Female Genital OperationsEssay Preview: Female Genital OperationsReport this essayThe FGO DebateIt is often easier to reject the unknown; to dismiss the ways of thought unlike our own. When most people in a “western society” hear anything about female “circumcision” or genital operations, the common reaction is one of disgust and revulsion for the practice, sympathy for the “victims,” and an urge to correct this “crisis.” However, what many observers may see as oppression of women or cruel and unusual punishment is really a cultural expression that is hard to grasp for many outsiders. The debate over female genital operations is more than a battle for human rights. It is a clashing of cultures; a power struggle being waged on womens bodies. When approaching these issues, one should be careful to try and look past cultural prejudices and preconceived notions of what our body is and how it should be treated.
Savage, S., L. W. R. Thompson, and C. J. Williams. 1975. In Women, Male and Female, 3rd edn. New York: Plenum Press. p. 41-51.
Sharon A. L. Hildebrandt, Robert M. Brown, and David L. R. Voss. 1975. In Women, Male and Female, 3rd edn. New York: Plenum Press. p. 46.
Steinfeld, R. M., L. F. McEntee, K. N. Lee, and A. M. Osterhoff. 1979. Women and circumcision: An international review. Circumcision. pp. 39-50.
Steven, R. E. 1984. The FGO DebateIn the 1970s, many men were the focus of anti-circumcision agitation. In Their Own Time, p. 27-33. Steven, R. E. and M. J. E. Dobbins. 1975. ” The Duggins Review of U.S. Circumcision .” Circumcision Society Bulletin. pp. 5-38.
Wu, H. 1988. ” An International Review of Circumcision .” Journal of Circumcision. pp. 29-35.
Wu, H. 1982. I. & V. T. Wright. 1977. ” The ‘Uncircumcised Sexualities’ . Edited by Paul S. Cohan for the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.” In: Oppositional Sexuality in American Circumcision: An Review of American Obstetrics and Gynecology, eds. J. Hochschild, A. E. J. Miller, and J. B. Cohan, pp. 35-53. London: Routledge. p. 55-56.
[1] I. Wright, ” The Uncircumcised Sexualities ,” in S. R. Thompson et al., eds., Women and Circumcision , (London: Oxford Press). pp. 25-62.
[2] L. W. R. Thompson, and A. J. Miller, Jr., in Women, Male and Female , eds., The Female Genital Sexuality Experience , (Washington: Plenum Publications). p. 38.
[3] A. Hochschild, J. B. Cohan, F. H. Wu, M. T. Wright, E. J. Wright, and J. B. Cohan, in Women, Male and Female , eds., Women and Circumcision , (Baltimore: Metropolitan Press). p. 27.
[4] FGC-7, 1989. Women and Ritual Sexuality , Journal of The American College of Theology , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1155-57.
[5] N. D. Lyle, and A. L. McCafferty. 1978. ” The Duggins Review of U.S. Circumcision .” Archives of Sexual Behavior 59 (2): 1-27.
[6] P. Chernow (1977) ” Female Genital Sexuality: A Case Study .” International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Volume 23): 1081-1085.
[7] Hochschild, J. B. Cohan, and J. B. Cohan, in Female Genital Sexuality and Determinants of Sexual Deviance in the Women’s Study Program: Men and Women , eds.,
Savage, S., L. W. R. Thompson, and C. J. Williams. 1975. In Women, Male and Female, 3rd edn. New York: Plenum Press. p. 41-51.
Sharon A. L. Hildebrandt, Robert M. Brown, and David L. R. Voss. 1975. In Women, Male and Female, 3rd edn. New York: Plenum Press. p. 46.
Steinfeld, R. M., L. F. McEntee, K. N. Lee, and A. M. Osterhoff. 1979. Women and circumcision: An international review. Circumcision. pp. 39-50.
Steven, R. E. 1984. The FGO DebateIn the 1970s, many men were the focus of anti-circumcision agitation. In Their Own Time, p. 27-33. Steven, R. E. and M. J. E. Dobbins. 1975. ” The Duggins Review of U.S. Circumcision .” Circumcision Society Bulletin. pp. 5-38.
