From: Earlyyearsexcellence@btopenworld.com
Subject: FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001

Recently a member of a male anti-circumcision organization wrote a letter to my local editor addressing the issue of circumcision. While truthfully stating the fact that all forms of circumcision performed on minors are a violation of human rights and medical ethics, the writer was gravely misleading and self serving in equating Female Genital Mutilation ("female circumcision") with male circumcision. Furthermore, his choice of wording gave the mistaken impression that FGM has been both adequately addressed and "solved."

Male circumcision is an unnecessary procedure performed for conformist, hygienic and cosmetic reasons. With female "circumcision," these reasons are often cited to mollify critics and, after thousands of years, have become accepted superficially. The main reason, however, that young girls are sexually mutilated, is to ensure their virginity and chastity by severely damaging or entirely inhibiting their ability to enjoy sexual relations. This is to prepare them to become "proper wives." It is done because men insist, no matter how promiscuous themselves, on virginal, "circumcised" brides. No such correlation exists with male circumcision. No boy is circumcised to "keep him virginal" until marriage, or with the deliberate intent decrease his sexual appetite. In addition, as males, boys exist as part of the status quo, while girls still struggle for basic rights.

Female genital mutilation is performed to prepare a woman for proper marriage, and ranges from clitoridectomy, to the hacking, slicing or burning off of all external female genitalia (excision), and infibulation, where the girl's entire outer genitals are sliced off, with the resulting wound bound together with thorn, thread, cowhide thong or sutures. Her legs are then lashed together for 1-6 weeks while she heals. Often water is refused her to discourage urination. She is sewn almost completely shut, leaving small (match head size), inadequate openings for passage of urine and menses. This is mostly done under less than sterile circumstances, with rudimentary instruments (razor, knife, glass, tin can) and no anesthesia. Girls are generally subjected to this between the ages of 3 to 15 years of age, although it varies significantly among regions and sub-groups. These procedures result in complications ranging from shock, chronic infection, post traumatic stress disorders, hemorrhage, severe scarring (both internal and external genitals), urinary tract problems, incontinence, infertility, infant/mother mortality, fibroids, fistula, sexual dysfunction, psychological disturbance, and not infrequently, death. For my infibulated friends, a simple ob/gyn exam is pure torture, resulting in days of bleeding and bed rest. For many, even a child-size speculum is too large and examination and treatment are difficult.

For male circumcision to be equivalent to even the most simple form of FGM (Type I, clitoridectomy) the head of the penis (not just the foreskin) would have to be cut off.

FGM is no longer limited to African, Malaysian and Middle Eastern nations and is now not uncommon in the U.S., Canada and Europe.

If a girl's parents object to this practice, it is not unusual for a girl to be kidnapped and forcibly "circumcised" by relatives or members of the community. Women who speak out about this issue are often ostracized or punished. Even for women who do not fear being ostracized, this is a highly personal and difficult topic to discuss. This is not the case with male circumcision, which has become an open and frequent topic on health radio and television shows and parent support networks, as well as in print and online media.

FGM is only the beginning of women's suffering: a lifetime of endless labor, early, arranged marriage - often to much older men - and few basic rights, including the right to education and economic independence. Even today, girls enjoy few of the freedoms their brothers take for granted: movies with friends, outings, school field trips, use of the telephone.

It is highly unethical and reprehensible to appropriate the enormous suffering of 150 million girls worldwide to attack the very real, but far less complicated issue of infant male circumcision; to do so trivializes the disproportionate agony of women. Can male circumcision not be abolished on it's own lack of merit? Any comparison between the two is enormously exaggerated, simplified, and overlooks the misogynous intentions of FGM.

As women we have so many of our own health issues to address - under funded and under assisted, and a health care system with undervalues and demoralizes us. We must prioritize ourselves. Some anti-male circ activists resort to a type of manipulation: women should actively use their time to support their cause because 'circumcised men are angry men, and angry men commit more violence.' While it is true that angry men are often violent men, and that some men are angry about their circumcisions, it is quite a stretch to blame the long historic and global fact of violence and oppression against women and girls on the practice of male circumcision. By their own statistics, anti male circ activists have noted that America is a lonely hold out in maintaining this practice, and yet a January 2000 report by Johns Hopkins, based on a ten year global study, revealed that 1 in 3 women on this planet have been raped, beaten or otherwise severely abused. According to anti male circ activists own stats, the majority of these women are being abused by uncircumcised males. It is a violent nature in the first place that tends to originate these practices, including circumcision.

What really needs to happen is that men need to grow up and address their own health needs by themselves. Consider this: the majority of capital and resources on this planet is still controlled by men; the majority of appointed and elected policy makers are still men; the vast majority of hospital administrators and policy makers are men; the majority of insurance policy makers (who pay for male circ) are men. Men have time to design Stealth bombers, run for office, take over corporations, but cannot schedule the time (often) to book their own doctor's appointments. The kindest thing women can do for you is to tell you to grow up. Your Mommies are busy, our plates are full.

Skip to next archive (September 2001) or continue with my reply:
Let's start with the male variety of genital mutilation. I broadly agree with your taxonomy of reasons why it occurs. But it should be put in greater context. In modern societies where hygiene is more freely available through education, soap, and most importantly, regular washing, hygiene of the genitals for men is far less of an issue. There is an argument that circumcision can have positive benefits in this regard, but it is not essential.

The idea that circumcision is abusive is therefore contingent on such factors. It would not be intentional abuse but more a kind of cultural transitional abuse. The term should therefore be used with great caution.

The idea that a male should consider himself abused due to the operation enters the realm of the wacky and kooky. To cite comparison with female genital mutilation is certainly preposterous, in so far as the examples of the female form you have mentioned are more extreme. Any male who argues that circumcision causes violence is certainly half way to certifiable and probably needs to be circumcised again, this time at the neck!

I should also point out that I am uncircumcised but roll the skin of my dick back so that it remains constantly in the withdrawn position. This amounts to a very similar appearance and condition as the circumcised male. In a sense this gives me insight into both worlds and believe me there is no issue. There is a strong possibility that a lot of males who make an issue out of this desperately desire the basis of the status of being oppressed.

Onto, the female genital mutilation, I agree with you that it seems like a barbaric and dangerous cultural practice in many cases. However there might be an argument for more modern techniques to perform the operation. This would in both our opinions not lessen the unpleasantness of the operation and its effects. But we should tread with caution when dealing with foreign cultures too.

One other issue I take with you in your feminist mind-set is your failure to appreciate that it is women who are actively involved in the practice of infubulation. Contrary to your claim that it is patriarchal, the practice is organised by women and initiated by them. There was a woman prosecuted in France about a year ago for procuring these operations for immigrant girls, I think from Somalia or thereabouts, where the practice is most common.

Skip to next archive (September 2001)