And now we have people in our own midst who do so for fun or fashion. 
And plastic surgeons who--I'm not making this up--specialize in vulvas.


At 03:39 PM 3/30/2006, you wrote:
>Indeed you were very clear. I'm trying only to point out how 
>difficult it seems to be to alter *any sort of genital interference 
>which takes place for social rather than medical reasons.
>
>joanna
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 9:14 PM
>Subject: Re: Help! The grass is singing
>
>
>>I thought I was very clear that circumcision and clitoridectomy 
>>aren't comparable. What I said was that the closest practice of 
>>those grouped as female circumcision to male circumcision is the 
>>removal of the hood of the clitoris--the foreskin is the male 
>>version of the same piece of anatomy. I'm of course aware that the 
>>clitoris is much more sensitive.
>>
>>You are precisely right about the prevalence of circumcision in the 
>>US since WWII. Somewhere in the late 30s American doctors noticed 
>>that Jewish women are far less likely to develop cervical cancer 
>>than non-Jewish women. The variable, they decided, must be that 
>>Jewish men don't have foreskins (and that gentile men, by this 
>>reasoning, never bathe--it was supposed to be the bacteria hiding 
>>out under the foreskin that did the damage). The rate of 
>>intermarriage in the States is now about 50% for Jewish women, and 
>>lo and behold, those married to Christian men, circumcised or 
>>otherwise, get cervical cancer less than gentile women, whether or 
>>not their husbands are circumcised. It seems that nobody thought 
>>about genetics, except as a support for racism.
>>
>>But the custom that began then remains. 16 years ago a couple I 
>>know adopted a balck infant. The husband is Jewish. He's fully 
>>aware that circumcision confers no health benefits. I asked him if 
>>they planned to have the child circumcised, and when he said yes, I 
>>asked why. He laughed. "I want him to look like me."
>>
>>Carlos, my stepson, isn't circumcised. Doesn't seem to have got in 
>>the way of his sex life. There was an odd moment when he was about 
>>7, though. One day he announced with great vehemence that he wanted 
>>to be circumcised. We were to say the least surprised, and tried to 
>>talk him out of it, but he really seemed to be under a lot of 
>>anxiety to haveit done. For about two weeks I assured him 
>>constantly how lovely his penis is--a strange position for a 
>>straight man to be in. No good. So we took him to our infinitely 
>>wise, very old, Jewish pediatrician. Who said, "I've been in 
>>practice 50 years and I've never heard of this before." He thought 
>>for a moment. "Has anybody at school been teasing you about your 
>>penis?" And out came a flood of tears and sorrow (I ache thinking 
>>about it). It seems that a classmate had recently been circumcised 
>>(at 7 years old! in New York!) and was laying on Carlos what his 
>>parents had laid on him--it's ugly, it's dirty, etc. A little 
>>reassurance and the problem disapperaed never to recur.
>>
>>And now it occurs to me that this is just the kind of story that 
>>Carlos and I agreed I shouldn't be telling anymore. But what the 
>>hell, he's not on the list.
>>
>>There's an old concept in the social sciences called "social 
>>lag"--the idea is that custom changes more slowly than the 
>>circumstances that supported it. Without social lag middle class 
>>women would have had full equality in Britain and the US by about 
>>1900, as the division of labor had largely changed.
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>
>>At 02:42 PM 3/30/2006, you wrote:
>>>I understand that circumcision of newborn boys is culturally 
>>>routine in the USA, regardless of religious affiliation -- I don't 
>>>think I've got that wrong, but I'm sure all sorts of people will 
>>>correct me if I have.
>>>
>>>My daughter lives in Maine, having married an American, though she 
>>>has retained her British passport.
>>>
>>>When she was pregnant she announced her intention of refusing to 
>>>have the child circumcised if it turned out to be a boy, saying 
>>>that this was unnecessary mutilation. If, she added, she could 
>>>find a doctor who was prepared *not to do it automatically.
>>>
>>>A great deal of pressure was then brought to bear on her, mainly 
>>>from female (Catholic) family members and friends. One of these, a 
>>>young woman of my daughter's own age, said 'But you must -- think 
>>>of his poor wife!' (A piece of reasoning which I fail to follow, 
>>>by the way.) Anyway, Susannah as her usual pigheaded self stood 
>>>out against all pressures, and perhaps fortunately the baby turned 
>>>out to be a girl. Fortunately, that is, in a western culture.
>>>
>>>Male circumcision bears no comparison, I hope, to clitoridectomy 
>>>in terms of mutilation and lifelong pain and discomfort. But if it 
>>>would have been that difficult to go against the norm in a modern, 
>>>western civilisation, how much more difficult is it going to be to 
>>>get clitoridectomy first controlled and then please God a thing of 
>>>the past in less (how else to say it?) modern countries?
>>>
>>>joanna
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 5:45 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Help! The grass is singing
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeez, it's been a long time since anybody's called me an 
>>>>optimist. I fully expect enormous environmental calamities 
>>>>(leaving out the more dramatic events, simply the destruction of 
>>>>the seas and the lack of drinking water) to kill off huge numbers 
>>>>and alter human societies in unpleasant ways well before genital 
>>>>mutilation becomes a thing of the past. I do think that what hope 
>>>>there is comes from social change--laws that a people don't 
>>>>support are simply ignored.
