Follow the bouncing weenie!

[Peatree]

I saw this happen live several years ago...anyone else catch the blooper?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdgl7xzKxLI

:eek:

[xshayla701]

LOL, ew

[SlankyLanky]

uncut cawk do not want.

[xshayla701]

uncut cawk do not want.

bahahahahaha

[Hasbinbad]

Chapter I: Introduction
My awareness of male genital mutilation (MGM), which is known as male circumcision, took many stages to develop. At the beginning, I did not have a definite attitude towards MGM. I did not agree or disagree to it. The issue did not have an impact on me for many years. I overheard my mother and father talking with neighbors on the negative effects of female genital mutilation (FGM), which is known as female circumcision. They always said that it was not healthy, like male circumcision. My parents considered male circumcision a snip that removes a useless and insensitive piece of skin. They also thought that it was a simple procedure done to males similar to cutting off the nails. When I went to medical school, male circumcision was part of my study of surgery. It was advised in all the text books I have studied then as a preventive procedure against cancer of the penis and cervix uteri. It was also a procedure done without anesthesia because it was claimed that the infant does not feel pain like an older child or an adult.
I took the theoretical information that I learned at home and university for granted, until one day I saw it practically done. I was shocked, and started doubting all the theories that supported MGM. At the time, I was a newly graduated medical doctor in 1972, and was appointed in El Demerdash University Hospital as a surgery trainee house officer. One day, the residence of surgery asked the junior house officers to stay in the outpatient clinic after their rounds. That day he was going to train us to perform male circumcision. The infant that was to be circumcised was a healthy baby of about one month old. The resident did not give him any anesthesia, so naturally, the child screamed loudly. I could see signs of shock; like pale face and profound sweat. From this first experience, I doubted all what I had learned about male circumcision. Although I did not know much before about the structure and function of the prepuce, the signs of shock that I saw on the child’s face convinced me deeply that male circumcision was nothing but savage butchery. There were no reason to perform an operation on a healthy child, especially that it involved a shock experience. Since then, I started comparing between male and female circumcision, to me there was no difference. I decided from that day never to perform MGM. FGM was essentially out of question because it was not mentioned in the medical texts. In my experience, as a junior doctor in the emergency unit, I admitted many male children with symptoms like severe bleeding and surgical shock after having been circumcised, and that added to my convictions. I started speaking with people I knew who had male children, and I succeeded in some rare times, to be counted on one hand, and I failed in most cases to convince them that this procedure should not be done. The intellectuals who did not believe in FGM, on one hand, were deeply convinced with male circumcision on the other hand.
When the anti-FGM movement started in Egypt in 1994, I was surprised that the same doctors and theologians who were against FGM and were telling people to refrain from the procedure believed that male circumcision was a necessity. Moreover, distinguished figures who were calling against FGM, were careful not to deal with male circumcision. They always retorted saying that that was not to the point of discussion. In spite of everything, after the silence that had been broken on the subject of FGM in 1994, the press issued articles on victims who had experienced complications made by circumcision in both sexes. Wherever I went to discuss FGM, I was asked many questions on male circumcision as well. Some male intellectuals even who were advocating the movement against FGM felt that male circumcision had to be dealt with too, although they did not express their opinions in detail. For example, we attended a seminar on FGM in the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, and one of the men who was a young doctor, came up and said that he could remember his own experience with circumcision when he was a child of six years old. He said that it was a shock, it included all that was said about FGM hazards. The doctor was surprised that people who were calling for human rights ignored this fact. On another occasion, I was designing a logo for the campaign against FGM, it was an Egyptian peasant woman, the heroin of "Nahdit Masr." She was hugging a girl instead of putting her hand on the head of the Sphinx. A male colleague saw it and said: "She ought to be hugging a little boy as well." Accordingly, I started to take an overt attitude against all violations of human bodies, irrespective of their gender and to support it by reading in medicine, Islamic studies "Fiqh," and social sciences.
I learned, through reading in legal English at AMIDEAST and in the Department of Sociology-Anthropology in the American University in Cairo, more about the common cultural background of FGM and MGM. I learned, as well, from the modern medical sciences, that the benefits of MGM were proved to be false. (This will be discussed in detail later). I tried to spread the information I had learned to my friends, who were mainly against FGM. A large number of them were from the medical profession. They did not pay any attention to what I had to say, or heard me and then expressed doubt. They did not even try to read about the issue. Worse than that, the men and women intellectuals who were leading advocacy against FGM on the basis of reason and the human right of bodily integrity, justified MGM using the same irrational justifications that were being used to justify FGM. Others whom I talked to were more flexible on the subject of FGM but were hesitant as to the movement against MGM. Very few accepted the new ideas and they were sorry because they did not know otherwise before. Fewer people were ready to spread these new ideas to others.
