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 

Implementation and Audit Concerns with Langner’s RIPE Framework

“There is nothing novel here and, to be honest, [Langner] includes many statements that
I think are inaccurate or that I'd like to see him support with evidence,” an anonymous source states in response to Ralph Langner’s proposed ICS/SCADA security framework which he calls the Robust ICS Planning and Evaluation framework, or RIPE. Langner believes RIPE to be a better approach to ICS security than NIST’s current draft Cyber Security Framework (PDF).

My source, who chooses to remain anonymous, disagrees. And she has the experience to back it up with 30 years of Government auditing, performance measurement, and total quality management (TQM) the last five spent overseeing IT and ICS audits. Additionally, she is a former colleague of mine and I can personally vouch for her attention to detail and her longevity in audit work.

I’d like to see credible, verifiable support for his claim that the objective of corporate risk management is to minimize cost, not risk.” That objective, she states, is a huge assumption on Langner’s part. If, in fact, the objective of risk management is to minimize cost, why is it not dubbed cost management?

Furthermore, the "quality" performance measures listed in RIPE are not all quality, or effectiveness, measures. “Just because you call an input, output, or efficiency performance measure a ‘quality measure’ doesn't make it so. That is a mistake that is unforgivable because of Langner’s heavy emphasis on evaluation,” she explains. In essence, for a measure to be a quality measure, it must be part of a standardized set of technical specifications that define how to calculate quality. Quality, in terms of ICS, is a fuzzy concept. For purposes of ICS security, quality measures must come back to the basics: confidentiality, integrity, authorization, and, most importantly, availability.

It is no big secret in the ICS community, and the larger IT community, that components manufacturers almost completely forego security. In many cases, software developers follow suit, expecting that customers will have installed third-party or standalone security solutions. The Department of Homeland Security and the ICS-CERT make this point clear in their various training programs. While it may be true that security-heavy procurement specs could force manufacturers to pay closer attention to component security, it could also heavily increase the cost of the products themselves, going against Langner’s own view of risk management as cost minimization. Additionally, the lead time on component development might see a significant lengthening should manufacturers properly implement security planning, integration, and testing processes.

Langner’s comparison of his framework to Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance is also troublesome. As most security professionals will note, compliance rarely equals security. If anything, compliance is simply a low set watermark. Perhaps more troubling, however, is the cost associated with ensuring SOX (and other) compliance standards. Again, if Langner is so interested in reducing costs for plant operators, why push for an expensive compliance process with questionable effectiveness at best? It would appear, instead, that RIPE, like SOX compliance, is actually an expensive process-driven solution that fails to focus on risk.

Her biggest grievance, however, is Langner’s claim that “If security characteristics of a specific plant are documented properly and accurately… third party experts can assess the security posture of a given plant without actually going there.” From an audit perspective, failure to verify controls is an unforgiveable error. In no instance should a security assessor perform a risk assessment on paper only. The bottom line for any assessment is to trust but verify. Remote assessments fail to implement the vital second half of that rule.

Her comments regarding his framework are not all negative. In her and my own training efforts, we both stress some of the same points Langner stresses, especially knowledge of the control environment, up-to-date asset inventories, and continuous monitoring. Indeed, the 8 domains that Langner identifies, including accurate and up-to-date inventories and topologies, established policies, and security training for staff, are old hat. Each of the controls in RIPE can be tied to an equivalent control in the SANS 20 Critical Security Controls.

“I like the voice he used in the piece; it’s almost sarcastic. And I really like his term ‘cyber ecosystem,’” she says. She also notes her appreciation for his recognition of the air gap myth. While it is not a new idea, having been discussed by Eric Byres, Èireann Leverett, and Billy Rios, the air gap myth has not fully been accepted by the ICS community at large.

In the end, the RIPE measures are not a well-balanced family of measures, a shortcoming that my source, as an auditor, and I, as a security professional, cannot forgive. If it is true that the measures are unbalanced or misleading, then Langner’s notions of meaningful benchmarking might be jeopardized. That is, if benchmarking were even to occur, which is questionable based on the sensitive, guarded nature of ICS vulnerabilities.

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.

Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 3: Science and Tradition

Since the 1970s, routine MGC has seen a steady increase in opposition. According to social anthropologist Kirsten Bell, “the anticircumcision movement began to gain ground in the 1980s, with the publication of Edward Wallerstein’s (1980) respected Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy.” Since Wallerstein’s work, several groups have sprouted in the U.S. dedicated to eradicating unnecessary MGC, such as the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Center, or NOCIRC,[1] and the National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males, or NOHARMM.[2] Both organizations claim that they are aiming to make the world safer for children through education and activism. In more recent years, the word intactivism has been used to represent those in the U.S. who oppose routine neonatal MGC. Many intactivists argue that the procedure is not only unnecessary, but that the practice is child abuse in the form of genital mutilation, and that it denies the child of his inherent right to an intact penis (D’Arcy 2012). Additionally, others may stress the significant physical and emotional trauma that occurs as a result of the procedure (Schwartzman 2013).

MGC presents a unique meeting place for science and tradition. In other fields of medicine, scientific inquiry and research results tend to influence practice. As evidence accrues for a particular outcome, old practices are discarded and new, and hopefully safer, practices take their place. Oddly enough, this model does not fit the history of MGC in the U.S. Instead, the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) has gone back and forth on their views of circumcision over the years, resulting in confusion both in the medical community and the public at large. MGC became a standard practice for the prevention of disease, included among them the practice of masturbation, starting in the mid to late 19th Century. By 1920, the practice had become so standardized it wasn’t questioned and was considered standard practice without parental consent in many American hospitals (Gollaher 2000:172). Under pressure from opposition in the 1970s, the AAP reviewed what little evidence there was and decided that there was no absolute medical reason to circumcise (Bell 2005: 128). The AAP maintained this position, with some slight variations across the years, until mid-2012, when the group released the following stance: “A recent analysis by the AAP concluded that the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks” (AAP 2013). The group stopped short of actually endorsing the practice of routine neonatal MGC, but its change in position incited fury amongst those who oppose MGC. The change in statement also meant that the AAP’s position now stands in opposition to the positions of national programs in other medically advanced societies including Canada, the U.K., Sweden, and Australia.

Additionally, the AAP’s stance seems to go against the evidence of modern medical research. While there is a positive correlation of MGC with a reduction in penile cancer rates in clinical research, worldwide rates of such cancer are so low, that the results are mixed. The majority of Swedish men, for example, are uncircumcised and have some of the lowest rates of penile cancer in the world. Additionally, penile cancer is so rare, that using it as justification for prepuce removal is a less rational argument than encouraging the removal of breast tissue to prevent breast cancer in females. As medical TV show co-host and pediatrician Jim Sears stated, “More babies die from getting circumcised than men die from getting penile cancer.” To risk not pointing out the obvious: penile cancer is a skin cancer; surely removing one-third to one-half of the total skin of the penis reduces the risk of contracting the disease.

In 1993, Edgar Shoen of the AAP stated the MGC should be considered “analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but the benefits accrue for a lifetime” (Shoen 1993). This statement was made in direct relation to “conclusive evidence” that MGC resulted in a reduction of the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) in males. While this appears to be the case, UTIs are much less common in men than women – “By one year, UTIs become ten times more common in girls… [and between] twenty and fifty years of age, women’s incidence of UTIs is fifty times greater than men’s” (Gollaher 155) – and the AAP does not recommend genital cutting of females for prevention.

Looking at the arguments for MGC and the prevention of other diseases, including HIV, cervical cancer, and gonorrhea, the evidence is problematic at best. Within certain regional or cultural groups, men who have undergone MGC may show lower rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but this does not hold looking across or comparing between cultural groups. For instance, the U.S. has higher rates of MGC and STIs compared to European countries such as Germany and the U.K. Additionally, cut men tend to have more partners and perhaps even participate in more adventurous sexual activity, which increase risk the of contracting and spreading STIs. This makes finding a direct causal relationship with MGC tenuous.

