Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 5: Cutting to the Chase

Genital cutting is deeply gendered. While the long histories of both practices revolve around ideas of perceived sexual purity, morality, and cleanliness, males across cultures are generally considered to be sexual while women are not held with esteem to their sexuality, or rather, their solo sexuality. In other words, women are considered sexual in light of their husbands. As a result, MGC is often talked about for its social benefits of reducing embarrassment, reducing instances of masturbation, increasing sexual potency and longevity, reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, and other sexual benefits. In only two cases, that of reducing the risk of cervical cancer in women and of women preferring the attractiveness of a circumcised penis (an argument that does not seem to have any scientific merit), do women factor into the “benefits” of MGC. Most of the perceived benefits of MGC are male-only.

On the flip side, males factor heavily into the practice of FGC. From the Western perspective, the practice is considered to be the result of a male-dominated society: FGC is social “proof” of purity for the husband; total infibulation results in a smaller vaginal opening, which increases pleasure for the male; vaginal aesthetics are improved through the removal of labia; and clitoridectomy removes the male portion of the female genitals, to name a few. With Muslim sunnat, women are not required to but may be expected to undergo the procedure to match the suffering of Mohammed and the Muslim men who undergo MGC. Additionally, sunnat is seen as a blessing that would improve a woman (Gollaher 47).

Considering only the male-female dichotomy on the surface of both practices does not allow for a complete understanding of other gender related factors. Undeniably, gender differences permeate into other spheres of influence, and these spheres, in turn, influence both MGC and FGC. Looking specifically at the public-private spheres, one can quickly discern a difference in the ways in which genital cutting practices are carried out. The public-private sphere theory asserts that, across a wide spectrum of cultures, women are confined primarily to the private, or home sphere, while men, and any associated “male” activities, exist very much in the public sphere. When women are in public, they must be pure and clean, covered up, modest, and be in the company of other women or children. In Islamic society, when a woman is no longer sexually active or able to procreate, she is allowed to mix with men in public or social settings. If a woman is seen as a sexual being in public, there is a loss of sexual purity in the matrimonial relationship. As Rodriguez states, “healthy women were not thought of as sexual beings—or rather, not sexual beings on their own, without the promptings of their husbands” (2008:332). Thus, in an effort to reduce the risk of female sexual infidelity, female sexuality, and the root of female sexuality, must be removed, or at the very least, cut. In this sense, the fear of female sexuality and an emphasis on patrilineal purity, resulting from the need for a woman to be the representation of sexual modesty and honor for her family, namely her father and brothers, may have driven the development or continuation of some practices of FGC worldwide. This same sense of purity of the patrilineal line does not exist in Western society, where smaller, nuclear families are the model.

Additionally, MGC is often compared to other common medical practices, such as tonsillectomies and wisdom tooth removal (“The Doctors” 2012; Gollaher). While this is often not how FGC is described in Western medical and social literature or media, one opinion piece written in 2001 by a male medical doctor from Nigeria living in South Carolina does contain comparisons to other forms of body cutting:

We “mutilate” the umbilical cord by cutting it off at birth and arbitrarily deciding how long the navel should be. We “mutilate” our bodies with ear rings, tongue rings, tattoos [sic], nose jobs etc... We "keep" biologically excretory products like nails and hair - and use them for beautification - and do so differently, I might add, depending on the cultural environment. Some western women (in the US) begin to shave their leg hair at age 10. Has anyone else in the world attacked them for mutilating what God put there for a reason? We use traditional marks for medicinal and symbolic purposes.... Why is that not 'mutilation' of the skin? Why not ban it? (Omoigui 2001)

Comparing the cutting of an umbilical cord, which does not contain nerve endings, and which dies upon detaching from the mother’s body, to the removal of a body part containing more nerve endings than the fingertips is hardly copasetic. Comparing either MGC or FGC to any other non-medical surgery, cutting, or piercing practice which is done with the consent of the individual also leads to problems. Consent is an important part of the social and cultural idea of personal freedom. Opponents of genital cutting, particularly FGC, take issue with the lack of personal freedom in the decision to undergo the surgery.