Wu, H. 1988. ” An International Review of Circumcision .” Journal of Circumcision. pp. 29-35.
Wu, H. 1982. I. & V. T. Wright. 1977. ” The ‘Uncircumcised Sexualities’ . Edited by Paul S. Cohan for the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.” In: Oppositional Sexuality in American Circumcision: An Review of American Obstetrics and Gynecology, eds. J. Hochschild, A. E. J. Miller, and J. B. Cohan, pp. 35-53. London: Routledge. p. 55-56.
[1] I. Wright, ” The Uncircumcised Sexualities ,” in S. R. Thompson et al., eds., Women and Circumcision , (London: Oxford Press). pp. 25-62.
[2] L. W. R. Thompson, and A. J. Miller, Jr., in Women, Male and Female , eds., The Female Genital Sexuality Experience , (Washington: Plenum Publications). p. 38.
[3] A. Hochschild, J. B. Cohan, F. H. Wu, M. T. Wright, E. J. Wright, and J. B. Cohan, in Women, Male and Female , eds., Women and Circumcision , (Baltimore: Metropolitan Press). p. 27.
[4] FGC-7, 1989. Women and Ritual Sexuality , Journal of The American College of Theology , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1155-57.
[5] N. D. Lyle, and A. L. McCafferty. 1978. ” The Duggins Review of U.S. Circumcision .” Archives of Sexual Behavior 59 (2): 1-27.
[6] P. Chernow (1977) ” Female Genital Sexuality: A Case Study .” International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Volume 23): 1081-1085.
[7] Hochschild, J. B. Cohan, and J. B. Cohan, in Female Genital Sexuality and Determinants of Sexual Deviance in the Women’s Study Program: Men and Women , eds.,
Savage, S., L. W. R. Thompson, and C. J. Williams. 1975. In Women, Male and Female, 3rd edn. New York: Plenum Press. p. 41-51.
Sharon A. L. Hildebrandt, Robert M. Brown, and David L. R. Voss. 1975. In Women, Male and Female, 3rd edn. New York: Plenum Press. p. 46.
Steinfeld, R. M., L. F. McEntee, K. N. Lee, and A. M. Osterhoff. 1979. Women and circumcision: An international review. Circumcision. pp. 39-50.
Steven, R. E. 1984. The FGO DebateIn the 1970s, many men were the focus of anti-circumcision agitation. In Their Own Time, p. 27-33. Steven, R. E. and M. J. E. Dobbins. 1975. ” The Duggins Review of U.S. Circumcision .” Circumcision Society Bulletin. pp. 5-38.
Wu, H. 1988. ” An International Review of Circumcision .” Journal of Circumcision. pp. 29-35.
Wu, H. 1982. I. & V. T. Wright. 1977. ” The ‘Uncircumcised Sexualities’ . Edited by Paul S. Cohan for the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.” In: Oppositional Sexuality in American Circumcision: An Review of American Obstetrics and Gynecology, eds. J. Hochschild, A. E. J. Miller, and J. B. Cohan, pp. 35-53. London: Routledge. p. 55-56.
[1] I. Wright, ” The Uncircumcised Sexualities ,” in S. R. Thompson et al., eds., Women and Circumcision , (London: Oxford Press). pp. 25-62.
[2] L. W. R. Thompson, and A. J. Miller, Jr., in Women, Male and Female , eds., The Female Genital Sexuality Experience , (Washington: Plenum Publications). p. 38.
[3] A. Hochschild, J. B. Cohan, F. H. Wu, M. T. Wright, E. J. Wright, and J. B. Cohan, in Women, Male and Female , eds., Women and Circumcision , (Baltimore: Metropolitan Press). p. 27.
[4] FGC-7, 1989. Women and Ritual Sexuality , Journal of The American College of Theology , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1155-57.
[5] N. D. Lyle, and A. L. McCafferty. 1978. ” The Duggins Review of U.S. Circumcision .” Archives of Sexual Behavior 59 (2): 1-27.
[6] P. Chernow (1977) ” Female Genital Sexuality: A Case Study .” International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Volume 23): 1081-1085.