I) Presentation of the study
A) The importance of the study
MGM is more common than FGM, whether in Egypt or on the international level. The number of circumcised males is estimated as 13.3 millions yearly, whereas 2 million females are circumcised every year. Most of the circumcised persons of both sexes are children (Denniston, 1997; DeMeo, 1997). In the procedure of circumcision in both sexes, a sensitive healthy part of the body is amputated of a child who does not have a chance to say no, defend itself nor express consent. In both cases, it is the society that is imposing its control over the children’s sexual drives. Moreover, the study is significant because some medical doctors spread rumors saying that female circumcision by removing the hood of the clitoris partially or totally is similar to male circumcision. They claim that MGM is a useful procedure and not harmful to the male. Accordingly, they claim that the suggested procedure is not harmful to the female. Moreover, some doctors described types of similar procedures claiming that they are contributing to anti-FGM movement. (Karim, 1996). In spite of all this, the relation of MGM to common social traditions that define femininity and masculinity and determine the power balance between the two sexes in Egypt was not studied. Thus, this research is ground-breaking.
B) Research hypothesis
The patriarchal social system has two biases: one is based on gender and the other is based on age. In both cases, the weakest party of any social relation suffers from discrimination. As for gender, it is the women who suffer most; and as for age, it is the children. Therefore, women and children are gathered in one group, that is, they are the inferior and the weakest. Thus, women are inferior to men even if they are from the same age group, and children from both sexes are inferior to adults. (Janeway, 1980).
Even in MGM, men have the upper hand because the procedure is considered a symbolic separation of the male child from the female world and a passage to the world of men (Turner, 1967). Some researchers have noticed similarities between MGM and FGM (Kennedy, 1970; Lightfoot Klein, 1997). Men and women working in the field of human rights, reproductive health and social development have been interested in the subject of FGM. They usually introduce themselves and are considered by others as intellectuals. They include people from the medical profession who advocate female genital integrity. Using modern science, they spread their ideas on new concepts of femininity, women’s self images, women’s sexual drives, women’s reproductive rights and female social role; all of which are different from the traditional value system, which is based on beliefs that are unfounded according to the modern scientific evidences. The intellectuals, though, might take a modern attitude towards some modern issues, but are hesitant when it comes to other issues, influenced by their socialization into a traditional value system with deep rooted conventional ideas (Gramsci, 1971). When it comes to issues concerning the human body, intellectuals in general and medical doctors specifically, have a leading role in society because they are considered examples to others in setting the ideological terms of reference concerning the issues in question and also in their behavior. Accordingly, due to their involvement in the intellectual conflict, they become active leaders (Frankenberg, 1988). And yet, they could at times be the cause in fixing stagnant social concepts. The intellectuals may either be leaders of social change or conformists according to their awareness of and attitudes towards the political power game.
Feminism highlighted the link between knowledge and power. This was a great epistomilogical contribution, not to mention that knowledge in itself is power, but also the right to attain it is controlled by a network of decision makers that have the power to provide individuals and communities with information or deprive them from it. The individuals’ and communities’ share from information depends on their position in this power network (Lennon and Whitford, 1994: 1). Presumably, therefore, the number of people adopting the idea of MGM base their concepts on social bias that aims at maintaining the gender and age power heirarchy in present patriarchal society. Also, the analysis of knowledge, beliefs, and experiences that form the background discourse behind the procedures that maintain the patriarchal heirarchy might reveal unknown aspects in power politics that determine the social relationship between women and men.
C) Research questions
With my primary fieldwork observations and readings of relevant literature in mind, these questions are taken into consideration; why do intellectuals and especially the medical doctors object to FGM - on modern scientific and rational basis - yet, refuse to take the same attitude toward MGM? What is the background of MGM proponents and opponents? Would social awareness raising about the hazards of MGM affect the movement against FGM as some intellectuals claim? If women ignore revealing patriarchal bias against male children, would they be able to liberate themselves?
D) Research objective
The research aim is to go beyond the common arguments on health and religion to explore the various background biases, interests, and power politics behind the attitude of Egyptian intellectuals who work against FGM but tolerate MGM. Achievement of this objective is attempted by seeking answers to the fore-mentioned research questions.