In some cultures, it may be customary for younger children to get tattoos, have their teeth chiseled, or get piercings in their ears, lips, noses, genitals, etc. In the West, these practices are not common in children; while ear piercings are common among youth, stretching of piercings, piercings in other parts of the body, and tattoos require individuals to be of a certain age before they can be performed legally. Opponents of genital cutting would likely oppose other forms of skin cutting, piercing, or tattooing, in cases where children or women are forced, either physically or socially, to perform the body changing activities.

Comparison of either practice to surgeries that are deemed necessary for medical reasons presents additional problems. Neither tonsillectomy nor wisdom tooth extraction are quite as prevalent in the U.S. as MGC. Furthermore, tonsillectomy may be a preventative surgery in many cases, but it is also performed in response to tonsillitis. Even as a preventative surgery, the medical history of the patient and the patient’s family is weighed against current medical research on the risks of tonsillitis and options are discussed with the individual. In other words, the patient consents to a practice upon gaining information; tonsillectomies, for example, are not performed routinely on infants, nor are surgeries for actual birth defects that may or may not cause complications later in life, such as heart murmurs.

While proponents of male circumcision in the West tend to deny similarities between MGC and FGC, opponents of both practices often draw connections between the two and argue that "the cultural explanations and justifications for male and female surgeries are similar" (Bell 2007). As was discussed earlier, masturbation, sexuality purity, and personal and moral hygiene factor into both processes. In both cases, the cutting occurs primarily on children and infants, who do not have the capacity to give consent, even if they are old enough to communicate. Social pressures, including teasing and embarrassment, may also increase the likelihood that parents or children will feel obligated to have the practice performed.

Interestingly, there are differences between FGC and MGC having to do with informed consent. Western views place more emphasis on lack of consent with regard to FGC, stating that girls are forced to go through with the violent practice without being fully informed of the options or risks. Perhaps because, at least in Africa, FGC is generally carried out on girls who are no longer infants, some even in their pre-teens or teen years, the idea that long-term psychological and health problems arise from FGC that are not seen in MGC. Some forms of FGC are conducted on infants and may be less intrusive. There is often no distinction made. MGC, on the other hand, is often discussed with regard to the rights of the parents and not the rights of the infant, with the major exception being from the perspective of intactivists. It stands to reason that, considering the majority of arguments for both MGC and anti-abortion legislation come from religious groups, many of the same people who fight for the right to life of a fetus over the rights of a mother’s choice draw a line at birth and argue for the rights of the parents over the rights of the infant with regard to the infant’s genitals.[1]

Male and female genital tissue has different significance based on cultural perspectives as well. Modern Western medicine’s view of the foreskin for most of the 20th Century has held that it is a relatively worthless leftover from man’s early days. As a result, after being removed from a penis, the foreskin is tossed away. At least, that is until recently when foreskin tissue has been used by cancer and other disease researchers for a variety of practices, including testing, growing cells, and more (Gollaher 65; 165). “Ritual [MGC], in contrast, in Madagascar and many other places, holds the foreskin in talismanic esteem,” – indeed, women across many cultures exhibit unique practices regarding the use of the forskin upon removal, including storing the foreskin in jars, burying the foreskin in sand, and even swallowing them to promote fertility (Gollaher 65-66). I could uncover no information on the uses of labial, sheath, or clitoral tissue upon removal from the female; should it be discovered that the tissue be used for ritual or scientific purpose, Western opponents of the practices would react with an intensity anew.

Perhaps the least talked about example of gender division in genital cutting is the way in which the West deals with humor surrounding the practice. FGC is talked about with grave solemnity sans any humoristic tone. MGC, on the other hand, is the source is several jokes and can be discussed in social settings through the use of humor. In a 2012 episode of medical talk show The Doctors, a Pediatrician joked, “Well, you couldn’t walk for a year!” after a Plastic Surgeon jokingly stated, “I’m sure it hurt, but I don’t remember” (“The Doctors” 2012). Additionally, jokes involving over-circumcision, foreskins, and penises in general are in no short supply. A common example of such a joke is one I have heard repeated from several individuals in various forms throughout my life: “I was circumcised and they threw the wrong part away.” Indeed, humor surrounds a number of unfortunate MGC acts, including the now infamous Lorena and John Bobbitt penile castration story. If jokes exist regarding FGC, they are not known to me or Google. This is not to say that factors that play into or influence FGC, including cultural and religious traditions, male dominance, and misogyny, do not get ridiculed or become the focus for jokes. Certainly, there is no shortage of misogynistic jests and the content of such jokes may even reference female genitalia. However, the physical act of FGC, in any form, is not common in humor, at least in the West.

