Culture, Gender, and Child Genital Cutting

Female genital cutting or circumcision (FC) is a cultural practice that is widely disputed around the world. More controversially, it is referred to as FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). It is practiced mostly in Muslim African countries and has been banned by law in many countries around the world. (Dietrich) FC was also common in Victorian England (Henslin 275). FC can involve any alteration of the labia or clitoris in carrying degrees ranging from a ritual pinprick of the clitoris to removal of the clitoral hood (or prepuce) to full infibulations involving the removal of all external genitalia and the suturing of the vagina (Dietrich). American society and the societies of other industrialized nations generally find FGM barbaric and strive to eliminate this heinous act.

In the US, the alteration of a female’s genitals to any degree without her consent is illegal and punishable by jail time and a fine (US Federal Law 18.1.7.116). However, male circumcision (MC), more controversially termed MGM (Male Genital Mutilation), is legal and accepted, even though it involves the alteration of the genitalia, specifically the removal of the male foreskin (or prepuce). Doctors or rabbis perform male circumcisions in America. Contrary to popular belief, FC is also often performed by a doctor or religious figure, but the recent intolerance of female cutting has brought about more family or home cuttings (Hayford). The non-consensual removal of the prepuce is illegal for females, yet legal and accepted in the US for males. Some people may think that the two practices are performed for different reasons, making male circumcision justifiable and female circumcision unjustifiable. However, the social and cultural ideas surrounding female circumcision in countries that practice it bear striking resemblance to those surrounding male circumcision in the U.S.

"Circumcised parts are cleaner and more attractive"

This is a common way of thinking in regards to both male and female circumcisions in the US and Africa. Eric K. Silverman notes in an article that a common rationale for FC is that "Uncircumcised female genitals are unclean and impure." (421).This is congruent with America’s general view of uncircumcised men. There is a stigma surrounding the foreskin, and many believe it to be dirty or a carrier of disease. As a result, many infant boys are routinely circumcised for assumed reasons of cleanliness. Routine MC is the most common surgery in America, and only 10% are done for religious purposes (Watterstien, 126). Many Americans consider it a preventative surgery as they are convinced that their child will have problems with their foreskin and need to be circumcised as an adult. However, less than 1% of intact men require a circumcision for medical purposes as adults ("Summary"). Studies on the history of MC and FC also show that both practices were implemented in several different cultures to mark a child or adolescent with femininity or masculinity. The removal of the clitoris marks the removal of female parts that can represent or correlate to male genitalia. The suturing of the vagina feminizes the womb and is believed to retain the freshness of the woman to be pure for her husband and for child-bearing (Lightfoot-Kline). In males, the removal of the foreskin also marked the shedding of all things feminine on the male body, the separation from the womb and from the mother, and showed masculinity in the remaining scar. The exposed glans is considered a symbol of manhood (Silverman).

In FC nations, women often feel adamantly about having their infant girls operated on. They feel that if the girl is left natural, she will suffer for life because no man will want her as her external genital tissue is considered unfeminine (Hayford). They also feel that the tradition should be continued, and if the mother has been circumcised, so should the daughter (Fourcroy). American parents feel strongly about having their infant boys operated on, for similar reasons. They feel that he will suffer in finding a mate and desire the boy’s genitals to resemble his father’s. Both cultures cite tradition as reasons to perpetuate ancient rites. The society involvement on both sides is tremendous, since it is believed in both cultures that the non-circumcised individual will have social hardship with the opposite sex due to their intact genitals. Both cultures also believe that the surgery is relatively painless and that their children will not remember the procedure. In a comparison chart composed by Hanny Lightfoot Kline, the view on clitori..omy is "She loses only a little piece of the clitoris, just the part that protrudes. The girl does not miss it. She can still feel, after all. There is hardly any pain." The comparison chart also displays the American view on routine infant circumcision: "It’s only a little piece of skin. The baby does not feel any pain because his nervous system is not developed yet."("Comparison") The chart also displays views on cleanliness in both societies

