What is Female Circumcision?
Circumcision is the cutting or removal of foreskin or other external genitalia for socioreligious reasons (including cultural notions of gender, aesthetics, health and hygiene). The term is most often used in reference to the surgical removal of the penis foreskin for religious reasons or perceived medical benefits. However, the practice of circumcision dates back thousands of years before the Hebrew tradition of male only circumcision and was a key religious rite for women in pre-ancient Nubia, Egypt and among Mande speakers from the Niger Valley. Circumcision in these early female-dominated societies was associated with matriarchy - that is, women's control over male fertility and sexuality - not patriarchy. Thus, for many non-western cultural and religious groups around the world, circumcision is gender inclusive.
What is Female Genital Mutilation or FGM?
Female Genital Mutilation or FGM is the terminology used by opponents of various forms of female circumcision. Anti-FGM activists believe that female circumcision (and not necessarily male circumcision) is psychosexually and physically harmful and that the intent of these practices is the social and sexual subjugation of women and girls in patriarchal societies. I have written articles and blogs and given several mainstream media interviews that explain why it is I reject the concept of FGM personally and politically. I have been critical of feminists who use FGM as a meta-narrative to generalize the experiences of women and girls around the world. FGM as a general, overarching narrative of women's sexual oppression diminishes or erases the bodily experiences of circumcised women, our matricentric cultures, religious beliefs and agency as women. Although there are women who agree to define themselves as mutilated or FGM survivors, they do not in any way reflect the diverse experiences and identities of the vast majority of women who are circumcised and embrace these customs for aesthetic, cultural or religious reasons.
Why do you draw a distinction between Female Circumcision and FGM?
Most circumcised women have a positive genital self-image; we embrace our bodies and sexuality and honor circumcision as an important aspect of our cultural, gender or religious identity. It is critical that we stand up, raise our voices and defend our rights to equality, dignity and basic humanity. I deliberately distinguish between circumcision - what I see as a gender inclusive and empowering expression of creation - and FGM, which is a western feminist invention. In my view FGM is an ethnocentric denigration of circumcised African or Muslim women as sexually disfigured and dysfunctional and a not-so-subtle assertion of uncircumcised (read: western) women as our social, moral and intellectual superiors.
In your first essay, Rites and Wrongs, you describe how female circumcision is celebrated in West Africa. Why would women celebrate such a painful ritual?
Women and men around the world subject themselves to what some view as painful practices or rituals that produce desired aesthetic or socioreligious benefits (i.e. tattooing, cosmetic surgeries, male circumcision, dental braces, piercings and other bodily practices). Practitioners of female circumcision are no different from other human beings who celebrate these nuances and intersections of pain endurance, empowerment and pleasure.
Are you using cultural relativism to justify what the United Nations and global human rights organizations have clearly defined as FGM?
Cultural relativism is the belief that cultural norms and values derive their meanings from specific social contexts. Anthropologists who have spent years studying and elucidating the complexities of female (and male) circumcision within local contexts have been heavily criticized and mostly silenced by aggressive FGM campaigners and human rights activists who accuse them of "cultural relativism". As an anthropologist I do believe that culture matters. As a feminist and human rights activist I also support universal rights to equality, dignity and self-determination, among others. Western feminists have used their power and influence to institutionalize and globalize the concept of FGM at the international level - this I believe is in direct violation of the universal human rights of circumcised African and Muslim women to equality, dignity and self-determination.
But surely removing the clitoris reduces or eliminates female sexual pleasure and ability to orgasm?
This I believe is the most insidious myth propagated by FGM activists. The bulk of the clitoris is within the body and unseen. There is no female circumcision procedure that removes a girl or woman's clitoris. There is no credible evidence that women who have experienced any type of female circumcision enjoy sex less or are less capable of having orgasms than uncircumcised women. I have never hesitated to refer to my personal experience before and after what WHO classifies as Type II Excision (removal of external clitoral glans and trimming of labia minora) in my early twenties; my sexuality was not the least bit affected or diminished. Female sexuality is a central aspect of our celebration in Bondo/Sande women's initiation societies of Sierra Leone and Liberia.