II) Literature review
A) The cultural history of circumcision in pre-modern societies
In J. DeMeo’s article The Geography of Male and Female Genital Mutilations (http://www.noharmm.org/geography.htm) (1997) there was a study of several pre-modern societies that depend on subsistence economy. He found that communities that observe traditional circumcision, consider it very highly and can not imagine life without it. Whereas communities that do not have this tradition reject it strongly. DeMeo attempted to find historical and intercultural explanations for some communities’ insistence on circumcision in spite of its being painful and harmful. DeMeo described the various types of male sexual mutilation. The simplest type is carried out in some areas in Asia, where they incise the prepuce without separating it totally from the body. Circumcision is more cruel than that because the prepuce is completely amputated. This is a tradition which is common in Africa, some countries in Asia, and islands in the Pacific Ocean. The next most severe type is the skinning of the penis. Its origin goes back to Arab Peninsula and was practiced till recent times. It was a procedure done to a man immediately before marriage. There is also a type of MGM that involves cutting the urethra all the length of the penis. This was a custom among Australian aborigines. The mutilation of male genitalia in puberty or young adulthood is done to test their endurance. On walls of Ancient Egyptian monument, there are pictures of male circumcision in 2300 B.C. But DeMeo said that he does not believe that the Ancient Egyptians invented this procedure but got it through the Bedouin invasions in 3100 B.C. These tribes were heirarchical patriarchal communities who practiced male kings idolatry, ranked warriors and priests high and built elaborate temples and tombs. According to DeMeo, present day communities that practice circumcision have the same patriarchal features and tendencies. The lack of circumcision in some male dominated communities does not make it any better, for they control children by some other rough practices.
DeMeo expressed his belief that the disturbance in the relationship between mother and child and child abuse all contribute to the continuation of the aggressive patriarchal society. He finds historical evidence that changing the economic structure alone, without challenging the tradition of male and female sexual mutilations, does not bring about social change towards more humane conditions for all community members. DeMeo elaborated that since there is a relation between MGM and FGM, as seen in the geographic distribution of this tradition, their cultural background, and their psychological and social motives, where males are predominant to females and adults to children, therefore, the subject of MGM and FGM must be dealt with as one integral issue.
Some studies dealt with circumcision as a procedure practiced in ancient times. They tried to find a relationship between this tradition and the prevalent social system in many ancient societies. One of the most important works of research on circumcision is Symbolic Wounds: Puberty Rites and the Envious Male by B. Bettelheim (1954). Bettelheim analyzed that male circumcision is based on male jealousy of female fertility that appears when women experience menstruation; and that male circumcision is a symbolic identification with this female attribute. Bettelheim had another theory that states that circumcision of males is considered a symbol of superiority of the father over other males that threaten his relationship to the mother, thus making him feel less anxious. Circumcision originally came from different areas of the world among various tribes and nations, although, it served the same social role. He also stated that such relationships between adults and children are still prevalent in present societies, where adults fulfill their instincts and prevent children from enjoying theirs by setting strict behavioral rules that are not followed by the adults themselves.
Bettelheim described the symbolic sexual role of male circumcision that is held in patriarchal societies where erection is considered a significant sign of male adulthood. Exposure of the head of the penis by circumcision gives it a perpetual appearance of erection. Accordingly, the procedure transfers the child who is not yet sexually mature, making him a symbolically mature male, separating him from the female world. For this transformation to take place, the rituals are significant because they imply a symbolic death of the child and resurrection of a new male figure. This new birth comes from the father not the mother. That is the circumcision of male children plays a dual symbolic role reinforcing male authority: the first of which is by giving the child a mature male appearance, and the second by giving the male the feminine privilege of shedding genital blood. This symbolic is reinforced in Jewish communities where the procedure takes place at a very early age - when the infant is only seven days old - instead of the age of puberty. At that age, the child is helpless and is completely under the control of his parents, that is also reinforced by religious force. Bettelheim concluded that whether circumcision is invented by males or females, and whether it fulfills their needs, it can not act as a symbol of maturity except in a society which socializes its individuals to expect severe punishment for transgression of the appropriate sexual behavior. This is the case in societies where patriarchal figures are dominant over and threatening to the young.
Any reason for circumcision nowadays has hidden motives behind it, which are different from its ancient motives, since these motives are hidden behind heavy curtains of mythical, religious and mundane ritualistic justifications.