Lastly, one view, that of psychotherapist Bruno Bettelheim, stands out as relatively unique amongst most other. Bettelheim puts a large emphasis on the female influence of MGC, claiming that “circumcision developed as a result both of man’s desire to participate in the female power of procreation, and of woman’s desire, if not to rob the male of the penis, at least to make him bleed from his genital as women do” (Gollaher 69). Of course, this view present problems in application: MGC, generally speaking, does not have any effect on procreation and certainly does not allow a male to become pregnant or give birth; MGC typically does not result in extended periods of bleeding, and in no documented cases has it led to bleeding on a monthly cycle for the majority of a male’s adult life. Conversely, FGC can lead to complications in childbirth or in sexual intercourse prior to pregnancy. If it is true, at least on a social level, that MGC allows men to “procreate” in the sense that they produce more men through the act, then certainly the same argument could be made for women and FGC, as FGC is a marker for the passage into womanhood for some cultures. This, consequently, removes the uniqueness of MGC for procreation, for if MGC is truly to mimic female genitals, we would expect to see only MGC practiced. Yet, both practices are observed occurring in the same cultural groups many times over. Furthermore, if MGC represented a deep-seated need for men to bleed from the genitals as women do, we would also expect to see universal application. This, however, is not the case. Additionally, this notion does not account for notions of duality, as is found in various cultures in Africa, such as the Dogon, the Bambara, and the Lobi of Mali. In these groups, the prepuce is considered to be the female portion of the penis, just as the labia and clitoris might be considered male.

As a result of the long history of MGC in the West, combined with the cultural, social, and other factors that have influenced opinions on MGC, attitudes differ strongly in terms of MGC and FGC. It is difficult for many to see a connection between the two, with even those who are educated in medical science refusing to allow comparisons across gender lines. As Bell put it so succinctly, “all forms of female genital cutting are seen to constitute a sexual mutilation and violation of bodily integrity, and male genital operations are dismissed as benign” (Bell 131). Opinions are subjective, based upon the religious views on MGC one was taught since birth, social factors that include the circumcision status of the parents, and ideas or assumptions about male and female sexuality. For some, if a man can get an erection, there is no harm done (Bell 127). No consideration is made for risk, scarring, sexual dysfunction later in life, or personal preference of the individual whose genitals were cut. Conversely, FGC is only considered in light of its negative consequences, with little or no consideration for the social and cultural benefits. In other words, there is a tendency to downplay the risks associated with MGC while exaggerating those associated with FGC, and at the same time emphasizing benefits to MGC that may not actually exist. When broken down, the two practices can be reduced to only two primary differences: legal status in the West; and the likelihood for severe damage is somewhat higher for FGC. Until both practices can be seen wholly in light of their gendered statuses, regardless of the other factors that affect acceptance or disapproval of either, there will continue to exist a colossal chasm of gender which impedes thoughtful analysis by the public at large.



-------------------------------
[1] Note that this is mere speculation based on arguments in popular news media in the absence of legitimate research into pro-MGC groups, their relationships to Right to Life groups, and their religious affiliations.


Sources:

Scholarly Books and Articles

Bell, Kirsten. “Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 19, Issues 2, pp. 125-148.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Trends in In-Hospital Newborn Male Circumcision, United States, 1999-2010.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Last updated 2 Sep. 2012. Visited 4 May 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

Gollaher, David L. Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery. Basic Books: New York, 2000.

Sarah W. Rodriguez “Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy: American Medicine and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Number 3, July 2008, pp. 323-347

Shoen, Edgar. “Circumcision Updated-Implicated?” Pediatrics 92 (1993), pp. 388-391.

World Health Organization. “Female Genital Mutilation.” WHO Fact Sheets. Last updated Feb. 2013. Visited 6 Apr. 2013. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html

World Health Organization. Female Genital Mutilation: A Joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA Statement. Geneva: WHO, 1997.