What about the negative health effects?
Again, to scare circumcised women and emotionally manipulate donors, FGM activists have perfected the exaggeration of supposed negative health consequences of various forms of female circumcision. I suggest anyone interested in a critical review of the scientific or medical literature should read "7 Things to Know About Female Genital Surgeries in Africa." at the homepage of this site. This paper, authored and signed by leading experts worldwide on the topic of female circumcision, also provides a critical summary of the WHO Report 2005, which is often cited as evidence of the "harmfulness' of FGM and justification for global eradication.
But God created the natural human body in His own image – why change it?
Seriously?? Why cut our natural, God-created hair or nails? Why painful, expensive braces for our children's natural, God-created teeth? Why cut the God-created natural male foreskin? Why breast implants for natural, God-created breasts, or labiaplasties and so-called female genital cosmetic surgeries for white women's natural, God-created bodies? Why sex change operations for natural, God-created males and females? Why pierce ears, nose, nipples, or genitalia of natural, God-created body parts? Why are all these and other minor or major alterations on natural, God-created bodies permitted and legal around the world for certain adults and children but African or Muslim women are condemned and thrown in jail for even nicking the foreskin of a girls' clitoral glans? And besides, whose concept or image of God is invoked in the question? In my ancestral Bambara and Nubian religious tradition, God's matriarchal aspect is the Phallus, which through self-circumcision (i.e. separation) shed the flesh and blood that created male and female. This is the tradition of the severed Phallus (recall here the myth of Isis and Osiris) that we celebrate - even as many of us circumcised women observe modern patriarchal Judaeo-Christian religions.
Shouldn’t girls consent to being circumcised?
In my view, when the United Nations can answer this question for boys, or as Intactivists (anti-male circumcision activists) would insist, when the nations of the world end circumcision of boys under the age of 18, then this question would not even need to be asked.
Please feel free to fill out the Contact Form and send in your questions and I will do my best to answer each and every one!
Circumcision is the cutting or removal of foreskin or other external genitalia for socioreligious reasons (including cultural notions of gender, aesthetics, health and hygiene). The term is most often used in reference to the surgical removal of the penis foreskin for religious reasons or perceived medical benefits. However, the practice of circumcision dates back thousands of years before the Hebrew tradition of male only circumcision and was a key religious rite for women in pre-ancient Nubia, Egypt and among Mande speakers from the Niger Valley. Circumcision in these early female-dominated societies was associated with matriarchy - that is, women's control over male fertility and sexuality - not patriarchy. Thus, for many non-western cultural and religious groups around the world, circumcision is gender inclusive.
What is Female Genital Mutilation or FGM?
Female Genital Mutilation or FGM is the terminology used by opponents of various forms of female circumcision. Anti-FGM activists believe that female circumcision (and not necessarily male circumcision) is psychosexually and physically harmful and that the intent of these practices is the social and sexual subjugation of women and girls in patriarchal societies. I have written articles and blogs and given several mainstream media interviews that explain why it is I reject the concept of FGM personally and politically. I have been critical of feminists who use FGM as a meta-narrative to generalize the experiences of women and girls around the world. FGM as a general, overarching narrative of women's sexual oppression diminishes or erases the bodily experiences of circumcised women, our matricentric cultures, religious beliefs and agency as women. Although there are women who agree to define themselves as mutilated or FGM survivors, they do not in any way reflect the diverse experiences and identities of the vast majority of women who are circumcised and embrace these customs for aesthetic, cultural or religious reasons.
Why do you draw a distinction between Female Circumcision and FGM?
Most circumcised women have a positive genital self-image; we embrace our bodies and sexuality and honor circumcision as an important aspect of our cultural, gender or religious identity. It is critical that we stand up, raise our voices and defend our rights to equality, dignity and basic humanity. I deliberately distinguish between circumcision - what I see as a gender inclusive and empowering expression of creation - and FGM, which is a western feminist invention. In my view FGM is an ethnocentric denigration of circumcised African or Muslim women as sexually disfigured and dysfunctional and a not-so-subtle assertion of uncircumcised (read: western) women as our social, moral and intellectual superiors.