MGC’s secular history in the U.S. is rooted in the late Victorian era when a number of doctors and other medical professionals endorsed the practice as a cure for many things, among them masturbation. The inventor of the corn flake, John Harvey Kellogg, is an important player in both MGC and FGC practices in the U.S., as one of the staunchest defenders of both practices for moral hygiene. He also advocated for the surgery to be administered without anesthesia, so the patient associated pain with his or her genitals (Bell 2005; Gollaher 2000). Attitudes about masturbation, and the wide array of mental and emotional disorders that genital cutting was believed to cure, have evolved significantly since the late 19th Century, and while the practice of clitoral cauterization and other forms of FGC have disappeared in the U.S. over time, MGC remains a tradition of birth medicine.

Despite the lack of conclusive evidence that MGC has any medical benefits that would justify its persistence, the U.S. stance on circumcision emphasizes placing trust in the hands of the medical establishment. This becomes an issue when doctors and surgeons are seen as having authoritative knowledge, yet when discussing this surgery, they stress the benefits and not the risks. Where scientific authority has failed to confirm the benefits, they place the onus on the parents, who turn back to the medical establishment for guidance. This vicious cycle benefits no one and may result in the continuation of an unnecessary surgical practice.

----------------------------
[1] http://www.nocirc.org/
[2] http://www.noharmm.org/

Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 2: Male Genital Cutting

MGC is a medical enigma. It is the oldest known surgery in recorded history, with the oldest depictions of priests cutting the foreskins of young men being found on the walls of the necropolis of Saqqara in Egypt. These reliefs date back to 2400 B.C.E. and while they are the oldest known images of the practice, the surgery certainly dates back further in time. It remains unknown what the impetus for the practice was, but it certainly began before medical science and religious ideology were distinctly separate fields. While many may ponder on the originating factor – whether it was for cleanliness, hygiene, aesthetics, chastity, therapy, or something else entirely is the matter of an entirely different debate – perhaps the more puzzling element of the practice is its long history of pervasiveness, particularly into modern, medically advanced societies. This is particularly true considering that for much of its existence, the practice has been confusing, unnecessary, and even offensive to those who don’t practice it: the Romans forbade it; the Greeks jeered at it (they emphasized the beauty of a long prepuce in much of their art and found the exposure of the glans to signify sexual arousal); modern day ‘intactivists’ claim that it is a sex crime.

It is important to note that MGC goes far beyond the traditional notions of routine neonatal circumcision that are withheld in the U.S. The typical American idea of MGC is a removal of the prepuce only, which is often thought of as being just a little bit of skin at the end of the penis. In truth, the procedure removes a third to one half of the entire skin on the penis. In other forms of MGC practiced around the world, such as in parts of Africa, Australia, and the Pacific islands, cutting can involve making slits in the prepuce, piercing the foreskin, or even slitting the urethra in part or in whole along the ventral shaft of the penis (Bell 2005:126). Because these forms of MGC are not as common or as widely known or discussed, many people have difficulty drawing a connection between MGC and FGC. However, one commonality is clear: a variety of genital cutting forms are practiced that range in severity of cuts and medical complications.

‘A COVENANT WITH GOD’

It is estimated that 30% of men worldwide today are circumcised. Two-thirds of the total population is Muslim. The remaining one-third is comprised of men in specific geographic locations where MGC exists as a social norm: the United States, Canada, Israel, and New Zealand. It is no secret that Islam and Judaism call for MGC. As both are Abrahamic religions, the originating scripture in Genesis is interpreted literally and expressed in present day as a symbol for one’s sacrificial covenant with the Hebrew God: “Every male among you shall be circumcised, You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.”[1]

Without doubt, this tradition is seen as carrying over into the third Abrahamic religion, Christianity, particularly among Protestant groups in the United States and Great Britain. Keeping the covenant, however, is not a requirement for Christians, according to the apostle Paul as written in the New Testament. Paul clearly states, “In Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything.”[2] According to the New Testament book of Luke, Jesus was circumcised, which is not a surprise to most, considering that Jesus was Jewish. For this reason, he would have kept with many, if not all, of the laws of old. What is more surprising, perhaps, is that genital cutting never appeared in any of Jesus’ teachings. This is important in understanding the drivers behind the practice as it spread in Western Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is worthy to also point out the gender bias in the Old Testament: women were left out of the covenant of genital cutting. Jesus, Paul, or the authors of the books of the New Testament may have specifically left out discussion of MGC in Christianity to include women in the new covenant, which focused largely on baptism, a gender inclusive practice.