More recent studies associated circumcision with the patriarchal society. For example, A. Montagu stated in his article Mutilated Humanity (1991) that circumcision in both sexes is a tradition that appeared with the rise of patriarchy. He explained that circumcision continues in our modern time because of the persistence of old patriarchal values, in spite of the different motives behind it in antiquity and present day societies. Montagu stated that the human being is the only creature that mutilates the bodies of its individuals in the name of reason, religion, customs and traditions, morality and law. Any reason for circumcision nowadays has hidden motives behind it, which are different from its ancient motives, since these motives are hidden behind heavy curtains of mythical, religious and mundane ritualistic justifications. Over time, old justifications give way to new ones based on new biases. That is why it is difficult to find a a precise explanation of the origin of circumcision. The researcher who wishes to find the origin of why circumcision takes place, must get rid of all kinds of personal biases. By defeating the various justifications of circumcision, we will be confronted with the reality of social organization. Reality is not an abstract concept. It is socially conditioned. Montagu observed that circumcision did not take place in pre-patriarchal societies that were based on sexual equality. For example, in communities of fruit gatherers. Therefore, it can be concluded that circumcision is a patriarchal invention. Montagu continued, saying that circumcision could have various cultural significances. Among Australian aborigines, it is a symbolic identification of the male to the female because it causes a flow of blood from the male genital organ. In African tribes, circumcision could be explained by its being a symbol of sexual duality of creation. According to this belief, a human individual is born with both feminine and masculine attributes since the femininity is inherent in the male prepuce whereas masculinity exists in the clitoris. Accordingly, circumcision is considered a purification of the male from the female characteristics. The female spirit is considered something that prevents the male from the ability of rational thinking, and so, a non-circumcised male is considered socially inept. By circumcision, the male loses his individuality and becomes a social being. Moreover, circumcision is considered a severing of the unity of the human being when the feminine part of the body is cut off; therefore, the male searches for a reunion that can only take place through marriage. Therefore, it is an essential motive for marriage. Also, the female who has been robbed of the male characteristics by circumcision accepts it when she searches for a husband. Accordingly, this makes the procedure of circumcision a procedure that turns the individual into a social being, seeking continuation through marriage and child birth. Finally, Montagu said that no matter what the cultural origin of circumcision, humans inflicted it on children as a tradition with the same motive: the predominance of males and their superior social status over females and children. Therefore, circumcision sets the rule that states that it is naturally the powerful who has the upper hand, and makes it an established part of social reality.
Another article that implied the same idea is A Biocultural Analysis of Circumcision by R. Immerman and W. Mackey (1998). [see similar article: A Proposed Relationship Between Circumcision and Neural Reorganization (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/immerman1/), R. Immerman and W. Mackey, Journal of Genetic Psychology, Volume 159, Number 3, Pages 367-378, September 1, 1998] They tried to link the biological impact of circumcision on the brain to the reasons of its adoption by several cultures. They observed that male genital integrity provides both sexual partners with great sexual satisfaction. Therefore, circumcision might provide the community with an interest that surpasses the deprivation of individual men and women from such sexual satisfaction. The two authors stated that circumcision diminishes the ability of the brain center of sexual pleasure to respond to stimuli. Moreover, it eliminates the secretion of smegma, which is a male genital lubricant with a gentle odor that is attractive to females. They believed that the changes that are the result of male circumcision decrease their attractiveness to females and make males of the tribe less irritable and more tolerant to one another. Therefore, tribal leaders find it easier to control circumcised males and direct them.
Other scholars said that circumcision originated in matriarchal societies. One of these studies is From Genetic Cosmology to Genital Cosmetics: Origin Theory of the Righting Rite of Male Circumcision by D. Voskuil (1994). Voskuil said that in ancient pre-patriarchal communities, people found a relationship between the universe and the female body because of its ability to reproduce. It produces blood and milk and its vital functions are consistent with the lunar cycle; therefore, the female body became a sacred figure. Thus, males attempted to "correct" their bodies, making it similar to that of the female; that is how male circumcision began since it caused a flow of blood from their bodies even though this was a symbolic similarity to the female. Voskuil explained that this could be the motive behind the opinion saying that circumcision is an esthetic operation.
Voskuil added that with the rise of patriarchal society, circumcision lost its significance as a symbolic matriarchal fertility ritual, but continued to be practiced although the motive differed in the sense that it no longer aimed to make the male similar to the female, it rather meant to make him different from women. In addition, it became a symbol of submission to the dominant patriarch and separation from the female community instead of its old significance as a symbol of identification with the sacred female deity. As time passed, it became widely spread in patriarchal societies. In matriarchal societies, though, circumcision was not imposed except on the male who had intercourse with the priestess/queen. Like smoking that was practiced by priests, then by the elite and finally by the common people, circumcision turned from a specific religious ritual for elite clergy to a general mundane tradition for the common public.
