>>1685

>I wonder why do you claim that it benefits men rather than women.
May I draw your attention to some details of these two sentences:
1) "[...] best [...] only for a male [...] to control [...] females."
2) "[...] not best for the controlled female, [...]"

It does not matter how wealthy a man is. The article points out, that the cutting was passed through from the highest social levels to the lowest. So its not done to marry a rich man or to climb the social ladder, the reason is to get a marriage at all. Women don't have a real choice. They can replace one disease with another, just like casting out Satan through Beelzebub. I can't see this as a benefit.

>retain all privileges of traditional women but also gain all benefits of traditional men.
Why not? Remember, “[...] that all men are created equal [...]” (American Declaration of Independence), “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (First article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights) and - not to forget - "All animals are equal [...]” (George Orwell's Animal Farm). These are heroic goals, "[...] but some animals are more equal than others", as we all know. Nevertheless, gender shouldn't make a difference. So why not get the best out of both "worlds"?