[7] Hochschild, J. B. Cohan, and J. B. Cohan, in Female Genital Sexuality and Determinants of Sexual Deviance in the Women’s Study Program: Men and Women , eds.,
Part of the confusion over the debate about female genital operations is the differing forms. There is the basic “sunna cut” that is only a small nick to the clitoris. This method is fairly rare, though often pushed as an alternative. The procedure that is often thought of with female genital operations is excision or clitoridectomy, where the whole clitoris is removed. There is also an intermediate form where the clitoris and minor labia is cut as well. The last form is the one that leads to the most health risks and is probably the hardest to deal with for the women. With infibulations, minor and major labia are cut and sewn closed, leaving a small opening for urination. This means that in order to have intercourse or childbirth the women must be opened again.
Although the different types of procedures done are often a focal point of the debate, the issue of female genital operations is more than just the physical alterations to the body. Depending on the culture, there can be differing reasons for performing female genital operations, and despite a growing, popular view, these reasons are not necessarily reliant on the oppression of women. There are also those who feel that the medical risks involved in performing these operations are reason enough for their eradication. However, these eradication efforts should be stopped and female genital operations should be allowed to continue.
The debate over female genital operations cannot be easily classified. It touches on many different issues such as “cultural relativism, international human rights, racism and Western imperialism, medicalization, sexuality, and patriarchal oppression of women, resulting in an onslaught of discussion and writing on the topic” (Shell-Duncan, 1). The debate over these operations only became a debate when the local practice came under global scrutiny for not fitting into the western idealized thought. This practice, since it does not fit into the western worlds preconceived notions of behavior can only be seen as deviant behavior that needs to be corrected. But a larger question is called to mind: who is to say what behavior is correct? If the women themselves are not asking for anyone to save them, then who has the authority to decide that they do in fact need saving? When thinking about female genital operations as a form of oppression to women, particularly sexual oppression, the main analogy that can be drawn to a country such as the United States is that of breast implants. Although breast implants are not a rite of initiation for American girls, they are considered by many to be critical in order to be viewed as pretty in society and to fit these norms. Many African women need to undergo female genital operations in order to be marriageable or even seen as an adult or member of their culture. Breast implants can also lead to decreased physical sensation, a common argument for the eradication of female genital operations. But the United States is not calling for a ban on breast implants. They are instead focusing on the issues of other cultures with unknown practices and beliefs. At least some degree of understanding should be accompanied when contemplating the state of female genital operations and the current debate.
The feminist movement is frequently tied to this controversy, mostly because the practice is seen as oppressive to women, more specifically through sexual oppression. The feeling of being sexually oppressed and the challenge of overcoming this oppression is largely a western movement. From that perspective it would seem only natural to try and stop anything that seems to prohibit sexual freedom for women. The idea of sexuality and sexual freedom is not a global idea. It is based and imposed through societal standards of what is seen as natural. It can be argued that “human sexuality is not merely a natural unproblematic attribute but rather a product of social forces constructed around elements that are seen as problematic by the existent power structures within a society” (Abusharaf, 157-158). American culture is programmed to view the clitoris as a means of female identity and necessary for sexual pleasure. But this western ideology cannot be haphazardly applied globally across all cultures. What may seem like sexual oppression to an American woman may be seen as something completely different to an African woman.
Beyond the argument of sexual oppression is the dispute that female genital operations have severe medical dangers associated with the practice. The health risks involved with female genital operations are hard to analyze since the extent of the procedures differ and are also performed in different places, by different people, with different treatments available. The list of possible health risks can be staggering, with short-term complications ranging from hemorrhaging and pain to infection and acute urinary retention. Most long term complications can be attributed to the practice of infibulation more so than excision and clitoridectomy, but they are far more threatening with possible complications with menstruation, fertility, childbirth and urinary tract infections. Although the risks involved with female genital operations may seem severe, most are preventable with the proper medical support. The western countries that seem so concerned with the medical health of African women should have no qualms about helping these women by providing medical care and supplies. Many critics of this plan say that by offering aid they are legitimizing the practice of female genital operations. But medicine does not legitimize the practice and to these cultures, the practice is already a legitimate ritual. Offering support will not encourage the practice, but it will decrease the possibility of risk of injury or even death. The refusal to support medicalization