Circumcision as a means of control

Sometimes the practice of MC is downplayed when compared to FC since a common view is that FC is used as a means of male control over women. It ensures that a woman is a virgin when she marries, and clitori..omy reduces sexual pleasure (Henslin, 275) This was thought to increase a woman’s faithfulness to her family and keep her mind clear of "unnecessary" things, such as personal pleasure. While these reasons may have initiated the practice, FC in some societies has become so common that the initial purpose is only a memory. The practice perpetuates because it is "normal" and socially accepted. For example, 97 per cent of women in Egypt are circumcised (Henslin, 274). This may seem outrageous, but consider that 60% of American males are circumcised as well (Grossfeld). While this number has dropped from its early-70’s percentage of 95 (Grossfeld), it is still high considering the world circumcision rate is only 15% (Watterstein).

We rarely associate MC with control over boys, but the history of routine circumcision in the US shows otherwise. Circumcision was virtually unheard of among non-Jewish Americans until the late 1800’s. A popular and respected doctor of the time, John Harvey Kellogg, wrote an article about the rising problem of sexual deviancy and masturbation. In this article, he wrote:

"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author had found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." (Kellogg 295)

In the 1970’s, a urological textbook called Campbell’s Urology recommends circumcision as a means to control masturbation. (Darby) Other popular beliefs in America in the 1800’s were that foreskin caused degenerative disease, reflex neurosis, and that the ejaculation of sperm was a life-threatening disease. To prevent these conditions, doctors readily performed circumcision with no anesthesia. There is much evidence that MC became popular in the US as a means of sexual control. (Darby)These theories and beliefs about the therapeutic effects of circumcision have long since been disproved by science and laughed at by modern Americans. Yet the practice continues, even though female genital alteration has been not only forgotten, but made illegal in the US.

Medical Benefits and Risks

While it is difficult to impossible to find medical benefits of FC, a quick search of the internet will give you several benefits of MC. There have been suggestions that FC, like MC, reduces urinary tract infections in the first year of life. But the AAP specifically states that data regarding the benefits of infant MC are not strong enough to recommend the procedure as a routine surgery. (Rose) Many state Medicaid programs and insurance companies have even removed routine MC from the list of procedures covered; making it an elective, cosmetic procedure ("Summary").However, unlike FC, MC is still legal in the US.

FC nations believe that the clitoris and unsutured vagina can cause everything from impotence in their men to poisoned breast milk. American journalists have also uncovered many "health risks" to having a foreskin, such as causing cervical cancer in their women. (Lightfoot-Kline).Many people also believe that there is a huge risk for penile cancer to intact men, and that both penile and cervical cancers spontaneously arise simply from the presence of foreskin. Yet the routine circumcision of infants is still not recommended by any medical organization in the world because there is not enough evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks.

The risks for both surgeries are almost identical. Besides the obvious loss of healthy tissue, risks for FC include shock, bleeding, infection, infertility, and death. (Henslin 274). Risks for MC (besides loss of healthy tissue) include shock, bleeding, infection, penile necrosis (complete death of the tissue of the entire penis, making it non-functional), and death (Milos, Macris, 92s).

Placing FC and MC Side by Side

Ask any American what he or she thinks of FC and the answer will most likely be that it is disgusting or barbaric. For most of us, everything we know about the practice is what the media shows us. This is interesting, because for most of us, the only things we really know about MC is what the media shows us. We don’t consider that our reasons for perpetuating MC are almost identical to those that perpetuate FC. After all, we are a "civilized nation", and we would never do anything as disgusting as FC. The fact is that both practices are violations of human rights, whether done religiously or culturally. The US prides itself on religious freedom and bodily freedom, yet we routinely infringe on the religious and bodily rights of our male children. How can we fight for the bodily freedoms of women and girls in FC nations if we continue to exert our idea of normalcy on our own boys without their consent?