Sources from Popular Media

American Academy of Pediatricians. Where We Stand: Circumcision. Last updated 28 Jan. 2013. Visited 12 Apr. 2013. http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/pages/Where-We-Stand-Circumcision.aspx

Brady, Brittany. “Babies’ herpes linked to circumcision practice.” CNN Health. Last updated 8 Apr. 2013. Visited 6 May 2013. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/07/health/new-york-neonatal-herpes

Connolly, Kate. “Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany’s Muslim and Jewish Leaders.” The Guardian. Published 27 Jun. 2012. Visited 6 Apr. 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish

D’Arcy, Janice. “’Intactivists’ furious at new AAP circumcision policy.” Washington Post. Published 30 Aug. 2012. Visited 9 May 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-parenting/post/intactivists-furious-at-new-aap-circumcision-policy/2012/08/29/67ccd6d0-f235-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html

Goldman, A.J., Donald Snyder, and Nathan Jeffay. “Circumcision Controversy Endangers Fight To Keep Rite Legal in Germany.” The Jewish Daily Forward. Published 6 May 2013. Visited 9 May 2013. http://forward.com/articles/175915/circumcision-controversy-endangers-fight-to-keep-r/

Halperin, Mordechai. “Metzitzah B’peh Controversy: The View from Israel.” Jewish Action Online. Last updated 6 Mar. 2012. Visited 9 May 2013. http://web.archive.org/web/20120306221308/http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/article/8987

The Huffington Post. “Circumcision Controversy Brings Yona Metzger, Israel Chief Rabbi, to Germany.” Published 21 Aug. 2012. Visited 9 May 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/israel-chief-rabbi-in-ger_0_n_1816735.html

Omoigui, Nowa. “OPINION.” Vanguard Daily (Lagos). Visited 12 Apr. 2013. Available at http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-defended.html

Rosenblum, Emma. “Jewish But Don’t Want to Circumcise?” New York Magazine. Published 18 Oct. 2009. Visited 10 May 2013. http://nymag.com/health/features/60149/

Schwartzman, Richard. “The Emotional Consequences of Circumcision.” Beyond the Bris: Questioning Jewish Circumcision. Published 20 Feb. 2013. Visited 9 May 2013. http://www.beyondthebris.com/2013/02/the-emotional-consequences-of.html 

Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 4: FGC

FGC has a significantly less widespread occurrence, particularly in the West. In the early 1970s, during the second wave of feminism, FGC began to garner a lot of public attention. It became a cause for many in the West to rally against as a completely violent form of oppression for women. According to the WHO, “female genital mutilation is universally unacceptable because it is an infringement on the physical and psychosexual integrity of women and girls and is a form of violence against them” (WHO 1997). As some activists point out, FGC is similar to MGC in that it involves violence in the form of genital mutilation without consent. However, the language in Western literature and media concerning FGC is far more expressive in terms of violence, mutilation, and negative effects of the practice.

Historically, neither male nor female genitals have been fully understood and the question remains whether or not they are fully understood today. Female genitals, in particular the clitoris, have been assigned a wide variety of attributes, many seen as negative by authoritative bodies, and, as a result, have been victimized through a wide variety of practices. Throughout time, the clitoris has been considered equivalent to the male glans, the seat of female sexual pleasure, the root of female sexual impurity, the residence of immature female sexuality, the source of many emotional and psychological disorders in women, necessary for procreation, and not at al necessary for procreation, amongst other things (Bell 2005; Rodriguez 2008). Curing masturbation was a particular focus for the practice of FGC in the U.K. and the U.S. The act of masturbation was seen as unnatural because “the object of desire was not real but rather a product of the imagination; masturbation was not socially engaged… and the desire and ability to masturbate was potentially endless” (Rodriquez 2008: 331).

