Why Male Circumcision is GOOD while Female Circumcision is BANNED?
Being one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures known, perhaps the term Male Circumcision (surgical removal of some or all of the foreskin from the penis) is not uncommon to us. Normally this procedure was undertaken due to cultural, religious and social reasons. But with the advancement of the medical studies, male circumcision is now strongly encouraged by WHO as scientific evidence have tied the benefits of this procedure to the reducing possibility of sexually transmitted disease including the most serious type of STD: HIV.
HOWEVER, do you know that while male circumcision is strongly encouraged, female circumcision on the other hand is strictly opposed?
Female Circumcision, is also known as female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) (surgical removal of all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs). Similar to male circumcision, this practice is conducted in regards to traditional, cultural, and religious procedures.
Unfortunately, on the contrary to male circumcision, female circumcision practice that happens frequently in Africa, is extremely controversial due to 2 reasons: (a) issue of consent and (b) safety and consequences of the procedure.
(a) Issue of Consent - Most of the time, the procedure is normally carried out when child is between the ages of 4 to 8, in which it means that the child are still at innocent age to determine if they want the procedure or not. Decisions were being made merely by parents.
(b) Safety and consequences of the procedure - Due to the banned of this procedure, superstitions that persist have led to illegal/underground circumcision practices. Female circumcision performed by under the lack of medical training, anesthetics, sterilization and use of proper medical instruments have caused: death through shock from immense pain, excessive bleeding, infections, urinary and reproductive tract infections, menstrual flow blocked, scarring, infertility, infibulated women, increase risk of infant death during delivery, and many more side effects.
Horror of Female Circumcision
The issue of female circumcision is therefore still hot debate as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has stated that [the] practice violates the basic rights of women and girls, […]” and “[…] female genital mutilation or cutting is not required by any religion.”
References:
http://www.unaids.org/en/PolicyAndPractice/Prevention/MaleCircumcision/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
July 12th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
There’s nowhere near as much difference between female and male circumcision as you suggest. In some countries, female circumcisions are performed by surgeons in operating theatres, and the reasons given are pretty much the same as the ones given for male circumcisions. Look for some of the the bloggers who’ve circumcised their children, and try debating with them.
I suggest you find out about female circumcision as practised in Egypt, and then tell me that it’s worse than male circumcision. It’s not like some countries where some old woman hacks away with a razor blade or shard of glass. That is far worse I agree, but Egyptian circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres, and usually (though not always) doesn’t involve any removal of the clitoris. Most of the time, no tissue at all is removed. Compare that with a video of a male circumcision.
Are you aware of how non-religious male circumcision became popular? See this link for what physicians were saying in medical journals at the time:
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
Personally, I regard cutting off the male foreskin as mutilation, and it seems fairly clear that it reduces sexual enjoyment. That was the original intention when doctors first started popularising it, though circumcised men have been looking for different reasons to justify it ever since.
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? It was never anywhere near as popular as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don’t even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until the 1950’s. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield covered clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). “The rape of innocence: One woman’s story of female genital mutilation in the USA.”
N.p.: Aesculapius Press. ISBN 1-878411-04-7.
Check out what the Canadian Childre’s Rights Council have to say:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx
“The Canadian Children’s Rights Council position is that there is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children (defined by U.N. as those under 18 years of age). Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to this aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children.
Our position is that all children should be protected from all forms of genital mutilation (circumcision of all types) including but not limited to, circumcision that doesn’t affect sexual function or that may be viewed by others as sexual enhancement surgery. Male circumcision does affect sexual function.”
July 13th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Your question is worth asking, your answer is quite wrong. Infant male genital cutting is promoted in the US and a few other parts of the western world because it has got locked into the scheme of things by some mental gymnastics. See http://www.circumstitions.com/meme.html for an attempt at clarification. (The same gymnastics happen on a smaller scale where female genital cutting is practised. Notice that cut men are the main promotors of male genital cutting, and cut women of female genital cutting.)
Their are many studies showing no protective effect of male genital cutting against STDs, (See http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html) but they don’t get nearly the same publicity as studies claiming some effect. Similarly with HIV. The widely-touted claim of “60% reduction in HIV” actually boils down to 73 circumcised men in three countries who didn’t get HIV while 64 did. They had to circumcise 5,400 men to achieve that, and of those, 327 lost interest in the studies and we don’t know if they got HIV or not.
You compare the western surgical procedure on the male with a tribal practise on the female, but when circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 20 boys have died of circumcision in Eastern Cape Province so far this year.