Victor Turner studied the ritual of circumcision in the "Ndembu" tribe in Zambia, that is composed of several villages. In each village, lives a group of inhabitants that have a kinship relation from the maternal side. Turner analyzed this ritual in his book On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experience (1985). He explained that the motive behind circumcision is a modification and reorganization of the male child’s relationship with his parents. In this tribe, children are linked to one village by their mothers, whereas, their relationship with others is made broader by the father who acquaints them with other groups from several villages in which their cousins live. Naturally, male children are attached to their mothers before being circumcised, helping them in their daily chores, but after circumcision, they become more attached to their fathers, brothers and other male members of the tribe having similar activities. Because of the attachment to the mother, male children are considered polluted and immature. And accordingly, they do not deserve to be guided by their fathers and other male figures. In these tribes, when leaders find that children are increasing and that there is a lack of laborers, consequently disturbing the tribes’ male/female power balance, there are immediate preparations for male circumcision:. It separates the male child from his mother before they develop a stronger mother/son attachment that is difficult to separate. Moreover, the father/son relationship becomes stronger after circumcision, as the child before circumcision was considered polluted and immature and not worthy of taking instructions from the father because he is still under the mother’s control. An evidence that Ndembu male circumcision separates the child from the mother, is that they believe that the male prepuce is analogous to the female labia majora. Circumcision is a ritual that takes place to which all relatives - not only males but female cousins too from the villages close by - are invited. Therefore, the child’s relationship with the world becomes broader because it is not only attached to the mother but becomes involved in the world of the fathers kinship network which involves interaction with the males in the surrounding villages.
Various researchers studied the concepts and beliefs behind the social rituals. Since circumcision is a purification ritual, studies of purity and pollution in various cultures are of particular significance. One of these studies is M. Douglas’ article Symbolic Pollution (1966). Although this study did not deal directly with circumcision, it can be applied to it. It can explain why people insist on this tradition, especially since the Egyptian colloquial word for circumcision "tahara" means purification. Douglas said that the ancient religious rituals are characterized by their material link to medicine and their hygienic relevance, even if hygiene is not their primary interest. I consider Douglas’ study relevant to my topic because we still define dirt and cleanliness in the same old way. Dirt means to us the presence of a thing or the performance of a behavior out of their appropriate location or context. The things or behaviors might not necessarily be considered filthy in themselves. For example, a drink is considered dirt when it drops on a dress, and people feel disgusted from a person who laughs in a funeral, even though drinks and laughter are not dirty in principle. Douglas suggested that the more deep rooted the beliefs about the pollutedness of something are, the more difficult it is to change. Thus, over time, people develop a stronger bias against what they consider polluted. When new ideas threaten to bring about a change in such bias, they tend to ignore or object to it so that these new concepts do not disturb their universe. Also, change might upset the distribution of power roles and endanger the established familiar system. In less sophisticated societies, positions of power and danger are defined by the interaction of order and chaos. Not to mention that the concept of pollution as a danger to the social system would be impossible except in a society with clearly defined borders. Thus, an individual who transgresses his/her predefined borders is considered polluted. Beliefs concerning pollution reinforce the well established social moral system, because transgression of the pollution taboo is severely punished. These beliefs define the rules of what is considered socially as the correct individuals’ behavior. If an individual is polluted and yet harmless to others, he/she still is not socially accepted and is punished. Such rituals as bathing, incense … etc. purify the individual from pollution.
Since circumcision is considered a sacred ritual in various religions, Sami Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh’s works have a special significance because he discusses it in terms of religious arguments. One of his most important works is To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah: Legitimization of Male and Female Circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/) (1994); and his book: Male and Female Circumcision among Jews, Christians and Muslims: Religious Debate (khitaan al-zukuur wal-inaath ‘and yahud, wal-masihiyyin wal-muslimin: al gadal al din) (Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, 2000). In this book, the author reviewed the various opinions of theologians in the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam starting from early days of Judaism till the present decade. The author said that the three religions always interacted and impacted each other. The discourse of circumcision progressed from one Holy Book to the other. In the Old Testament, it was obligatory; in Christianity, it was not considered a sacred procedure; and in Islam, it was not mentioned at all in Quran because Islam stressed the concept of divine perfection of creation. Abu-Sahlieh elaborately reviewed the discourse on circumcision in the three sacred books, Prophetic tradition, and the writings of men of wisdom, theologians, and men of Fiqh, all of whom depended on what is stated in Ch. 17 of the Book of Genesis in which Jehovah ordered Abraham to be circumcised and to do the same procedure on his sons. Jehovah promised them the sacred land because they are God’s chosen people. Moreover, they are identified by circumcision. The researcher considered this procedure as a political convention which is carried out by means of surgery, and described it as "Politicization of a Surgical Operation." Sanctification of male circumcision transfers Jehovah from a divine creator to a simple shepherd who needs a physical sign to identify his people out of all the other human beings; like a shepherd identifying his herd. Other scholars explained that the circumcision of the male child on the 8th day is to purify him from birth pollution. Contact between the child and his mother’s body and after-birth are both considered polluting. In fact, there are laws in Judaism that admit the hazards of infant male circumcision. Therefore, some rabbis exempt some Jews from this procedure, on condition that the child has 2 brothers or a maternal male cousin who died during circumcision. Abu-Sahlieh explained that the Old Testament was gathered together and documented in the 9th century B.C., that is approximately after 4 centuries of Moses’ death and 10 centuries of Abraham’s death. Therefore, it included various other traditions from the different cultures over this period,. That is why some scholars of Judaism doubt the historical origin of the events that took place in the Old Testament. Abu-Sahlieh said that circumcision goes back further than the Old Testament because historical documents were found that proved that circumcision was a procedure carried out in Ancient Syria in the 28th century B.C. and in Ancient Egypt in the 23rd century B.C. In the latter, it was not carried out on all Egyptians but only on the priests. This is proved by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, who forbid this procedure on everyone in the 2nd century A.D,, but he exempted the Egyptian priests.
