Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Planet of the...Spaniels? | Bonsoir, Hamas Mickey »

Monday, July 2, 2007

Don’t Call It Circumcision

posted by on July 2 at 15:09 PM

Egypt just—finally—outlawed female genital mutilation (AKA “female circumcision”). The practice has been officially verboten since 1997. but a provision allowing operations in “exceptional cases” has made FGM nearly universal; according to a 2000 survey, 97 percent of Egyptian women had undergone the operation. The ban came just days after a 12-year-old girl died due to complications of a clitoridectomy.

Please, dear commenters, don’t tell me that “boys get circumcised too, and isn’t that exactly the same thing as female genital cutting?”

No, it isn’t.

Clitoridectomy, the least damaging form of female genital cutting, involves splitting and removing the clitoral hood and all or part of the clitoris. The result of this painful and irreversible operation is a total loss of sexual sensation—forever. That’s the whole point. And that’s just the “mild” form of female genital cutting; the other forms that are commonly practiced, excision and infibulation, go much further. In an excision operation, the clitoral hood, clitoris, and most of the inner labia are removed, and the labia are sewn shut. In infibulation, all of the external genitalia are cut off, including the clitoris, the inner labia, and the outer labia. The resulting raw, open wound is then held together using thorns or stitches and the girl’s legs are tied together for two to six weeks to allow the vulva to heal. Everything stays sewn up until the girl’s wedding night, when her husband rips it open, often with a knife. And you don’t even want to know how childbirth works.

Comparing that to male circumcision, in which the foreskin is removed, usually in infancy, is insulting and absurd. There are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made against male circumcision that don’t involve minimizing the incredible suffering this “cultural” practice has caused millions of girls and women around the world.

RSS icon Comments

1

"Please, dear commenters, don’t tell me that "boys get circumcised too, and isn’t that exactly the same thing as female genital cutting?""

Who the fuck ever said it was the same thing? Anyo man who does should have his balls cut out.

Posted by elswinger | July 2, 2007 3:14 PM
2

Erica,

I hope this issue is one upon which ALL of us would be in agreement.

Posted by COMTE | July 2, 2007 3:14 PM
3

Well, I won't be uncrossing my legs for a month now.

Posted by Rebecca | July 2, 2007 3:15 PM
4

ECB - your anger seems misdirected. You're yelling at Slog readers on the assumption that any of us are going to defend female genital mutilation. FGM is horrific, senseless violence and I can't imagine that Slog commenters are going to run to its defense (with the exception of several trolls who seem to comment just to get people riled up). Take a deep breath and drop the high-horse defensiveness. It doesn't suit you.

Posted by rb | July 2, 2007 3:17 PM
5

ARE there people who equate female genital mutilation with male circumcision? I mean, among the likely Stranger and Slog reading community? I'm sure such dicks (no pun intended) are around but has anyone actually posted on here in defense of this barbarity?

Posted by Matt from Denver | July 2, 2007 3:18 PM
6

Nos. 4 and 5: Yes, there are TONS of people who compare FGM to circumcision. Here's a comment thread to check out (with props to Dan in the post!) if you don't believe me: http://pandagon.net/2007/06/28/some-good-news/#comments

Oh, and "Joo"? I'm having you banned. Buh-bye!

Posted by ECB | July 2, 2007 3:31 PM
7

"Circumcision" is completely fucked up, no matter which gender it's happening to. Both practices are barbaric, and should be abolished.

I realize they're not the same *in degree*, but they're the same *in principle*- namely, hacking off portions of genitals.

I will agree that it's much worse when done to women.

Posted by supergp | July 2, 2007 3:36 PM
8

Um, I'll be totally honest and say I didn't know much about FGM and my first thought when reading the first paragraph, no I'm not joking, was "good, but when are they going to outlaw male circumcision, too?"

So, uh, clearly I'm obnoxiously uninformed, but I for one appreciate the explanation.

Posted by oh, me | July 2, 2007 3:37 PM
9

Wow I knew FGM was common in north Africa, but 97%. I thought it was mostly restricted to more tribal and rural areas. Hopefully more international pressure and local women's rights groups can eventually eradicate this nonsense.

Posted by Giffy | July 2, 2007 3:39 PM
10

To draw comparisons where there are comparisons is not equating the two practices.

I drew them in the last Slog piece on circumcision. What followed was a good discussion about the comparison with someone who was very knowledgeable on the subject, and advocated strongly for the practice of male circumcision.