Most literature on FGC revolves around the practice as it takes place in Africa and parts of the Middle East and Asia. Western feminists largely support the WHO and other organizations that describe the practice as violent towards women and a violation of human rights. However, the practice is largely supported and performed by women who have either had the procedure done themselves or who support the practice within their own culture. Western ethnocentric ideals lead many to ignore the cultural and social histories of the various forms of FGC in certain regions of the world, making it difficult for them to view the practice as anything but mutilation. As a result, Western imperialism in the form of intellectual and informational authority and activism are forcing a changing of cultural values in the non-Western world. This topic alone can warrant a entire thesis, let alone a separate research article, and has been discussed and debated by many already.[1]


-------------------------------
[1] See Obermeyer 2003; Gruenbaum 2001;Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000; Dirie and Miller 1999; Dorkenoo 1994; and El Sadaawi 1980 for reference.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 6: Conclusion (Child Sacrifice and Supposed Female Dominance)

Interlaced into the aforementioned circumcision incident, the viewer is hit with the most devastating blow of the film: She watched her son fall out of the window to his death, and did nothing. The flashbacks to the prologue are cut at a different time and a different angle, revealing new information for our digestion. Even if we were sympathetic throughout the journey as She tortured her husband, identifying, even commiserating, with her internal psychological struggles, we are now left feeling like the carpet was pulled out from under our feet, leaving us dumbfounded and foolish for having even attempted to make a connection with her pitiful soul. She makes Disney’s Maleficent look like an innocent little angel – for what kind of wickedness it must take to watch your child die and not even make an attempt to stop it. On the contrary, it appears that she even gained pleasure at the moment in watching the event unfold before her – possibly provoked by the same boorish drive that led Abraham to nearly sacrifice his son, Isaac.[1]

Between the violent content of most modern action films and the images of trauma and catastrophe that the mainstream media displays, it is quite easy for the typical moviegoer to tolerate and even get pleasure from violence in film. Von Trier was not shocking anybody by depicting a woman who beats up her husband and consequently not leaving his mark on the viewer’s mind. Like Cruella de Vil and her nastiness toward puppies, the way to truly make She a hated character was to have her embody the unthinkable. Once this information is brought to light, She loses all likability, and von Trier’s goal of equating woman with all that is wicked and vile has been accomplished.

Left to her own devices, the Antichrist will reject nature, and her natural position as subordinate to man, and turn to a practice of dominance over all. Viewers can begin to see this unfold in Chapter Two as She becomes more deeply driven into her own mania. At the same time, the surrounding environment becomes increasingly more hostile toward He, visually tying her trip down the slippery slope toward iniquity to the effects on man in the world. Acorns begin to pelt the cabin, He begins to get bitten by some large beetle-like bugs, baby birds get eaten alive by ants and other birds of prey, and as the chapter progresses toward the next chapter, we begin to see the forest literally begin to fall apart. A wide panning shot of the forest floor shows the son, dressed in the same pajamas as in the beginning of the film, carrying his teddy bear, and glowing, walking, presumably, away from his mother – perhaps indicating that he is attempting to escape her dominance. It provides another new insight into the child’s death – that maybe the son was actually attempting to escape his own situation

In Chapter 3, He discovers from the autopsy report that the bones in his son’s feet were deformed and then finds numerous photographs amongst his wife’s study materials that show his son’s shoes on the wrong feet. In a reversal of the practice of feet binding of women, She has instead exerted her influence over her son by binding his feet. It is unclear exactly why She bound her child’s feet, but it can be certain that it was done purposely, further lending credence to the notion that the son was making an attempt to escape his mother’s power. Upon learning of this torture, He feels the whole of the forest’s acorns pelting his flesh – he has come to realize that his wife is the architect of destruction – and he is afraid.

She continues to enact dominance over her male counterparts further into Chapter Three, primarily through sex, even making an argument that her husband doesn’t love her because he refuses to hit her during sex. In a drastic display, She runs into the woods and, again associating her ties with nature, masturbates violently while wrapped up in the exposed roots of giant tree. He follows her out, compelled by her sexual urges, and engages her in sexual intercourse, while also folding to her wishes to hit her. As they perform, limbs of immobile bodies are seen knotted like branches into the tree – the seemingly dead arms signify yet another connection between her sexual drive and the deaths of the many.