The Jews used circumcision politically over the years. It was a procedure that was carried out on a relative basis and not done on everyone. Historians state that this procedure was not obligatory to Jews except after their return from exile in the 6th century B.C. A group of Jews made an agreement with surrounding nations in the 2nd century B.C. They stopped observing circumcision, and hid the signs of the procedure by pulling down the skin of the penis to cover its head. They could do so because in ancient times circumcision did not include a complete amputation of the prepuce, as is the case now. It was the outer layer that was cut only. The anti-circumcision trend appeared again in the 2nd century A.D. The rabbis, though, created a new way of circumcision by amputating the two layers of the prepuce as a counter reaction to the mentioned trend. Moreover, in 1842, a group of German Jews questioned the obligatory imposition of circumcision; but they retreated under pressure of conservative Jewish clergy. In 1869, Jews who had emigrated to the United States started to discuss the exemption from circumcision of men who converted to Judaism as adults. The exemption was authorized in 1892 because it was said that in the Old Testament, when Abraham was ordered to undergo this procedure, it was not an obligation to all Jews throughout history, and also because of the fact that Jews are identified by their maternal ancestors, regardless of whether they are circumcised or not. Thus, a circumcised Jew cannot be considered a Jew if his mother is from another religion. These modernists also viewed that circumcision did not comply with other Old Testament instructions that forbid harming the body. Modern Jewish feminists noticed the patriarchal political nature of male circumcision. Abu-Sahlieh quotes some of them. One of them is Miriam Pollack (http://www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm), who refutes that circumcision has a religious significance. She says that it has a political background in general and is specially significant to gender.
Circumcision is based on men’s domination of women. By this procedure, the child is separated from his mother who does not have any authority on him any longer. This harms the child, for at this stage he needs his mother most and she cannot defend him, in spite of the fact that they are attached to one another at this early age. The knife that is pointed to the child is in fact pointed to the heart and soul of the mother. Circumcision is actually an injury to the mother; it is humiliating to her since it implies that ‘Your authority over males is limited; moreover, this child belongs to the male community.’ In this manner, the relationship between man and woman is disturbed and similarly the relationship between mother and child. The child’s separation from the mother is a preparation for his separation from her when he is recruited by the army. (Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, 2000)
In spite of these political arguments, the rabbis stress the importance of circumcision considering the non-circumcised a polluted person who should live in isolation. Moreover, he is forbidden the entrance to Eden. Some Jews believe that God will forgive many of their sins because they have been circumcised. Some Jews also admit that the procedure is a means of a cruel way of controlling the child’s sexual drives. The Jewish doctor Moses Maimonides (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/), who lived in the 13th century, was one of them. He said that circumcision diminishes male sexuality but does not affect reproduction. He also said that a female desires to have continuous sexual intercourse with non-circumcised male, and he considers this immoral. He finds it wiser and better to circumcise a male child when he is 8 days old and is helpless. Moreover, his parents are not yet too emotionally attached to him to refrain from circumcising him. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh believed that people of the West do not object to MGM as much as FGM because of the fact that the Jews have power over the mass media and financial resources that are considered the main tools of social action. Thus, people in the West avoid the accusation of being anti-Semitic that may create problems for them.
Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh discussed circumcision in Christianity. Christians who observe circumcision as a tradition justify it by that it was practiced on Christ himself. This anecdote did not appear except in Luke’s Gospel. Some interpreters said that even if Christ had been circumcised when he was a child, it was because he was born a Jew. But when he became a Prophet, he cancelled some of the pre-established rules of the Old Testament, one of these laws was an eye for an eye. He also defined pollution in different terms; a pollutant is what comes out of the mouth not what enters it. Jews who had converted to Christianity tried to impose circumcision on newly converted Christians from polytheistic religions. Paul, the apostle, argued against them by considering circumcision as not having a religious significance. Other priests interpreted circumcision symbolically. They said that circumcision in Christianity (http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/christian.html) means refraining from sexual sins and that it did not imply the amputation of the prepuce. Jews who converted to Christianity, in Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh’s opinion, failed to establish circumcision in Christian thought because they were not a power in the Roman Empire. But Jews who converted to Islam, succeeded in establishing Jewish principles in Islamic thought "isra’iliyyat" because they enjoyed cultural and economic powers in the Arab Peninsula and the surrounding countries in early Islamic period.
Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh proceeded to review the religious controversy concerning circumcision in Islam. He began with the fact that the Qur’an does not mention anything on the subject, though, some men of Fiqh interpreted some verses with controversial connotations "Ayat Mutashabihat" that could be relevant to circumcision. These verses are the ones that order Muslims to follow Ibrahim’s traditions which originated when Allah put him to the test by ordering him to follow His instructions. Certainly, Allah’s imprint on the human body is the best. The author explained in detail the various points of view of men of Fiqh in their interpretation of these verses. Some said that the holy verses implied circumcision; whereas, others considered the contrary. Therefore, it is clear that there is a contradiction between their interpretation and some of the "Sunna." Some theologians said that it is mentioned in the "Sunna" that Adam was the first to have been circumcised and not Ibrahim. Others believe all Prophets were born naturally circumcised, which is another contradiction to what is implied in the verses concerning this matter. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh believed that Ka’ab il Ahbaar – who was a Jew converted to Islam – has a great deal of influence on these interpretations because many of the Islamic concepts were shaped by his Jewish thought "Isra’iliyyat." This theological conflict extends to the 19th and 20th century thinkers such as El Shawkani, Muhamed Abdu, Mahmoud Shaltut, Wahba El Zoheily and Selim El ‘Awwa. Most of these thinkers did not believe in female circumcision, though they insisted on male circumcision because of its assumed hygienic benefits, although it contradicts the Qur’anic verses that mention the perfection of Allah’s creation. Moreover, the Prophet forbid any modification to the human figure, even if this is made by just tattoo or piercing.
Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh explained that those who believe in male circumcision base their ideas on "Sunna" which is considered the secondary source of Islamic law. However, many theologians critically revised the prophetic traditions "Ahadeeth Nabaweyya." According to Abu Haniifa, only 17 of these Prophetic traditions were accepted as authenticated. Al Imam Malik could not approve more than 300 of these Prophetic traditions. Moreover, stories concerning the Prophet Mohammad’s -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- circumcision were varied; some considered that he was born already circumcised. Some said that Gabril did this procedure to him, others said that it was his grandfather who circumcised him. Believers in circumcision depend on a Prophetic tradition relayed by Shi‘ites that states that the Prophet -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- circumcised his grand children, El Hassan and El Hussein, on the 7th day of their birth. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh said that this was neither mentioned in the six books of Sunna nor in Ibn Hanbal’s religious reference. One of the most recent controversies between men of Fiqh appeared when El Sheikh Gad il Haq Ali Gad il Haq said that this story is not an authenticated Prophetic tradition, whereas, El Sheikh Tantawi used it as a reference to stress the importance of male circumcision in contrast to female circumcision, which he did not believe was an Islamic requirement.
Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh went further to review the biographies of the Companions of the Prophet Mohammed and stories about them, some of which suggested that circumcision was a pre-Islamic Arab custom. Other stories suggested that the Arabs were not keen on it nor was the Prophet -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- For example, Osman Ibn Abi il ‘Aas refused to attend a celebration for circumcision because of the fact that neither the Prophet -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- nor his companions did attend or hold such celebrations. Abu El Hassan il Basary said that the Prophet -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- did not care to check whether newly converted Muslim males were circumcised or not, no matter what their color or ethnicity was. The matter was of no importance to him. Whereas, Ibn il Munzir said: "There is no valid reference -neither through stories nor Sunna (Prophetic tradition)- to circumcision" "La yougad fil khitan Khabaron Yourga‘ Ilaeh wala Sunna Tuttaba.‘" However, in the early Islamic period, the policy was that non-Muslim citizens were obliged to pay a certain sum of money as a tax (gizya) to the Muslim government (beit il maal). There is a story referring to Omar Ibn Abd Il Aziz’s disagreement with the ruler of Kharasan, who suggested that those who wished to be converted to Islam should be circumcised, so that their conversion is made more arduous in order to retain the taxing system (gizya) of Islam. Justifying his principle, Omar Ibn Abd Il Aziz said that Allah sent the Prophet Mohamed -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- to guide people on the right path but not to circumcise them.
Moreover, Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh reviewed some modern literature written by contemporaries who object to circumcision. One of these books is Joseph Lewis’ book In the Name of Humanity translated by Issam el Din Hefny Nassef and published in 1971 with the title of Circumcision is a Harmful Jewish Fallacy with a long introduction by the author (Nassef, 1971). Moreover, Mohamed Afifi wrote an article about this book, which will be dealt with in detail below. The title of this article is The manual for the bewildered on circumcision (murshid il hayraan fi ‘amaliyit il khitaan).
