is the decline in infant foreskin removal a sign of the empowerment of women?

6 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite 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.

  • 1 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.

  • 1 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.

  • Anonymous
    1 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.
  • 1 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.

  • 1 decade ago

    no, it is a sign that parents are coming to their senses and stopping this barbaric act.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.