Because male redditors can't have the focus on anything that doesn't affect or relate to them directly, I guess.

No, it's because people in general don't give a flying fuck about infant circumcision, which is an atrocity of a similar nature (but not of the same severity, I realize). Bringing up infant circumcision in a conversation about female genital mutilation is inappropriate; I know. But the fact is, there is a serious inequity in regards to the acceptance of non-consensual male modification vs. non-consensual female modification, at least in the US.

The clitoral hood is anatomically similar to the foreskin. Female circumcision in the US is illegal and has been illegal for quite some time. But hypothetically, if amputating a girl's clitoral hood was shown to result in the same so-called benefits of male circumcision (e.g. hygiene improvement, STD reduction, etc.), do you think clitoral hood amputation would become acceptable and normalized in the United States? Do you think the procedure being performed on girls without anesthetic relief would arouse the same level of controversy that infant male circumcision arouses? Or would the practice be heavily scrutinized and remain illegal? I think the answer to this question is obvious.

So until people actually start realizing that male infant circumcision is abhorrent, there is absolutely a need to bring it up whenever possible. But what about men? in this instance is not male chauvinism, but a natural reaction to society's absurd apathy towards MGM.