Metzitzah b’peh, or oral suction, is the Jewish tradition whereby the mohel, or ceremonial circumciser, places the cut penis in his mouth and sucks the blood to prevent infection. This practice continues today in some Orthodox Jewish groups, including those in the U.S., and has been the source of much controversy in recent years. Opponents of the practice claim that there is an increased risk of spreading herpes and other sexually transmitted infections to the infants. Furthermore, some claim the act is sexually exploitative and is, in fact, a sex crime. Proponents argue that the practice “lowers the internal pressure in the tissues” of the penis, allowing for the wound to heal more quickly and with decreased risk of infection. In addition to these medical benefits, they claim that the practice has “deep religious significance” (Halperin 2012).

As recently as May 2013, controversies involving the practice of metzitzah b’peh (MBP) have populated the news in the U.S. and Germany. A rabbi in Berlin has been sued for performing the ceremony on his own son (Goldman, et. al. 2013) immediately on the tails of a recent court case from Cologne that nearly banned the practice of MGC for non-medical reasons entirely (Huffington Post 2012). Putting the risks associated with MGC in general aside, the New York City Department of Health has specifically linked 2 deaths and 13 cases of infant infection with herpes since 2000 with the practice of MBP (Goldman; Brady 2013). According to CNN, infant males who underwent MGC with MBP “between April 2006 and December 2011 had an estimated risk of contracting neonatal HSV-1 infection of 24.4 per 100,000 cases, [which is] 3.4 times greater than other infants” (Brady).

The aforementioned Cologne court case had nothing to do with MBP. In fact, the case involved a Muslim family that had a Muslim doctor perform the operation on their 4 year old son strictly for religious reasons. The boy’s penis began bleeding severely two days after the surgery and an investigation was launched when the admitting hospital contacted authorities. The court ruled that MGC was a violation of the child’s rights and, taking the rights of the parents and the right to religious freedom into context, decided that “the procedure was not in the best interests of the child” (Connolly 2012). Specifically, the court stated that the child’s body was “permanently and irreparably changed.” The ruling brought both Jewish and Muslim groups together to criticize the court, claiming that the court violated their religious authority and that it was “an attack on centuries of religious affiliation.”

Outside of these recent cases, MGC has been staunchly defended by religious groups, particularly Jewish and Muslim groups, for thousands of years. Dating back to early Roman, Greek, and Babylonian control over the Middle East, laws have been enacted that both ban and protect the practice. Some historians believe that the prevalence of MGC and the increased invasiveness of the procedure – initial practices only required a removal of part of and did not require the removal of the entire prepuce along with the practice of MBP – expanded to differentiate Jews from others during periods of exile.

Whatever the case, any arguments made for the medical benefits of MGC, are deeply rooted in religious and social practices dating back thousands of years. Many studies of medical benefits of MGC focused on the frequency of certain diseases and infections in Jewish populations.[3] The problem with these studies, however, is that they ignore the cultural factors that may influence the prevalence of certain medical problems more than circumcision. For example, Jewish men traditionally have fewer partners than non-Jewish European and men, who also tend to be uncircumcised. Still, it is important to understand the cultural factors at play and recognize that no discussion of circumcision is free from the influence of these complex dynamics. It is important to note, however, that even within Jewish communities, a spiritual ritual, brit shalom, has been founded that takes the place of ritual MGC, replacing it with a new ceremony complete with a naming ritual and prayers (Rosenblum 2009). Brit shalom is a way for Jews to adhere to the covenant without cutting the flesh of their children.

----------------------------
[1] Genesis 17:10-11. The HarperCollins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version. San Francisco: HarperCollins San Francisco, 1993.
[2] Galatians 5:6. The HarperCollins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version. San Francisco: HarperCollins San Francisco, 1993
[3] See Weiss 1977; Poland 1990; Fleiss and Hodges 1996; and Laumann, Masi, and Zuckerman 1997, among others.

What is a Security Auditor?