Beyond the physical details, what makes FGM so much more extreme (and a volatile subject) is the horrifying sexism at play. Women are not circumcising their sons because they want to oppress, control, or castrate men. They're doing it because their religion, their society, or their aesthetics (see the other two reasons) tell them to. The health reasons are new research, and are not why men have been traditionally circumcised in this country.

In invoking religion and aesthetics, there are comparisons to be drawn. I drew them. I in no way meant to imply that there are no differences in the practices, or that they were similarly painful or dehumanizing, or had similar results. For the record, I oppose both.

I'm extremely happy that Egypt has outlawed the practice of FGM, thank you Erica for letting us know.

Posted by bitch on heels | July 2, 2007 3:40 PM
11

@ 6, I knew that such defenders existed. My question was, do they post here? Sorry if that wasn't clear.

And thanks for 86'ing "joo."

@ 7, I don't plan on having my son (should I have one) circumcized but as a cut male I can testify that life ain't so bad. There's no way I'd say the same for all those girls and women in the Middle East.

Posted by Matt from Denver | July 2, 2007 3:40 PM
12

@11 I'm cut myself; Note that I'm not saying that male circumcision is as bad a female. I am simply saying they are similar in nature, *NOT SCOPE*. They're both barbaric.

Posted by supergp | July 2, 2007 3:45 PM
13

Don't call it circumcision!
It's been here for years!
Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear!
Makin the tears rain down like a MON-soon!

Don't you dare stare, you betta move!
Don't ever compare!
Me to the rest that'll all get sliced and diced!
Competition's payin the price!

Posted by JC | July 2, 2007 3:45 PM
14

It's always fun when the misogyny fairies show up at Pandagon...

Posted by Darcy | July 2, 2007 3:46 PM
15

Yes, comparing male circumcision to FGM is, in general, like comparing a slap in the face to a curb-stomping.

But one poster made a valid point in the comments of that Pandagon post: When you go to the Third World and tell people that mutilating the genitals of young girls is wrong, and then encourage them to follow your example and mutilate (albeit less severely) the genitals of young boys for flimsy medical reasons, they may well come to look at you askance.

Posted by tsm | July 2, 2007 3:53 PM
16

To Keshmeshi: Sorry to delete your comment too; it didn't make sense anymore after I took Joo's down.

Posted by ECB | July 2, 2007 3:55 PM
17

Erica (Re:post 6)

Now show us a SLOG thread where tons of people defend FGM.

Posted by elswinger | July 2, 2007 3:55 PM
18

@6: But ECB, you are posting on Slog, not pandagon. I looked at the comments that you linked to, and in a cursory overview it seemed that the vast majority of comments were against FGM and also against those who would compare it to male circumcision. So my point still stands, that you took the offensive against Slog readers on this issue. No legitimate commenter here seems to be defending FGM, so I don't understand your defensiveness.

BTW, and no I am NOT comparing the two, but in Africa and some Islamic cultures most male circumcision happens between the ages of four and 13, or at puberty, and in far-from-sterile or necessarily voluntary environments. Not all men are cut at birth in a hospital environment with no memory of the procedure. Again, I am NOT trying to compare the two, but male circumcision ain't necessarily a good time, either.

Posted by rb | July 2, 2007 4:00 PM
19

This post is directed at all those Slog commenters who have been arguing against the practice of circumcision by minimizing the suffering caused by FGM.

Posted by Huh? | July 2, 2007 4:08 PM
20

So wait ... there are seriously people that compare the two forms of genital mutilation? There are people who seriously feel that male circumsizion is a bad thing. Are these the people that feel entitled to a foreskin that their hippy asses don't feel inclined to clean anyways? As I was taught, the foreskin was a liability in the desert when you didn't have a access to water to keep it clean (maybe I'm wrong). Does this edict apply also to genital piercings, some of which INCREASE sexual pleasure? Yes we are all happy Egypt banned female circumsizion, but are they truely comparable, Seriously people.

Posted by Matt | July 2, 2007 4:12 PM
21

So wait ... there are seriously people that compare the two forms of genital mutilation? There are people who seriously feel that male circumsizion is a bad thing. Are these the people that feel entitled to a foreskin that their hippy asses don't feel inclined to clean anyways? As I was taught, the foreskin was a liability in the desert when you didn't have a access to water to keep it clean (maybe I'm wrong). Does this edict apply also to genital piercings, some of which INCREASE sexual pleasure? Yes we are all happy Egypt banned female circumsizion, but are they truely comparable, Seriously people.