Afraid that He is going to leave, She attacks him with a block of wood, even smashing his penis, knocking him unconscious. Again, driven by sex, unable to refrain, she proceeds to masturbate him until he ejaculates blood onto her clothing. She then proceeds to drill a hole in his leg and, roughly mimicking the crucifixion, inserts a metal rod attached to a heavy round drum, fastens a nut to the other side, and disposes of the wrench. He is left, quite literally, anchored down and prevented from leaving her. However, he does make an attempt at escape by dragging himself into the woods and hiding in a hole in the ground. Pulling away from the Adam and Eve myth and moving toward the tale of Jesus, the rod in the leg symbolizes the torture and crucifixion of Jesus, while the husband’s escape mimics the New Testament tale of the via dolorosa, or “way of suffering,”[2] as Jesus supposedly dragged himself and his cross, essentially, to his grave. While in the hole, He sees one of the three beggars, the crow, and for fear that the crow will expose him, he attempts to beat it to death. The crow is resurrected and She digs him out of his “tomb.” Once more, Antichrist is connecting the end of paradise to another aspect of religion and life – he, like many prophets and scribes before him, makes a connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament, however factually unsubstantiated and horrifically arrogant it may be.

In the end, Antichrist puts forth the notion that had Adam destroyed Eve, women would not have suffered over 2 millennia of hate and violence. On the contrary, woman would have been free to reclaim her position alongside man as a co-leader over nature. Ultimately, it is man’s job to free woman, as He freed his wife from her own torment, thus releasing a multitude of faceless women back into civility. As a man, director von Trier created a piece of art, aimed at other men, that allows them to affirm their own internal misogyny and to reestablish the social rules by which they live their lives. As Sturken and Cartwright note, “In the history of art, the fact that paintings were geared toward male viewers had as much to do with the commerce of art as it did with the social roles and sexual stereotypes of men and women”[3] – the same would hold true for moving picture media, as the most common method of conveying social meaning today. It is clear that the movie is intended to have male spectators, as the male part is characterized by rationale and seen, though very blasé, to be the film’s hero, and in turn the hero over nature, life, and misogyny. If a woman were to adapt a male looking gaze, she may well end up as She had, upon assuming the male gaze over her study materials: detesting herself and women alike for the “wrongs” of which they supposedly committed.

Ultimately, the final statement of Antichrist, and in turn, on Eden and life, is that everything that was once beautiful is no longer – and this is the fault of Eve. Von Trier’s morality makes women out to be immoral and malevolent and in turn removes himself and his male counterparts from any blame. This attitude can be easily summed up through Nietzsche’s view that in every artistic morality, “man adores part of himself as God and to that end needs to diabolicize the rest.”[4] We no longer require the Bible to tell us that women are the destroyers of paradise, because we have Lars von Trier. Let Antichrist serve as a warning of the effects of religious fear-mongering. In the words of the late, great comedian, George Carlin, “The Christians are coming, and they are not pleasant people.”[5]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] HarperCollins, Genesis 22:1-24
[2] HarperCollins, John 19:17-37
[3] Sturken and Cartwright, 79.
[4] Nietzsche, 152.
[5] Carlin, 8.

Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 1: Introduction

As the father to both a daughter and a son, I was struck by the oddity that, while I was asked by several people, including medical personnel and non-medical, interested parties, whether or not I was going to have my son circumcised, not a single person asked if I was going to have my daughter circumcised. Indeed, some people assumed that I was having my son circumcised without asking, as if leaving him uncircumcised was not an option. What is the basis for this assumption? Is it based on social, political, economic, religious, medical, or a combination of factors? And why is there not a similar assumption, or even a question, regarding circumcising our daughters? In order to answer these questions, an examination of circumcision must account for social, economic, religious, cultural, and other factors that have shaped the history and development of the practice, and the controversies that ensue, along the binary lines of gender.

While routine male circumcision is not seen as medically necessary by most medical associations in the world – more on this to come – routine, non-medical circumcision rates in the United States remain high. In fact, routine male circumcision remains the most common surgery in the United States[1] with over 1 million boys being circumcised each year. There is a decline in routine neonatal circumcision; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report in 2011 that showed a drop in newborn male circumcision from 62.5% in 1999 to 56.9% in 2008 using data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey.[2] Still, the United States stands alone as the last medically advanced nation to routinely perform this surgery on infants. In this sense, male circumcision is a uniquely American phenomenon with a complex history that intersects religious, social, political, economic, and scientific domains. The primary arguments for the widespread continuation of circumcision today tend to come from religious and social points of view, while the arguments against come primarily from scientific views, but economics also finds itself playing a unique part in the reduction of circumcision, particularly in the Western U.S., where immigration of Mexican and other Latin American individuals is high and some states have removed Medicaid coverage of the surgery.[3]

