Near the end of class today, we started to touch on an issue that I've been pondering during our entire discussion of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), namely that of what is our true reason for being opposed to the practice. At first, most of the disgust at FGM seemed to stem from the unsafe reality of the procedure. It is often performed with rudimentary tools in a decidedly non-medical manner, at least when compared against standard Western medical procedures. Yet this does not seem strong enough to fully condemn the practice, only providing enough foundation to denounce the current methods. As we considered suggested alternatives to the procedure, namely "Circumcision with Words," we more strongly considered the possibility (which was a smaller afterthought in previous discussions) that the goals of female circumcision, that of enhancing male power and diminishing female sexuality, is a problem in itself. For this blog, I want us to consider the true reasons we aim to reduce or eliminate the procedure in an effort to discover the bounds of cultural relativism.
First, we should understand what we're dealing with. Female genital mutilation can take a few different forms. The least disfiguring type of mutilation is that of circumcision, or cutting of the prepuce (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, p. 5). This procedure is somewhat akin to male circumcision, though without the same health benefits. A more extreme procedure is excision, in which all or part of the labia minora is taken as well (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, p. 5). Finally, there is infibulation, a procedure which removes the labia minora and most or all of the labia majora (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, p. 5). These three procedures, or various mixtures, constitute the methods of female genital mutilation.
Next, an examination into the reasons for FGM is illuminating. Dorkenoo and Elsworthy give four main reasons that FGM is practiced. First, there is a psycho-sexual element, in which the procedure is deemed useful on two dubious claims: either to make the woman whole by exorcising the male portion or to prevent a situation in which the female genitals "dangle between the legs like a man's" (p. 11). A more salient reason within this sub-group is to limit the sexual desire of a female, an important factor in a society which places heavy importance on the virginity of a bride. This claim has a genesis in male power and is a different variation of a theme we see in many societies, that of preserving the chastity of young women. The second category of defense for the practice is religious in nature, though this defense is faulty as many religious scholars claim there is no reference to FGM in Islamic texts (p. 11-12). The third category is sociological and claims that female circumcision is part of the process from childhood to womanhood, similar to a Bar Mitzvah in the Jewish faith. The fourth and final defense is aesthetic in nature as societies claim that FGM makes women appear cleaner and more physically appealing. While none of these explanations are very convincing, the practice is long-standing tradition in some cultures, so arguments against FGM must be solid and universal.
Having set the foundation, we should consider the reasons we shudder at the thought of FGM. In the beginning, it was easy to be against FGM. We read numerous horror stories about the procedure which was typically done by an unskilled (by Western standards) practitioner. The female in question may be held down by a number of adults as the "expert" shaves away at the girl's genitals with a razor (Dorkenoo and Elsworthy, p. 5). The reality of the procedure as currently practiced can result in a number of terrible consequences in the short, medium, and long term. There can be an accidental severing of a crucial artery during the procedure, or the poor handiwork of the operator can leave females prone to frequent infections or increased susceptibility to disease. It should be noted that most or all of the health problems that result appear to come due to the procedure being done in a haphazard manner by a relative amateur.
Because most of the problems come not because the procedure itself is dangerous but rather from the manner in which it is typically performed, it raises an important question about our objection to the practice. Fundamentally, do our qualms stem from the abstract idea or from the practice in reality? Put another way, would we allow the procedure in Western countries if it was done in a hospital by a trained surgeon, assuming the aforementioned health risks disappeared (note: if significant health risks still occur, this is a moot point)? What about if the more extreme procedures, such as excision or infibulation, were outlawed, but circumcision was allowed if done in a medical setting by a specialist? If we find our objection to the procedure to remain persistent in the face of these new considerations, it indicates that our problem is deeper than the health risks that result from a dirty razor held by an untrained hand.
One objection to FGM that can withstand the previous thought experiment is that which is based on removing unnecessary forms of male domination. Through this lens, one could say even if the procedure was safe, even if it was minimal, it is still not acceptable because the main purpose of FGM is to make women subordinate to the desires of men. Yet if this is true, doesn't this kick the legs out from underneath the reformers who are advocating "Circumcision through Words" as described in the articles by Reaves and Mwuara? This alternative method has, at its heart, the same goals of FGM: to mold girls into chaste women who will be good wives. What makes this different? Is it because it is not permanent, in that women can disregard the lessons if they choose? Is it because this is realized as a practical step in a difficult world?
For what it's worth, I'll give my two cents on the questions raised above. First, I think we can oppose FGM in African nations on health grounds because it is the reality of the situation and is inseparable from the issue as it currently stands. These villages are unlikely to get sanitary medical facilities with skilled doctors any time soon, so we must be concerned with the array of health problems that arise, especially in light of the limited benefits of the procedure. In response to the question of whether a limited circumcision can be performed in optimal medical conditions, I suppose it can, but I would argue that the society that has the resources to make that happen is a society that is advanced enough to examine this procedure and recognize it for what it is (and isn't). Finally, regarding "Circumcision through Words," I think this is a step in the right direction, even though it carries some of the same problems of FGM at heart. Ideally, we would be able to rid mankind of this notion of female submission, but we don't live in an ideal world. We should recognize "Circumcision through Words" for what it is, and we should avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good.
But enough of what I think, why do YOU oppose FGM? Did the theoretical questions raised make you reconsider any of your reasons?
The "health benefits" of male circumcision are questionable at best:
ReplyDeleteCanadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
As you say, some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometimes there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 79 boys died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than cultural imperialism.
The screams of male and female infants and children undergoing genital cutting are genderless and both genders die from these harmful traditional practices.
ReplyDeleteThis is not an issue of competitive suffering, the first cut into the normal body of a non-consenting minor is a human rights violation. The harm after that first cut depends on the operator, the culture, and, perhaps, the resistance of the victim, but the extent of the damage does not determine the violation, it's the first cut that violates the rights of the child.
Genital cutting persists because it has been practiced for millennia. However, when we look at circumcision (genital mutilations) through the legal, ethical, and human rights lens of the 21st century, we see there is no place for these anachronistic blood rituals in civilized society.