It’s complicated: female circumcision

Female circumcision or female genital cutting (FGC) seems to be quite a grisly business. It’s often categorised alongside the many different acts of violence against women, made all the worse by the fact that, in some cultures, it’s ritualised.

It is the unnecessary cutting or removal of female genitalia that is medically unnecessary – done for cultural or religious purposes. It is almost always performed on minors, most heavily in Asia and Africa. Complications are also common and can be terrible, hernias, infertility, blocked menses, and obviously, pain, are all things to be concerned about. Additionally, since cutting usually focuses on the clitoris, it can affect women’s sexuality and lessen the pleasure of sex.

The United Nations condemns this practice. And why wouldn’t they? It involves large amounts of unnecessary pain, it is not necessarily consensual, and when it is, minors are influenced heavily by social pressures. It just seems to be senseless, purposeless violence. Case closed.

But is it though?

Firstly, world-wide pressure to stop FGC has meant that practitioners have gone underground. People are practicing this without anesthetic and without sterilisation. As you can imagine, this means that the practice has an even greater risk of complications than before – infections and infertility are common. Something that was aleady dangerous to begin with has now become even more dangerous.

But why, after FGC has been prohibited, do families still wish to seek it for their young girls? We can’t put this down to simple, plain cruelty. In fact, dismissing the practice as merely being a way to somehow punish girls shows that we lack an inter-cultural understanding. Or, heck, even an understanding of our own culture.

Take male circumcision, which widely abounds, particularly in Jewish circles. There is no conclusive evidence to say that the practice is anything but purely based on religious and cultural concerns – there is some evidence that it has health benefits, but there is also evidence of a number of health drawbacks too. While it’s not nearly as risky as FGC, there are, of course, risks, as there are with any invasive procedure. But it doesn’t stop there. Body modification and experiencing a lot of pain as a result of that body modification is quite common in Australia – plastic surgery is rarely undertaken for medical reasons. Again, it’s unnecessary surgery, unnecessary pain, and those undertaking it may feel some societal pressure to do so. And certainly, it is always based on cultural understandings of beauty.

The societies FGC exists in are patriarchal, and it serves to trace and track paternity by ensuring the sexual activity of women before marriage is non-existent. This doesn’t deviate so far from Christian traditions whereby sex before marriage is considered to be a sin – some people in Australia today can certainly relate to this worry.

And as awful as we may think FGC is as a procedure, it also serves a cultural function that we can’t ignore. It is seen as a rite of passage for many women, preparing them for marriage. It is seen as a religious obligation – it is necessary to undertake this practice in order to be a good person. It is definitely seen as an important part the journey to womanhood for many affected girls.

When you look at rights, most people can agree that people shouldn’t be inflicted with unnecessary, involuntary violence. But, should women not get the choice to choose FGC for themselves as well? (this is, of course, assuming they are aware of the risks involved). Often, girls in these societies are eager to take part in this practice because of its cultural importance. Dr. Ahmandu writes:

It is difficult for me — considering the number of ceremonies I have observed, including my own — to accept that what appears to be expressions of joy and ecstatic celebrations of womanhood in actuality disguise hidden experiences of coercion and subjugation. Indeed, I offer that the bulk of women who uphold these rituals do so because they want to — they relish the supernatural powers of their ritual leaders over against men in society, and they embrace the legitimacy of female authority and particularly the authority of their mothers and grandmothers.

Whether FGC is wrong or right in some kind of universal sense is much more complicated than what we might originally think. If we are really worried about it and the people involved, then we need to at least try to put ourselves in their context and understand where they’re coming from. I do not condone this practice at all, but we definitely need to take a step back and see other cultures in their full complexity before we preach and condemn. In any case, there is a desperate need to make it safer rather than put pressure on governments to prohibit it.