When it comes to the female genitals, however, the United States stands nearly as a whole at the opposite side of the spectrum. The majority of the world’s female circumcision occurs in Africa and several countries in Asia and the Middle East. The World Health Organization has estimated that about 101 million girls aged 10 and older have undergone female genital cutting (abbreviated FGC) in Africa alone.[4] The practice is largely encouraged for religious and social reasons, including ensuring chastity and proving the sexual purity of a girl to her husband. In the West, most opponents of FGC belie any notion of social benefits, insisting that the consequences for FGC far outweigh any possible benefits. And this is the essence of the controversy, what I refer to as “The West versus the Rest,” though, admittedly, this may not be the most accurate description. The debate over FGC is not simple by any means; on its surface it is a about female genitals, but deep down it is about culture, ideology, social status, and, indeed, gender relations.

For the purposes of remaining as neutral as possible while discussing the practices, controversies, and analysis of both male and female genital modification surgery, I have chosen to refer to both practices with the phrase “genital cutting.” While male circumcision is rarely referred to as male genital cutting (MGC), this phrase will be used to avoid confusion and to better compare it to the genital cutting practices of FGC. FGC, meanwhile, will be used to avoid underrepresenting the risks, procedures, or complications resulting from cutting female genitals (i.e., female circumcision) or overstating the horrors typically only associated with the more sever forms of FGC (i.e., female genital mutilation, or FGM). As will be discussed below, different groups prefer different terms depending on the specific cutting practice and its significance to their ideology or tradition.

[1] http://academicdepartments.musc.edu/surgery/divisions/pediatric/procedures/circumcisionhttp://academicdepartments.musc.edu/surgery/divisions/pediatric/procedures/circumcision

[2] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

[3] Bell 2005:129

[4] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 3

The characterization of witches, faeries, wicked stepmothers, and other negative roles for women play into all forms of commercially available art, especially film. Disney’s animated films could warrant a paper on misogynistic imagery in and of itself. For example, many of the Disney villains are actually villainesses. Lady Tremaine from Cinderella[1] is the ultimate evil stepmother: self-centered, tyrannical, power hungry, and a backstabber to boot. The Queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs[2] is willing to have her stepdaughter murdered to feed her own ego. The tale combines imagery of witchcraft (the magic mirror on the wall) with allusions to women’s desire for preening and narcissism. Half-woman, half-octopus Ursula from Disney’s The Little Mermaid[3] is a combination of similar misogynist stereotypes from tales of witchcraft and Biblical stories. Ursula is an evil sorceress who is arguably the least attractive of the villainesses, being half-octopus, overweight, and with a stereotypical lesbian short haircut and a big mole on her face. Her two cohorts are eels, or water serpents, mimicking the serpent of the Genesis myth. Cruella De Vil is a villainess so evil, she kills puppies. Like Ursula, she has short, grey (or white) hair, and has decidedly inhuman features. Cruella’s face is more demonic, or even witch-like, and her demeanor is quite psychotic. Like Lady Tremaine, Cruella’s only concern is for wealth and status, without concern for who gets hurt along the way[4]. The typical association of selfishness without regard to female characters is yet again linked to the tale of Eve’s selfishness in Genesis.

Perhaps the villainess who portrays evil in the most magnificent way is the stunning Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty[5]. She embodies the attributes of the aforementioned desperadas, while throwing in a few accoutrements at no extra cost. Maleficent damns a baby to exile and death, practices sorcery, and eventually turns into a giant serpent-like dragon in an attempt to distinguish the fair prince. She is drawn with typical Christian imagery influenced features normally associated with Lucifer (who is often considered to be the serpent of the Genesis myth, though there is no real link between the two in the original text), as she is tall, thin, and beautiful with horns and seen as leading little goblin-like demons. Revelation 12:9 describes both Satan as a dragon and the presence of his angels: “The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan… and his angels were thrown down with him.[6]” If the visuals were not enough, Maleficent even summons upon “all the powers of hell.” She immeasurably reflects the traditional Christian view of both Satan and the woman as an evil entity. In all cases mentioned, these womanly villains are obsessed with wickedness and their psychotic personas are reflected not only in their actions, but in their appearances as well.