>>>>
>>>>As to "I don't believe it is seen as analogous to the 
>>>>circumcision of boys.  I really don't.  The mutilation of women 
>>>>is, I believe, bound up in fear of women's sexuality," belief has 
>>>>nothing to do with it. In many of these societies female genital 
>>>>mutilation happens at the same age as circumcision of boys, and 
>>>>the members of those societies consider the practices analagous. 
>>>>One could argue, as Freud did, that circumcision is symbolic 
>>>>castration by the father. Pretty much nonsense. Which doesn't 
>>>>make it a good thing. I don't just believe, I know, from the 
>>>>literature, what many of these peoples think, and I also know 
>>>>from physiology that they're wrong. To change behavior one had 
>>>>better address not what one believes oneself but what those whose 
>>>>behavior one wishes to change believe. It certainly doesn't help 
>>>>to assume that a behavior if practiced by a demented Christian or 
>>>>Jew in New York or London would have the same meaning in another culture.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe I am an optimist. If the problem is "fear of women's 
>>>>sexuality," and if that fear is widespread, I don't see any way to intervene.
>>>>
>>>>That said, if environmental degradation doesn't do us all in 
>>>>before then, the practice will probably end as village economies 
>>>>succumb to globalization. I'm not proposing that we all sit on 
>>>>our hands--that kind of change will take a couple of generations, 
>>>>and it will also require a lot of education. But education, about 
>>>>this as about anything else, doesn't work if it ignores the cultural context.
>>>>
>>>>Mark
>>>>
>>>>At 11:01 AM 3/30/2006, you wrote:
>>>>>Hello Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > the acceptance of male circumcision, which is also a form of
>>>>> > mutilation,
>>>>>
>>>>>I totally agree.  I think there have to be very compelling reasons for any
>>>>>form of surgical intervention.  As you imply the word 
>>>>>'circumcision' is one
>>>>>that everyone understands or thinks they understand as removal of an
>>>>>inconsequential piece of skin.  Hardly worth worrying about.
>>>>>
>>>>>135 million girls/women alive today are estimated (by Amnesty) 
>>>>>to have been
>>>>>subjected to some form of genital mutilation (the majority in receipt of a
>>>>>full clitoris removal).  About 7,000 women in the UK are 
>>>>>considered at risk
>>>>>but no-one has any real stats for 'developed' countries.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > the same league as to consequences. Problem is, the societies that
>>>>> > practice it do see it as analogous to the circumcision of boys, and a
>>>>> > perfectly normal thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree that it is seen as normal.  I don't believe it is seen 
>>>>>as analogous
>>>>>to the circumcision of boys.  I really don't.  The mutilation of 
>>>>>women is, I
>>>>>believe, bound up in fear of women's sexuality.  It is, for 
>>>>>instance, normal
>>>>>for Sudanese husbands to cut open their wives labia prior to penetration
>>>>>(stitched sometime in babyhood or childhood) on their wedding 
>>>>>night (sorry,
>>>>>you have already mentioned this).
>>>>>
>>>>> > Some cultures
>>>>> > limit themselves to removing the hood of the clitoris, which is
>>>>> > closer to what happens in male circumcision.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is a tiny minority.  And I cannot see it as even coming close to male
>>>>>circumcision.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Why the press in Britain and the US refer to these things as
>>>>> > circumcision is beyond me. Maybe as you suggest, Joanna, it's
>>>>> > cultural relativism pushed to an extreme, though the British tabloid
>>>>> > press isn't usually that sensitive. Mutilation would be 
>>>>> more > accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect 'circumcision' is used because the idea then becomes more
>>>>>palatable.  It becomes easier to ignore the violence towards females that
>>>>>goes on every day as a matter of routine.  Ritualised rape of babies/young
>>>>>girls as a cure for AIDS or to reverse a run of bad luck are 
>>>>>other forms of
>>>>>violence that don't often get discussed in the press.  They are 
>>>>>commonplace
>>>>>in parts of Africa/Asia and therefore must also be happening in 
>>>>>my own/your
>>>>>countries too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > I'm not suggesting an answer: I'd probably rescue the girls and devil
>>>>> > take the consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>>135 million already mutilated.  That probably makes for about 20 million
>>>>>pending...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > The Australian anthropologist Kenneth Read describes in The High
>>>>> > Valley (one of the essential anthropology texts, and a great book by
>>>>> > any standards. Is Read read in Australia? A national treasure) a
>>>>> > signal moment of cultural change in a village in the mountains of
>>>>> > Papua. It had been the custom forever for girls to be married at
>>>>> > eight or nine to adult men. The practice had fallen very recently
>>>>> > into abeyance as a result of changes in the economy of the village
>>>>> > with the intrusion of foreign influence. Read witnessed what was
>>>>> > probably the last such marriage. The women were furious, and tried to
>>>>> > stop it, but the girl's father pushed it through. This is a famously
>>>>> > macho society. At the end of the wedding there was the usual male
>>>>> > procession (I may be mixing up the details--I've read the book
>>>>> > several times, but not for over a decade) from the girl's native
>>>>> > hamlet to her husband's. As it passed through a narrow gorge the
>>>>> > women attacked the men, throwing at them anything they could get
>>>>> > their hands on. No one had ever heard of such a thing 
>>>>> happening > before.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're an optimist aren't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Tina