In your first essay, Rites and Wrongs, you describe how female circumcision is celebrated in West Africa. Why would women celebrate such a painful ritual?
Women and men around the world subject themselves to what some view as painful practices or rituals that produce desired aesthetic or socioreligious benefits (i.e. tattooing, cosmetic surgeries, male circumcision, dental braces, piercings and other bodily practices). Practitioners of female circumcision are no different from other human beings who celebrate these nuances and intersections of pain endurance, empowerment and pleasure.
Are you using cultural relativism to justify what the United Nations and global human rights organizations have clearly defined as FGM?
Cultural relativism is the belief that cultural norms and values derive their meanings from specific social contexts. Anthropologists who have spent years studying and elucidating the complexities of female (and male) circumcision within local contexts have been heavily criticized and mostly silenced by aggressive FGM campaigners and human rights activists who accuse them of "cultural relativism". As an anthropologist I do believe that culture matters. As a feminist and human rights activist I also support universal rights to equality, dignity and self-determination, among others. Western feminists have used their power and influence to institutionalize and globalize the concept of FGM at the international level - this I believe is in direct violation of the universal human rights of circumcised African and Muslim women to equality, dignity and self-determination.
But surely removing the clitoris reduces or eliminates female sexual pleasure and ability to orgasm?
This I believe is the most insidious myth propagated by FGM activists. The bulk of the clitoris is within the body and unseen. There is no female circumcision procedure that removes a girl or woman's clitoris. There is no credible evidence that women who have experienced any type of female circumcision enjoy sex less or are less capable of having orgasms than uncircumcised women. I have never hesitated to refer to my personal experience before and after what WHO classifies as Type II Excision (removal of external clitoral glans and trimming of labia minora) in my early twenties; my sexuality was not the least bit affected or diminished. Female sexuality is a central aspect of our celebration in Bondo/Sande women's initiation societies of Sierra Leone and Liberia.
What about the negative health effects?
Again, to scare circumcised women and emotionally manipulate donors, FGM activists have perfected the exaggeration of supposed negative health consequences of various forms of female circumcision. I suggest anyone interested in a critical review of the scientific or medical literature should read "7 Things to Know About Female Genital Surgeries in Africa." at the homepage of this site. This paper, authored and signed by leading experts worldwide on the topic of female circumcision, also provides a critical summary of the WHO Report 2005, which is often cited as evidence of the "harmfulness' of FGM and justification for global eradication.
But God created the natural human body in His own image – why change it?
Seriously?? Why cut our natural, God-created hair or nails? Why painful, expensive braces for our children's natural, God-created teeth? Why cut the God-created natural male foreskin? Why breast implants for natural, God-created breasts, or labiaplasties and so-called female genital cosmetic surgeries for white women's natural, God-created bodies? Why sex change operations for natural, God-created males and females? Why pierce ears, nose, nipples, or genitalia of natural, God-created body parts? Why are all these and other minor or major alterations on natural, God-created bodies permitted and legal around the world for certain adults and children but African or Muslim women are condemned and thrown in jail for even nicking the foreskin of a girls' clitoral glans? And besides, whose concept or image of God is invoked in the question? In my ancestral Bambara and Nubian religious tradition, God's matriarchal aspect is the Phallus, which through self-circumcision (i.e. separation) shed the flesh and blood that created male and female. This is the tradition of the severed Phallus (recall here the myth of Isis and Osiris) that we celebrate - even as many of us circumcised women observe modern patriarchal Judaeo-Christian religions.
Shouldn’t girls consent to being circumcised?
In my view, when the United Nations can answer this question for boys, or as Intactivists (anti-male circumcision activists) would insist, when the nations of the world end circumcision of boys under the age of 18, then this question would not even need to be asked.
Please feel free to fill out the Contact Form and send in your questions and I will do my best to answer each and every one!