ah, a classic debate! i have mixed feelings on this. it's always interesting to me that so many people feel so strongly that it's a horrible terrible practice but don't bat an eyelash when it comes to the (non)issue of male circumcision. i suppose it's to be expected as the people i'm refering to are raised in the judeo-christian tradition, but it's just such a double standard. of course, i assume that a lot more females die as a result of the practice? i don't have any data though.
I think when most people refer to female circumcision they're referring to the complete removal of the clitoris, as opposed to the modification or removal of the clitoris hood. Cutting off the clitoris isn't all analogous with male circumcision, which is removing the foreskin, not the entire penis.
The thing is that female circumcision is such an imprecise term; it can cover nicking the clitoris hood, to the complete removal of the clitoris, as well as the inner and outer labia. Which just makes the subject even more difficult to discuss.
a womans clitoris can give her pleasure to the extent that she can ejaculate, definitely aids in getting her wet when stimulated. Yes women also come vaginally and removing the clitoris doesn't take the g-spot with it, but, most women who've been circumsized never get the chance to enjoy intercourse. It becomes painful or at the very least uncomfortable.
if male circumcision prevented the male from enjoying sex and ejaculating, you bet there would be more controversy.
I think it is important to be as culturally relative as possible when you are observing or collecting data. However, once you feel you have 'enough' (which is totally subjective) as a human being you can be as active as you like. Indeed having the training and position of being an anthropologist should give you a head start over the masses in building a dialogue about the issue.
the only thing is, this is usually done with their consent. they undergo the procedure to become what their culture defines as being a woman. if they don't get circumsized, men will not recognize them as being women. i'm not condoning any of this, but i did want to point this out, because it's extremely relevant to realize that not all of these women are circumsized against their will.
But is this consent given once they are fully informed of the pain and extent of the cutting involved? Is it not coersive to be threatened with the status of being a non-woman/non-human for refusing the procedure?
i do see it as a human rights violation, but i think that such a black and white mentality is dangerous, particularly when you have a cultural divide
( ... )
your use of the term "cultural maturity" implies that there is a linear pattern of inevitable progression, a movement from barbarism to civilization. at least, that's what it feels like. is western american culture "not ready" for a paradigm change in the way we look at the female body so that girls stop mutilating themselves through anorexia? what makes a culture ready for change? "developed" is pretty synonymous with "westernized." i don't mean to sound vicious; i'm just curious to know what you think.
1)if cultural maturity implies a linear pattern, i'll need a better example of a word to use.
2)comparing anorexia to genital mutilation is a difficult analogy, at best. i see where you're going with that, but anorexia is a form of self mutilation, not a human rights violation. it isn't a one-time-invasive procedure like FGM.
our culture endorses it, to be sure, but more implicitly than FGM is endorsed in some areas.
3) i don't know how western is synonymous with developed. again, give me a better example to use.
4)the practice of FGM varys widely. in more tribal regions, the procedure is very brutal. they are in unsanitary conditions, and the mutilation is more severe. in parts of india, girls get a surgery-with anaestheisa. in some arab countries, the girls get nicked with a razor. to lump all of these customs into one pot and declare them all to be as extreme as the worst offender, is to my mind, pardon me- "western, linear thinking"
i think tonyjohnuk" said it best. i'll refer you to his thoughts, below.
Comments 41
Reply
Reply
Reply
if male circumcision prevented the male from enjoying sex and ejaculating, you bet there would be more controversy.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
is western american culture "not ready" for a paradigm change in the way we look at the female body so that girls stop mutilating themselves through anorexia? what makes a culture ready for change?
"developed" is pretty synonymous with "westernized."
i don't mean to sound vicious; i'm just curious to know what you think.
Reply
2)comparing anorexia to genital mutilation is a difficult analogy, at best. i see where you're going with that, but anorexia is a form of self mutilation, not a human rights violation.
it isn't a one-time-invasive procedure like FGM.
our culture endorses it, to be sure, but more implicitly than FGM is endorsed in some areas.
3) i don't know how western is synonymous with developed. again, give me a better example to use.
4)the practice of FGM varys widely. in more tribal regions, the procedure is very brutal. they are in unsanitary conditions, and the mutilation is more severe.
in parts of india, girls get a surgery-with anaestheisa. in some arab countries, the girls get nicked with a razor. to lump all of these customs into one pot and declare them all to be as extreme as the worst offender, is to my mind, pardon me- "western, linear thinking"
i think tonyjohnuk" said it best. i'll refer you to his thoughts, below.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment