I've now gone through about 27 different trains of thought about this topic and I still don't quite know what I want to say in my reply.
First, I liked the post and appreciate you taking the time to open a discussion about it.
Second I think it's such a huge can of worms that it's hard to answer the question, not because the answers are unclear, but perhaps more so because the question is unclear, or at least multi-layered, and that there are so many factors that branch off into so many directions that then become tunnels and branch off again into a million different rabbit holes. Is the question why the inequality? Is it about health? Is it about religion? Is it about mutilation? Is it about the right to choose? About terms or labels being used or misused? Gender? Feminism? Anti-feminism? Abuse? It's such an enormous issue it's hard to talk about without it always spiraling away from the original topic.
I've already forgotten what point I was up to so I'll just say, next: As a mother of an almost 6 year old I want to make a point that to some of us, this is not something we actually know about. And that is not because of a lack of information, its because, I just never really thought about it before. When we knew we were having a boy, I said to my husband, do we need to get him circumcised? Actually, what I really said was 'Are we suppose to have something done to his doodle?' at which my husband looked horrified. Clarifying, I pointed out that I am an only child, a female, my father died a long time ago, and I had never cared if a guy was 'snipped' or not in my life and therefore had no knowledge on the subject. For all I knew, this was something that all boys had done, or that no boys had done. So the person above somewhere who mentioned do some mothers think "I like it like this?" I'd say, no, or at least, not always, we possibly just don't know the answer. Regardless of all of that, I couldn't even cope with my son having his shots so unless someone told me it was a legal requirement, I had no intention of subjecting him to an unnecessary procedure.
Next: why is it not as big a topic of discussion as FGM? Such a BIG question. I don't know that the question is even valid, and I'm not saying that's the case, more so I'm asking, has anyone done the math here? Has anyone actually done a thorough search with all the relevant criteria to see how many traceable instances there are where these two topics are being discussed. Maybe its not that its not being discussed, but that its just not in the same places. FGM is a very loud subject and that's for many many reasons. But one of the reasons for that might be that people perceive that FGM is done to girls and women BY MEN. This isn't necessarily the case as I found when I read a few articles on it after seeing this post and I'll come back to that. But I think its what the belief is. In the few, and I must admit I know very, very little on both of these subjects, in the few things I've read about both of these topics, many of the women quoted or featured stated that it was their mothers or female relatives who were responsible for it being done to them. In most of those cases it was for religious, and FAMILY reasons. They stated that their families believed it was required as part of their religion and to keep the name of the family and the reputation of the same safe; that without it being done people would talk about the female, they wouldn't be able to marry and be considered to be, for the sake of not using words I strongly dislike, a harlot. They also said that it had been a passed on tradition, part of the reason the females parents and elders were not against it, they had had it done too. This clearly doesn't make it right or okay, but in the eyes of the parents it made it justifiable.
Its worth noting that in the gender comparisons, one thing stands out, and maybe this is why FGM is a louder topic. Male circumcision seems to be quoted as being for health or religious reasons. But I'm still not certain what those religious reasons are? Someone noted that the bible says god said everyone should have the snip. So is that actually it? Is that the reason and its no more in depth than that. Like they don't then take the foreskin and bury it under an olive tree to be dug up by your virgin wife on the night of a full moon and then burned and mixed with the milk of a spring calf and drunk by you both to ensure that you and all your future children enter heaven with clean souls? Cause that would make sense to me as a 'reason', not a good reason and not making good sense either, but I would understand why it was carried on in this era, like don't eat meat on good Friday because ...you know the rest. But I've found no such reasoning. The health benefits reason gets thrown in constantly despite the very obvious bias about this. Yet with FGM, it is clear that in many cases and cultures, its to prevent female promiscuity, infidelity and to ensure the reputation of the family via the female. Not to mention in some cases it is for the express purpose of punishment and causing pain. There is no case, none, nada, zip, for anyone ever being able to claim this is done for health reasons. Further to this is the level of extremes in terms of risk, short and long term effects and trauma. The case for FGM being barbaric do far outnumber those of male circumcision, and again, that's not to say its not a horrible thing to have done to you without your consent but its not comparing apples with apples.
Just reading this article on one womans experience is enough to make you want to cut the hands off anyone you came across performing this atrocity...http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36101342 I hope that worked but I'm not sure it did.
Anyway that's just skimming the surface of this topic and the different thoughts I have swirling around in my extremely uninformed brain.
It comes down to this; I think its wrong to do it to either genders and both FGM and male circumcision should be on the table for discussion in a much more open way than they are.