is the decline in infant foreskin removal a sign of the empowerment of women?
- sheristeeleLv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
NO it has nothing to do with empowerment of women. It has just been found medically that circumcision is not as beneficial as it once was. It is easier to keep the area clean when the foreskin is removed. However, with the increased risks of infection, etc. of removing the skin, some families have just opted out of the traditional circumcisions of yesterday.
- LazlaHollyfeldLv 61 decade ago
No, I think it's more about increased availability of clean water.
In the US, though, my guess is that the increasing numbers of boys born without a father involved, and to very young mothers, may well be part of the reason. It has been my experience that circumcised fathers are among the strongest proponents of infant circumcision. (Damn, that's a hard word to type!) And a very young woman is more likely to be swayed by the opinion of the medical "authorities" present during the decision-making process than an older one.
- man_id_unknownLv 41 decade ago
This is one of the dumbest questions asked on Yahoo! Answers!!
Circumcision was about religious beliefes, and never about women. You are a bit too fascinated with circumcision.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It could be the sign that medical costs are so high, that most people don't want to incur any costs, even if they have good medical insurance.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- luveeduveeLv 41 decade ago
why are you so obscessed about circumcision. I'm sorry it happened to you, but you need to move on with your life.
- greengungeLv 51 decade ago
no, it is a sign that parents are coming to their senses and stopping this barbaric act.