When the human rights of girls and young women collide with a highly visible national organization's attempt to demonstrate cultural sensitivity, who wins and who loses? When it involves female circumcision, the answer is disturbing.
Also known as female genital cutting or female genital mutilation, female circumcision involves removing part or all of the female genitalia. It's done to female children from infants to teens, frequently with ordinary knives and no anesthesia. Although it's a practice not endorsed by any religion and with no medical benefits, this painful and dangerous ritual is routinely performed in northern African countries.
It's surprising then that the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a statement in early May that essentially permitted doctors to suggest a modified form -- a genital 'nick' -- to satisfy immigrants seeking to perform genital cutting on their daughters. It was only after the AAP took a beating in the public eye that they backed down and returned to their previous 'Just Say No' position regarding female genital mutilation.
Though I'm slightly tempted to make an 'in the nick of time' joke here, I can't because the topic is so horrific. What was the AAP thinking when it suggested the nick, the prick...whatever you want to call it? Did it realize the slippery slope it had stepped onto? Did they understand that they were sending the message:
- that it's okay to disfigure female children with no medical reason to do so, and cause serious complications that can lead to death?
- that there's nothing wrong with permitting a practice to continue that subjugates women and attempts to 'cut out' the sexual urges that are a natural and normal part of growing up female?
- that closing up the vaginal opening is a perfectly acceptable way to keep a girl 'pure' so that she has to literally be cut open again to have sexual intercourse once she's married?
No doubt many men reading this will say, "So what? Men have endured circumcision for generations," and they would be right to some extent.
The benefits of male circumcision are debatable, yet it is routinely practiced in the US. Even the American Medical Association questions the practice and supports the American Academy of Pediatrics' position that "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
However, male circumcision is performed by medical personnel in a safe setting with sterile instruments and usually some form of local anesthesia. None of the above precautions are taken by those who do the 'cut' in female circumcision. Men aren't cut to keep them down, to keep them pure, or to keep them at the mercy of women. But all of the above describe the rationale for female genital mutilation. Because the cultural pressures are so great in communities that practice this, it's seen as necessary to raise a girl properly; and any female who isn't circumcised isn't eligible for marriage. And in countries where women don't have access to education and can't achieve economic independence, marriage is the only option.
Political correctness is one thing. But endorsing a barbaric custom that has disfigured over a hundred million women around the world -- and telling medical professionals in the U.S. to mollify certain immigrant populations with just a little nick -- is unacceptable. We won't remain the land of the free and the home of the brave if we don't possess the moral strength to stick to our convictions and insist, "Female circumcision has to end...and the cut stops here," as a bold first step to end the practice worldwide.
Related article: What is Female Circumcision/Female Genital Mutilation and Why is it Practiced?
Comments
I totally agree. This is disgusting and wrong.
But one can’t help wonder where the equivalent article about male genital mutilation is. Genital mutilation (male or female) is a human right issue.
“Men aren’t cut to keep them down, to keep them pure, or to keep them at the mercy of women. ” Don’t be so sure. In the tribal setting, male cutting is a dangerous rite of passage (90 youths died in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa, alone last year) that boys have no choice about. (How cutting part of the phallus OFF turns boys into men is one of the great mysteries of male thought.) “Keeping them pure” (to prevent/”cure”/punish masturbation) is EXACTLY why the operation was medicalised in the late 19th century, and once a generation (including doctors) was cut, other excuses took over. And women can be as adamant that boys are circumcised as any men (but the vast majority are so out of ignorance, not malice). And we see a lot of US women expressing a sexual preference for circumcised men, which they carry into action on their sons. The reasons for cutting girls (see http://www.circumstitions.com/FGC-stitions.html ) can be as varied and irrational as those for cutting boys ( http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions.html ).
But having admitted “[T]he ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is … much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting” (AAP FGC Policy, April 26, 2010) and having turned its back on the ‘ritual nick”, the AAP is going to be hard-pressed to justify “routine [non-therapeutic] male genital cutting”.
This story only points out our cultural blindness regarding Male Genital Mutilation. We are so outraged at even a slight harmless “nick” on a girl, and yet we routinely have been removing half of the skin of the penis from our own boys.
Among other things, the foreskin provides:
* Protection. The foreskin fully covers the glans (head) of the flaccid penis, thereby protecting it from damage and harsh rubbing against abrasive agents (underwear etc) and maintaining its sensitivity;
* Sexual sensitivity. The foreskin provides direct sexual pleasure in its own right, as it contains the highest concentration of nerve endings on the penis;
* Lubrication. The foreskin, with its unique mucous membrane, permanently lubricates the glans, thus improving sensitivity and aiding smoother intercourse;
* Skin-gliding during erection. The foreskin facilitates the gliding movement of the skin of the penis up and down the penile shaft and over the glans during erection and sexual activity;
* Varied sexual sensation. The foreskin facilitates direct stimulation of the glans during sexual activity by its interactive contact with the sensitive glans;
* Immunological defense. The foreskin helps to keep the glans clean by the secretion of anti-bacterial agents to protect it.
