FGM and male circumcision

January 31st, 2005 | by aobaoill |

There seem to me to be two reasons for opposing female genital mutilation (FGM). The first relates to the physical dangers related to the practice. The second relates to the political and cultural role of FGM, the way in which such outward control of the body reinforces social hierarchies and cultural cohesion. While such conceptions of power and social control are not within my general area of expertise – and I apologise for any resulting awkwardness in terminology – it does appear to me that these are basic statements, and – without chasing up specific references – that I am merely mimicking what has been widely stated on the topic previously.

So why bring it up here? In part I was prompted by a Labour Party press release calling for the introduction of legislation in Ireland to deal specifically with the practice. But really, this mainly brought up again a debate I’d been having internally, and on occasion with others.
In essence, the emerging practice in European countries has been to ban FGM, which generally occurs within certain immigrant communities. One argument frequently given is that the practice is “frequently carried out by persons with no medical training.” However, if this is a concern it can be easily dealt with by regulations preventing medical procedures by those other than registered practitioners – there would be no need to fully ban the procedure.
The underlying argument, however – sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit – relates to the physical manifestation of social control on the body. And it is here that my internal debate begins. While recognising the differing situations of men and women within societies, it would appear to me that such an argument can also easily be extended to male circumcision.
My thoughts on this have strengthened since coming to the United States, a country where male circumcision is, though declining, still widely practicised. When male circumcision is raised with parents and potential parents, many say they will have their sons circumcised because they fear them being ridiculed in school. Such a view supports an interpretation of male circumcision as primarily a tool to enforce conformity. Of course, as the article I linked to shows, parental concerns are increasingly deviant from reality – while figures used to be up around 90% when my American contemporaries were born, currently the rate is around 65%.
Why I raise the point is that arguments against FGM frequently – as in the Labour party release – go to pains to distinguish FGM from male circumcision. However, a number of questions arise. ‘FGM’ covers a variety of procedures – some more radical than others, some with impacts on sexual satisfaction later, and some with health risks (some of these because of the manner in which FGM is sometimes performed – in unsanitary conditions, by untrained practitioners).
However, are there forms of FGM which could be considered analogous to male circumcision? If so, and if the procedure is grounded in religious and traditional mores, why should such a procedure not be allowed, if performed by a medical professional, when male circumcision is allowed under similar conditions? In addition, would such an approach be more successful at eliminating dangers and problems than a blanket prohibition by an external, majority, population?
My point here is not to diminish opposition to FGM, but to ask whether a principled, total, opposition to FGM must also imply opposition to male circumcision. I’d welcome comments and input – I readily admit my inexperience in dealing with the theoretical issues at play here. While comments are currently turned off (thank you, spammers!), if people email me I’ll manually add their comments below.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.