Recent news reports discussed the benefits of something they called “male circumcision”. I have always had the impression that circumcision is something done only to males, and found the description redundant, rather like “eight am in the morning” or “ATM machine”. So off I went to consult the trusty Oxford dictionary, which informed me that circumcision is, indeed, cutting off the fold of skin that normally covers the head of the penis. A secondary definition allows that it also means the cutting off of parts of a woman’s vulva, notably the clitoris and labia. Bearing in mind that dictionaries these days reflect the way the language is used rather than prescribing usage, I think we can stick to the commonly accepted meaning and discard the qualifying “male” description.
According to those news reports, there is strong evidence that men who are circumcised are far less likely to contract common sexually transmitted diseases, notably AIDS. The reason researchers advance for this is that circumcision causes the tender tissues at the head of the penis to become thicker, less sensitive and more resistant to abrasion and tearing, providing less opportunity for the transmission of infections. Field tests conducted in recent years in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda bear out the initial findings, showing in some cases that circumcision reduced the transmission of HIV from women to men by as much as 60 per cent.
However, researchers with organisations like the World Health Organisation, UNAIDS and the United States Centres for Disease Control are quick to point out that circumcision is just one of the tools to be used in the fight against the disease, since it doesn’t show any correlating reduction in transmission from men to women. They emphasise that people need to employ a wide range of safe-sex practices, including the condom – the cheapest and most effective method.
Circumcision has had a long history, going back to ancient Egypt and was common among Semitic peoples in those times. The practice also has ancient roots among a variety of ethnic groups in sub-Saharan Africa, and is to this day performed on adolescent boys to symbolise accession to warrior status and as a rite of transition to adulthood. It is most widely practised today among Jews and Muslims, who regard it as a token of the covenant between the ancient patriarch Abraham and God. While it is a requirement of Judaism, it is not mentioned in the Koran, and is therefore optional for Muslims. Curiously, though, Muslims make up the largest group of circumcised men in the world today.
In the English-speaking world, circumcision expanded rapidly about a century ago because it was seen as an effective and low-cost method of hygiene. You have to remember that it was only in the 19th century that the theory of diseases being caused by germs had taken hold in the medical world. Circumcision was also advocated as a means of controlling masturbation – then termed as “self-abuse” which could lead to insanity. Very soon the hygiene argument won out and the practice was routinely carried out on infants. About a half-century ago, the operation began to fall out of favour and now most medical establishments recommend against performing the procedure unless there is a pressing health concern. There is even a fringe movement, primarily in the United States, where men have operations to restore their foreskins.
While arguments can be made for the health benefits of circumcision on men, no such case can be made for cutting the female organs. It is primarily a cultural practice among some societies in Africa, although some people cite it as a religious rite. The claim is that you cannot fully become a woman without going through this process. It is, plainly and simply, an effort to control the bodies and behaviour of women, and it should not be dignified by calling it circumcision, a practice generally conducted under hygienic conditions. The way it is done on young females is one of humanity’s most egregious actions. An even more evil aspect is that women are co-opted to do the diabolical deed.
The girl – usually four to eight years old – is held down by older women to prevent her from moving around. A midwife uses the crudest of instruments – broken glass, the lid of a tin can, a knife, razor blade, scissors or any other sharp object at hand. The instrument, if you can call it that, is not sterilised and neither is the girl’s genital area. The operator cuts away the most sensitive areas of the girl’s vulva, namely the labia minora (inner lips) and the clitoris. Sometimes other tissue is removed, and the opening of the vagina is sewn up tight. Severing the clitoris is the most evil part of the procedure, since it is the only organ in the human body which serves only one purpose – to give the woman pleasure. As is plain to see, it is all about control.
Once the hacking and cutting is completed, the child’s legs are bound for up to 40 days. Apart from excruciating pain, the poor unfortunate victim can suffer all kinds of side effects all the way up to death. In order to have sexual intercourse, the woman has to be opened up again, often involving cutting. After a child is born, the woman is often sewn up tight once again, to please her husband. It’s fine to please him, of course, but the sexual act should not give her any pleasure.
Many international groups like Amnesty International have taken up the fight against this barbaric and demoniacal practice which has been carried out on an estimated 135 million girls and women with the possibility of about two million new ones each year. These organisations see female genital mutilation – the correct description of the practice – as a human rights issue which should be fought on all possible fronts. The struggle began as far back as 1958, when the United Nations formed a working group on traditional practices affecting the health of women and children.
The group’s work resulted in the creation of a plan in 1994 to eliminate such harmful practices and three years later the WHO, the UN Population Fund and UNICEF launched a programme to work towards complete elimination of harmful practices against women and children within three generations. We have to hurry up with this, as eradication is still a painfully long way off.
Be the first to comment