And somehow we have managed to forget all this because few men got to keep theirs. Parents now are starting to say “NO” to circumcision more and more because of what they learn before the decision even comes up. No infant has ANY indication that this surgery is needed, to paraphrase the AMA and AAP as well as the ACOG.
This is an ancient blood ritual that somehow got intertrined into medicine back in the 1800’s along with many other strange practices. It has ALWAYS been a “cure in search of a disease”. Even AIDS/HIV is no excuse as the CDC recently found that it had no effect on infection rates in the US.
The FGM Act needs to be corrected to bring it into alignment with the 14th amendment and protect everyone, not just girls. Believe it or not, boys are human beings too and deserve respect as well.
There is quite a bit of cultural bias with this. In the US female circumcision is often said to be to be done only to lessen sexual pleasure and is done under unsanitary conditions. However, like MGM (male circumcision) it has been medicalized in many places. Also, most FGM is the cutting of the labia and clitoral hood (NOT removal of all of the female genitalia) and it is normally done in a hospital setting. Women say the sex is fine, say it is cleaner and they want it done to their daughters. Much male circ in Africa is done in a bush and many many boys die each year. The point is that these practices both involve similar issues and BOTH always deprive the owner of the genitals of the full NATURAL capacity for pleasure. The rare form of FGM is certainly worse than MGM. However, male circumcision done here in the US takes away more sexual function and pleasure capacity than female circumcision as it is typically done (e.g., in Malaysia). So they are comparable, if you remove the culture/sex bias.
I am against all cutting of the genitals, certainly against all cutting of the genitals without the consent of the person being cut. I ask that those against FGM also voice their disapproval of MGM. The rest of the world sees the selective treatment as hypocrisy, which it is.
Male and female circ are pushed for the same reasons — hygiene and looks. Looks is not a reasonable basis, particularly changing the body of another for your ideas of looks. The Hygiene basis is BS. Circ pushers occasionally do studies and try to say there is a health advantage. A Tanzania study said the FGM (labia and clitoral hood cutting) lowered HIV risk to the cut women. This was also claimed for MGM. These both may be bogus and may rely on other factors to change the risk (sexual practices and number of partners and condom use) from about 3.2% risk to 1.8% risk. With male circumcision it was found that it raises the risk of HIV to the female partner of the circumcised men — this could also be true of female circumcision.
A fact that is certain is that all of these genital cutting practices remove capicity for pleasure of the circumcised. For men the loss is drastic with thousands of fine touch nerve endings cut off. For females the loss is a bit less severe for the most common FGM (labia and clitoral hood removal) and is sexually devastating for the extreme form.
Let the human have the chance to experience their natural body. PLEASE Stop all circumcision of minors.
As a producer I’ve met many people with compelling stories but none so as compelling as Mimi Ramsey. A victim of FGM & countless reciprocal damages from the result, Mimi made stopping this practice in Ethiopia AND US her life’s mission. When I produced this piece in 1999 with hopes to get funding to make a full documentary with all the footage I have, it wasn’t the best timing. People didn’t want to talk about it, but it’s back in the news and relevant. I’m want to keep my promise to Mimi who told many a doctor that even the nick is barbaric. If an 18 year old woman chooses this, fine, but no parent should do this to their girl. It is not the same as circumcision. Please watch the promo of the documentary.
Jack wrote: “Male and female circ are pushed for the same reasons — hygiene and looks.”
Actually not quite. Female genital mutilation is not the same as circumcision, in that it is done with the INTENTION of reducing female sexual activity. The intent is to reduce libido and sensation, to increase painful intercourse so that the woman will be sexually chaste. It is not similar to male circumcision. It’s more similar to the old “chastity belt” in theory – though far more damaging and long-lasting. When a woman’s outer genitals are cut or pierced, and her vaginal opening is stitched up, the only result can be excruciating intercourse with absolutely no chance of pleasurable sensation. Proponents can call it “modesty,” “cleanliness,” etc. – but time to call it what it is – destruction of female sexuality.
So what if the intention is noble, you are cutting a persons genitals against their true wishes. Agreeable up to the age of 18. Genital cutting is against my law of logic and of well being.
And that train is NEVER late.
Every time there’s an article about FGM, the “But what about the MENZ” trolls come out to make the conversation all about them–all men all the time.
I guess this is the other side of the coin…
http://www.slate.com/id/2257987/