I’m often faced with a moral dilemma: what do I tell people when they ask me what I do? The easy answer is to tell them that I’m a hacker. This makes me appear interesting and usually invokes a good conversation but is it true? Not really. My job title is IT Specialist but if I say that, it does not speak to the fact that I am largely focused on security, not providing IT services. I suppose I could go with IT security auditor but again, I feel that I am skirting the truth. I am not, technically, an auditor (see my job title). My role, however, is closest to this final title: IT security auditor. That raises the question “What is the role of an IT security auditor?”

Maybe it would be best to start with what it isn’t. An IT security auditor is neither a hacker nor a penetration tester. The term hacker is often used incorrectly, especially in the media, where it is often used to describe malicious individuals targeting critical systems. In actuality, a hacker is simply someone who tinkers with computers, networks, or other electronic devices, often taking them apart to learn more about them. A penetration tester, or pen tester, is a security professional who breaks into networks using any means necessary, in order to identify holes in security. Pen testers usually run exploits that they find on the Internet or that they create themselves against a network, computers, or software. These exploits can bring a system down in a variety of ways, including crashes and unintentional information exposure. Pen testers use these and other sophisticated methods in an effort to mirror those used by sophisticated attackers or seen in sophisticated malware.

IT security auditors, by contrast, typically look at broader spectrum controls and do not run packaged exploits against the networks they test. IT audits are typically designed to identify ’low hanging fruit’ or easily identifiable weaknesses in systems, networks, or operations. The end goal of an IT security audit is not to breach a network and pull out sensitive data. Instead, it is to help identify controls that, when implemented, will protect against unsophisticated attacks. This is why an IT security audit and a pen test can compliment each other; one is more narrowly focused, yet deep, and the other is more broadly focused, and only goes a little below the surface. As the Annual Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report points out, most victims of breaches are targets of opportunity and most of the attacks are not highly sophisticated. In other words, identifying and implementing simple or intermediate controls, or removing the ’low hanging fruit‘ can significantly increase an organization’s security posture.

A lot of emphasis is placed on attack sophistication. Sophistication, however, is a fuzzy concept. A truly sophisticated attack should use only the resources necessary to achieve the end goal. Thus, writing, testing, and running exploits do not necessarily equate to a sophisticated attack; indeed, too much time spent on these activities can simply be wasteful. Instead, sophistication should be viewed in terms of attack success, attack detection, and overall effect. Regardless of the attack vector, did the attacker achieve his goal? In other words, did a system, network, or data breach occur? Or, if the goal was to cause a crash, did the crash occur? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then a sophisticated (or sophisticated enough) attack has occurred.

Breaches can happen through password guessing, password cracking, social engineering, phishing attacks, authentication bypass, physical access, or any number of other vectors, and can be carried out by expert attackers and newbies alike. The objective is not sophistication but success.

Many attacks go undetected for months or even years. Some of these attacks result in exfiltration of data and others do not. Some of them are present for long periods of time but the purpose is unknown. Regardless, undetected unauthorized access to systems for any period of time, regardless of sophistication, is a successful attack in and of itself. For this reason, IT security audits should focus on detection methods such as logging, reviewing, and intrusion detection techniques.

Lastly, the effect of an attack can range from almost no impact on personal, business, or financial operations to complete devastation. Depending on the organization, a blemish to reputation as the result of an attack can cause more damage than the attack itself. For these reasons, it is not pragmatic to look only at the sophistication of the attack itself. One must also look at the lasting effect of the attack. It can take days, weeks, months, or even years for some individuals and organizations to recover from a successful attack. Thus, it is important for security audits to assess the response and recovery process, including compensating and recovery controls, following an attack, not simply the detective and preventive controls.

All things considered, attack sophistication as it is typically portrayed is not the key concern for IT security audits. Instead, audits need to look at the entire picture, focus on simple and intermediate controls, including detection, and be sure to address response and recovery in order to minimize overall effect. Whether the attacker be a state-sponsored cyber gang with disposable resources or a script-kiddie sitting in his mother’s basement eating cold pizza and punching keys, we should not ask “How sophisticated was the attack?” but “What is the effect?” Additionally, a good security audit ends with practical, cost-effective, and useful recommendations that address the cause and not the effect.

For more information on IT security auditing, look into CISSP and CISA resources, such as:

https://www.isc2.org/cissp/Default.aspx

https://www.isaca.org/Pages/default.aspx

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.