Posted by Matt | July 2, 2007 4:12 PM
22

So wait ... there are seriously people that compare the two forms of genital mutilation? There are people who seriously feel that male circumsizion is a bad thing. Are these the people that feel entitled to a foreskin that their hippy asses don't feel inclined to clean anyways? As I was taught, the foreskin was a liability in the desert when you didn't have a access to water to keep it clean (maybe I'm wrong). Does this edict apply also to genital piercings, some of which INCREASE sexual pleasure? Yes we are all happy Egypt banned female circumsizion, but are they truely comparable, Seriously people.

Posted by Matt | July 2, 2007 4:13 PM
23

I can't believe people are even talking about male circumcision in the same breath as fgm. I'm cut, and it's so far apart from fgm that it's an insult to hundreds of millions of viciously mutilated women that the phrases are sharing space on a piece of html code. I do want to take semantic issue with the post though: You put "cultural" in quotes, which implies it isn't cultural. Fact is, it's cultural. Not all culture is good or deserves to be preserved. Simply being evil doesn't keep something from being culture.

Posted by christopher | July 2, 2007 4:18 PM
24

Elswinger et al:

Here are some comments from previous Slog posts about FGM. They aren't defending it -- that's not what I said -- but they ARE comparing FGM to male circumcision and implying that cutting off the foreskin of an infant is just as bad.

1. I'll probably get flamed for this but the distinction between circumcision and genital mutilation is not male versus female. It's consenting versus non-consenting. Adults can choose elective genital surgery if they wish (a forced cultural norm is not choice). But any time a non-consenting individual has his or her healthy genitals cut and altered, it is mutilation.
Posted by Tony | October 27, 2006 3:47 PM

2. (And what wicked sexism prevents Erica C. Barnett from getting vexed about male genital mutilation?)
Posted by clit lit 101 | October 27, 2006 4:34 PM

3. Now, given, this practice seems disgusting to Western culture and even to some people within the cultures that practice it. That being said, reveling in our disgust doesn't really do anyone any good.

Everyone has their point of view -- simply deciding that we're correct and that we know how to fix the problem, often leads to greater problems.

Posted by Brie | October 28, 2006 8:41 AM

4. Qualitatively, they're identical, cutting the healthy genitals of a non-consenting individual. We don't allow that for any other surgery on children.

If you look at the link Erica posted about FGM, Type I without excision is quite similar. Should we support that, or is all genital cutting on girls unacceptable? To me, the answer is clear; it's not acceptable. But neither is the male version. We don't allow assault just because murder is worse.

Posted by Tony | October 28, 2006 8:45 AM

5. It also seems that the main difference between the two is that we in our culture accept male circumcision and decry female genital mutilation. Me, I oppose both.

Let the outrage begin.
Posted by bitch on heels | June 18, 2007 6:04 PM

6. kat, how bout we circumsise all females too!!?!?!? i love my foreskin and i feel deeply sorry for those men whose penises are mutilated (i make them feel better by putting their penisies in my mouth)

Posted by war pigs | April 28, 2007 9:31 PM
27

7. The difference is not a big as one would think. Yes, there are some extreeme and incomparable versions of female circumcicsion, however, the more common parctices involve little more than the removal of some sexually sensitive flesh. Some circumsized women claim that they do not believe they have been cheated out of sexual pleasure, even. Do I believe female circumcicions is wrong? Of course I do; but male circumcision is not much different.

Posted by Lila | April 29, 2007 5:39 AM

8. Every male, no matter what his age or creed, should have the right to determine when he's an adult how his penis is going to look. Genital integrity is a human birthright, not just a female birthright.
Posted by Quirky | May 3, 2007 9:01 AM

Posted by ECB | July 2, 2007 4:18 PM
25

Amen to ECB @post 24. This ain't right people. My circumcision didn't have one fiftieth the deleterious effects that the mildest form of FGM has. So Shut the fuck up, circumcision whiners.

Posted by christopher | July 2, 2007 4:25 PM
26

Thanks for the comments ECB. I think I see the point some are trying to make but the two practices aren't comparable. Shame on whoever coined the term "female circumcision."

Posted by Matt from Denver | July 2, 2007 4:30 PM
27

@24 In my own defense: As I mentioned earlier, a good conversation ensued (not quoted above), and I wouldn't now say that it's the main difference. That was an overstatement, and one I was called on. Learn something on Slog comments? Sure. First time I've been corrected? Nope. Able to revise a position? Yep.

