A Feministing post on the Georgia prosecution of female genital mutilation suggests the complexity of diversity. The blog sometimes seems to take diversity a bit too far though questioning assumptions is a good thing. For instance, some questioned the barrier to veils for British public school ("public" in the American sense) teachers, which was in place partially because face to face interaction is deemed to be a good thing. Personal choice to wear veils, though the practice seems anti-feminist to me, is one thing. It is quite another to avoid the problematic nature of doing so in some locales ... sort of like the case where a woman wanted to wear a veil in her driver license photo. Overall, perhaps this underlines the fact freedom of religion is not absolute.
Anyway, the post felt compelled to bring up male circumcision ("we circumcise men, but are not called savage for it"), a practice some of the comments also found offensive. Are we really to compare the two? My understanding is that FGM is often in place as a guard against female sexuality. Now, many Europeans do not practice MC and there is some belief it might interfere with sexual enjoyment in some respect (this sounds somewhat dubious, but if true, FGM has that very purpose and likely is much more problematic), but it is not in place for that reason. Its connection to the Jewish faith is well known, while also having some cleanliness value that has some merit in guarding against infection. Some find it invasive, but if it is, it surely is much less so than FGM (and often done in horrible conditions). Some overlap does not mean they are comparable practices.
We can see some value in not considering it compelling for parents to circumsize their children. The two, however, are just not in the same league. IOW, it is not called "savage" for the simple fact that it is not. This is likely true even if we would accept that culturally compelled MC is wrong -- if so, I doubt it is so much so that it is a "savage" act. FGM, even if done in safe conditions (its criminality interferes, true, but the very act is inherently problematic), surely is. And, yes, my own cultural reality influences my thought on the issue. This should be taken into consideration when using culturally explosive words like "savage." But, some overall rules can be imagined all the same.
I welcome, however, perspectives that force me to dwell on such issues, especially since obviously people I overall respect have different ones than I. Diversity, you know.