While there are new studies being published almost daily regarding HIV studies and circumcision, cancer and circumcision, infection and circumcision, none of these studies hold enough weight to change the recommendations of the AAP, the AMA, and the WHO. None of these major medical groups implement a policy of prescribing preventative circumcision. Yet small risks such as urinary tract infection and penile cancer are blown up and made the center of the debate. The fact is that circumcision reduces the risk of UTI in the first year of life, but the odds are still very small. The risk of UTI for an intact child is 1 in 100, while the risk for a circumcised child is 1 in 1000. Baby girls have an even higher risk of UTI because of the placement of the urethra, but rather than circumcise them, doctors prescribe antibiotics (Summary). Why the dualism? Why can we not recognize our primitive traditions and eradicate them as we are attempting to eradicate the primitive traditions of other cultures? If we can’t take a step back and realize that our own practices are just as bad as the ones we condemn, how can we consider ourselves a civilized society? Recent movements against MC are met with hostility and stubborn clutching on to tradition, much like movements and legislation against FC is met by the people who traditionally and religiously practice it.

There really are only two solutions to this problem. Americans have been thrown into their beliefs about MC by it’s evolution in society. We forget or ignore the outrageous reasons it became popular, and perpetuate the practice for the same reasons FC continues in Africa and Indonesia. Much like we attempt to educate these nations on the truths to FC, we need to make an active effort to do the same in our own country regarding MC. Until we do that, we have no place judging and placing our patriarchal hand over the beliefs and practices of other societies. It is very much the "pot calling the kettle black" kind of situation. So if what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, to continue the cliché’s. The only ways to display our civility and an attitude of monism and consistency in regards to genital cutting are to either ban MC or legalize FC. If we are to frown upon FC, logic, reason, and the history of both practices dictate we should hold that frown upon MC as well.

Learn more by visiting these links:

An FGM researcher compares MGM cultural justifications:

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html

Human Genital Mutilation Classification Chart:

http://www.icgi.org/hgm_classification.htm

Female Circumcision and Male Circumcision, Is There A Difference?:

http://www.compleatmother.com/arti cles3/femalecircumcision.shtml

Common Denominators between Male & Female "Circumcision":

http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm

Underlying Justifications in the US and Africa:

http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/third/hanny3.html

Side-by-side Comparison of official AAP positions:

http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP.html

Contrast and compare FGM and MGM:

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

Bibliography

Darby, Robert (2003). The masturbation taboo and the rise of routine male circumcision: A review of the historiography. Journal of Social History, 36(3), 737. Retrieved March 1. 2008 from Platinum Full Text Periodicals database. (Document ID 376493961)

Dietrich, H.L. (2003). " FGC Around the World". Retrieved March 1, 2008 from FGM Network:http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/world.php Fourcroy, Jean L (1999). Female Circumcision. American Family Physician, 60(2) 657-8 Retrieved March 1, 2008, from Platinum Full Text Periodicals Database. (Document ID: 44110387)

Grossfeld, Stan. "Controversy over Circumcision Heightened in US After Report" The Boston Globe. 25 July, 1999 (A1).

Hayford, Sarah R (2005). Conformity and Change: Community Effects on Female Genital Cutting in Kenya. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(2), 21-40. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from Platinum Full Text Periodicals database. (Document ID: 858901361).

Henslin, James M. Essentials of Sociology, A Down-To Earth Approach. 7th Edition Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. (274-75).

Kellogg, John Harvey, MD. "Treatment for Self-Abuse and it’s Effects". Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa, Segner and Co, 1888. (295)

Lightfoot-Kline, Hanny (2003). Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions toward Infant Male Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in Africa. The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from FGM network: http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html

Milos, Marilyn, and Macris, Donna. "Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue? Journal of Nurse-Midwifery. 27 (1992): 87s-96s

Rose, Verna L (1999). AAP updates its recommendations on circumcision. American Family Physician, 59(10), 2918-2923, Retrieved February 28 from Platinum Full Text Periodicals database. (Document ID: 41839893)

Silverman, Erik K (2004). Anthropology and Circumcision. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 419-445. Retrieved February 25 from Platinum Full Text Periodical Database. (Document ID : 749595851).

"Summary of General Circumcision Information". Circumcision Resource Center. Date Unknown. Retrieved March1, 2008 from

Watterstein, Edward. "Circumcision: The Uniquely American Enigma". Urologic Clinics of North America . 12 (1985) 123-132. Circumcsion Reference Library, Dec 2005. Retrieved Feb. 23, 2008 from http://www.cirp.org/library/general/wallerstein

~*~

Return to Contents