The measure of a female character’s evilness is not the end of the measure of a film’s misogyny factor, however. The relatively recent saturation of “chick flicks” has solidified the American female stereotype of a dimwitted, appearance- and shoe-obsessed shopaholic. Female roles are so standardized in the Romantic Comedy genre, they might as well come with labels from major market brands or advertisement agencies, showing them to be exact replicas of each other, produced in bulk for the cinematic masses. Any given film starring the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Sandra Bullock, or Matthew McConaughey, et al., is sure to have similar themes, similar visuals, similar dialogue, and similar characters: the sassy black friend; the self-absorbed blonde bimbo; the single, childless businesswoman; the sex-obsessed ethnic minority. By characterizing women in a way that says, “proper women must fit into these rigidly defined categories,” the film industry, and the “chick flick” subgenre in particular, are pulling out the stops, and spreading this misogyny thickly onto the female moviegoer, in a most ridiculous, non-romantically-comedic manner.

Returning to Disney’s animated classics, the positions of the central female characters, often princesses, though not evil, are very descriptive about gender roles and gender neutrality. Snow White and Cinderella, for example, are both women who work as slaves, but in two different capacities. Cinderella is quite literally a slave to her stepmother and stepsisters. She is treated not as a member of the family but instead as an insignificant worker bee who is unworthy to partake in their life of luxury, which is actually the result of her father’s fortune. Cinderella accepts her situation, but hopes that someday a prince will rescue her. Snow White, in a similar fashion, struggles with stepmother issues, only to a more serious extent. She, like Cinderella, accepts this fate, and in the meantime, takes over the household chores for a group of seven male strangers, while waiting around to be rescued from herself by a handsome and wealthy prince. Little girls grow up seeing these images of women, even as members of royalty, as slaves to household duties. And nearly all of the Disney classics enforce the notion that to live happily ever after, the woman needs to marry a man of wealth and status. A surprising converse would be the tale of Aladdin, wherein the wealthy princess, Jasmine, rejects the attempts of her father to have her marry into wealth, and instead falls in love with and marries a poor street kid [do not be mistaken, however, Aladdin is not without its faults. It may be one of the most racially controversial Disney films, as Aladdin, Jasmine, and the Sultan are all seemingly white characters, not Arabic. The only dark skinned character is, of course, the evil character, Jafar][7].

The typical Disney princess, including both Cinderella and Snow White, as well as Aurora (Sleeping Beauty), Belle (from Beauty and the Beast[8]), and Ariel (The Little Mermaid), have issues relating to their fathers. In some cases the father is dead or missing, and in others he is distant or easily disappointed. The only way for the princess to find genuine happiness is to find another man, similar to her father in status, to whisk her away to a magic life full of true love and animals with human traits. The princess will know true love as soon as Mr. Right arrives – there is no need to bother with dating, introductions to friends and family, and definitely no reason to ask any “get-to-know-you” questions. It is important for the princess to not waste any time with formalities, because she could end up single – then who would save her from herself when she begins her immoral metamorphosis into pure sin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cinderella, dir. Clyde Geronimi, et al., perf. Ilene Woods, VHS, Disney, 1950.
[2] Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, writ. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, perf. Adriana Caselotti, VHS, Disney, 1937.
[3] The Little Mermaid, dir. Ron Clement and John Musker, perf. Jodi Benson and Pat Carroll, VHS, Disney, 1989.
[4] 101 Dalmatians, dir. Clyde Geronimi, et al., perf. Betty Lou Gerson, VHS, Disney, 1961.
[5] Sleeping Beauty, dir. Clyde Geronimi, perf. Eleanor Audley and Mary Costa, VHS, Disney, 1959.
[6] HarperCollins. Revelation 12:9
[7] Aladdin, dir. Ron Clements and John Musker, perf. Scott Weinger and Robin Williams, DVD, Disney, 1992.
[8] Beauty and the Beast, dir. Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, perf. Robby Benson and Paige O’Hara, VHS, Disney, 1991.