simple statement.
From the bizarrely minute to the horrifyingly huge, you can see this pattern over and over again.
Some Christian women in the U.S., many found in the Southern Baptist Convention, support the denigration and constriction of females as pertains to expectations of dress, education, and the prospect of a career. If you ever peek into discussions of Mormonism, you'll find that some LDS women are daring to question why they have to wear pantyhose to church. There are all sorts of psychosexual suggestions, of course, and talk of honoring God or respecting others or simply being obedient. Apparently, in many Mormon circles, women are
expected to wear pantyhose in church regardless of the discomfort, even to the point of causing rashes and blistering. And, yes, many women in the church advocate such standards.
True, compared to FGM, these are tiny notions. But they follow the same psychosocial path.
If abuse and denigration equal propriety within a culture, then even refugees from that culture will reflect that abuse and denigration.
I'm not certain exactly what curriculum you're following in your training, but have you yet done your sections on psychology of victim and trauma?
I mean, you and I both are aware that your outlook on female human beings in general mystifies me. I am certain it makes sense from some perspective, but I have no idea what that perspective is. Well, when my mood is darker, I think of Peter Griffin and Lionel Richie—"Who hurt you? Who hurt you?"—but that is hardly a reliable presupposition.
Still, though, it's strange. Part of me would accuse (?!) that you're already aware—at least, in general—of why human beings abused and traumatized would continue to advocate the conditions that victimized them.
Furthermore, as
Quadraphonics noted, "Conflating male circumcision with female genital mutilation is stupid."
To wit, we might note
Mrs.Lucysnow's point: "Have you ever seen it done on a newborn? The cries are torturous, its not like regular crying." Well, right, but part of the theory in circumcising newborn males is that their memories aren't writing data at that point. And if we wish to say that the "torturous" pain of the newborn is the primary concern, then perhaps the medical ethicists need to assert the importance of delivering all children via C-section.
(If we inject anti-abortion rhetoric into the argument, then there is no question that all children should be delivered by C-section.)
Furthermore, lacking data suggesting that newborns are actively and acutely writing memory in their brains at the time of circumcision, one should also consider the difference between male circumcision performed at birth and female mutilation performed at some later time, including adolescence. And as
Superstring noted: "They aren't even in the same ballpark. Circumcised men enjoy sex to the same degree that non-circumcised men do. Mutilated females rarely ever do."
The two issues are not the same. Your inflation of male circumcision, or denigration of female genital mutilation—whichever the case may be—is inappropriate.
Any legitimate question about the justifications and effects of male circumcision at birth get drowned out by fanaticism.