Still oppose giving babies unnecessary operations because of religion or aesthetics? (That conversation began about circumcision, not FGM.) Yep. Still find FGM completely horrifying? Indeed.

The argument that it's wrong to compare two things of different degrees or between different groups because it minimizes suffering is a familiar one, but one I'm not entirely sure I agree with. (Here's an opportunity for me to learn more, perhaps.)

I've heard people compare the current administration to Hitler's regime, and I think that's a comparison not without merit. Does that mean that Bush & co are starving and killing millions in concentration camps? Is the comparison anti-semitic? I've heard people take issue with the comparison of anti-mixed-race marriage laws and anti-gay marriage laws because it minimizes the plight of African Americans. Is it inherently invalidating to make a comparison about two things if one is obviously of a different extreme, or within a different context?

Maybe too much for the Slog...

Posted by bitch on heels | July 2, 2007 4:43 PM
28

ECB, you really don't do your point any service with at least the first and last of those quotes. You are completely misrepresenting them when you say they imply "that cutting off the foreskin of an infant is just as bad".

Posted by Bison | July 2, 2007 4:52 PM
29

"Clitoridectomy, the least damaging form of female genital cutting"

The removal of only the clitoral hood is the least damaging form of FGM. The further removal of part or all of the clitoris is a more severe form of the practice.

Posted by Bison | July 2, 2007 5:00 PM
30

female excision/circumcision/infibulation is my main argument for nuking all the men in the muslim world.

except for all the women that would get in the way.

how scared of pussy power are muslim men? dan savage likes pussy more.

Posted by maxsolomon | July 2, 2007 5:01 PM
31

And maxsolomon brings it back to a more relevant line of discussion: It's difficult to not be opposed to Islam to the point of oppression, when faced with this kind of evidence. And fucking Jyhad Mouse. There are moderate muslims out there, right? Where are they? They have no kind of voice right now. Instead, they are represented by the most visible atrocities in the Islamic world. It's a fucked-up circumstance.
I am all in favor of cultural imperialism when it supports human rights, such as in this case. But how do you keep your heart from being filled with hate, to where you do wanna push the button on that nuke, when faced with these things?

Posted by christopher | July 2, 2007 5:32 PM
32

Seems like Islam is really at a crossroads, as the West was during the Reformation. Parts want to embrace modernity. This tension fuels militantism and terrorism. Christianity was just like this only a few hundred years ago.

We should try to help Muslims who reach out to the West. What's the alternative? Anyone think that a billion Muslims are just going to go away?

Posted by Big Sven | July 2, 2007 6:18 PM
33

Erica-
We all know you are pissed off at the world, maybe that's why you drown your sorrows in alcohol every chance you get. But come on, nobody in their right mind would think this is ok. Cheers, Darling!

Posted by Not sure why | July 2, 2007 6:45 PM
34

When people compare the two, they are making the case against cutting off a man's foreskin, not for mutilating a woman's love nubbin.

Believe me, Erica - there is no bigger champion of the female libido than the modern straight male.

Posted by Sean | July 2, 2007 7:30 PM
35

bitch on heels @27

Perhaps too much for Slog, but not too much for me. Thanks for disentangling Erica's rhetorical snarl.

Posted by Sean | July 2, 2007 7:44 PM
36

"Please, dear commenters, don’t tell me that “boys get circumcised too, and isn’t that exactly the same thing as female genital cutting?”

Your condescension would probably irk that Straw Man you're agruing with, if he were real in the first place.

Posted by boyd main | July 2, 2007 10:07 PM
37

I won't weigh in on the debate above, but I did see this factoid a couple days ago

Does Circumcision Remove The Most Sensitive Parts Of The Penis?

In short, the scar left over from cicumcision is the most sensitive part of the penises in the study. *Sigh* I wish I still had mine.

Posted by imofftoseethewizard | July 2, 2007 11:16 PM
38

If cutting children's genitals or anyones genitals is wrong, and I certainly believe it is, then it's wrong. THAT'S what anti-circ people, like me, overwhelmingly believe.

There are forms of FGM that only cut the hood that covers the clit, causing keritinization similar to that seen in males. Not all FGM involved infibulation and incision/clitoridectomy. Furthermore, not all FGM renders a woman unable to have an orgasm, which is the argument all the pro-circ assholes use: "it still works, heeyuck!" Is it still barbaric? Yes. Should it stop? Of fucking course.

#1 I don't have any balls, but please, choke on someone else's dick and die.

Posted by lauren | July 3, 2007 12:30 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).