B) Circumcision in modern societies
Circumcision today is a social behavior which is valued as an inherited cultural tradition. That is why studies that deal with social behavior are important to review. One of them is T. Parsons’ and E. Shils’ study Values and Social System (1951). Parsons and Shils analyzed the individuals’ behavior in societies. They said that societies control individual’s behavior through cultural systems in order to preserve the equilibrium in the social system. The attitude of individuals determine their behavior towards any given subject. Therefore, people’s behavior is a result of the components of their personalities, and their reaction to social system that modifies their social behavior; moreover, it is the culture with its symbols that shapes the values and beliefs within this social system. Cultural systems are composed of highly representative symbols that are significant to the social system. It is only those who have creative potentials, and are the leaders of these cultural systems who create cultural values that are relayed to and inherited by the subsequent generations. When these cultural symbols become well established, they become an active power that direct individuals’ and groups’ choices to fit the values and social norms they represent. It is according to these values that the individual shapes his/her reaction to the prevailing social norms. Therefore, it can be observed that the common culture is an important factor in the individual’s reaction to others in creating acceptable social norms. This need of social acceptance is a basis for facilitating social norms without which the social stability will be threatened.
Societies, though, are not culturally homogeneous; moreover, not all established cultural systems suit changing social needs. Therefore, individuals re-evaluate their inherited cultural values, and select what appeals to their practical everyday needs. People hold on to the inherited values in order not to disturb their pre-established social system, but they fail when the value interferes with the new life requirements. Therefore, they are confronted with two alternatives: either they live following the inherited values or they adapt the values to their modern modes of life. Societies in general and multi-cultural societies specifically, tend to submit to social mobility that might be considered foreign and contradictory to the pre-established norms, so as a compromise, they make allowance for the social change to a certain extent but not to the degree that disturbs the prevailing system. With these contradictory concepts in mind, social change might happen. In my opinion, Parsons and Shils’ research interprets the persistence of circumcision in the modern society because of people’s tendency towards conformity and highlights the importance of social change.
Traditional tribal leaders, priests and magicians used to carry out the ritual of circumcision in old cultures, whereas the medical professionals took it up in the modern era. Moreover, the medical institution has certain characteristics that make it fit to get involved in this procedure. Foucault explained in his book The Birth of the Clinic: An Archeology of Medical Perception (1975) the historical development of modern medical knowledge that led to control over the body. Modern empirical medicine began with the beginning of the 19th century, in which the subject/object relationship changed from what it was like in the 17th and 18th centuries, as a result of the change in the physician’s perception of his object: the patient. Diagnosis before the 19th century was reduced to the consideration of the objective signs disregarding the patient and his subjectivity. This reductionist view assumed that the doctor should deal with the disease and ignore the patient’s subjectivity. Therefore, diagnosis in the 17th century depended on the doctor’s theoretical interpretation of objective signs, disregarding the individuality of the patient. In those days, the doctors disregarded nature. Therefore, they did not take the natural course of the disease in every individual into consideration, except when their theoretical judgement failed. In the 19th century, though, observation of the symptoms became of crucial importance. Therefore, the doctors’ observing gaze gave him a distinguished hegemonic status. Accordingly, he could make judgements and claim the right to be absolutely respected and obeyed. No deviation from the natural case escaped his knowledgeable gaze, neither on an organ nor on the individual as a whole. The doctor’s gaze gave him power and hegemony because he was supported by the medical institution that justified his vision. Thus, medicine claimed part of the traditional patriarchal power by virtue of such medical gaze.
Wallerstein described in his book Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy (1980) how MGM and FGM were introduced into modern medical sciences in England in the second half of the 19th century, in the reign of Queen Victoria, then, it spread to other medical institutions in the colonies and other English-speaking countries. In his article From Ritual to Science: The Medical Transformation of Circumcision in America (http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/), David Gollaher (1994) described how MGM spread in the United States after a decade from its introduction to the country, and the development of the arguments that supported MGM. He also said that the procedure spread so broadly in the States to the extent that surgeons and parents did not consider it as a surgery. Circumcision did not begin to be known in the States except in 1870. It was introduced at a time when the modern theories of various diseases had not yet been developed as they are today. The most important of which is the fact that diseases are caused by microbes and cured by antibiotics. Before that, the physicians suggested that a disease results from nervous reflexes. This theory explained that the stimulation of the sexual organs is reflected on higher levels of the nervous system and that was a cause of various diseases, such as paralysis, epilepsy, and insanity. Based on this theory, amputation of various parts of the body became common to cure mental disorders, examples of such surgical procedures was the removal of the ovaries, clitoris and prepuce. Practical experience though proved that such procedures did not cure diseases nor did it prevent masturbation in children that used to be considered one of the causes of harmful nervous reflexes that may destroy brain centers. Therefore, the value of circumcision changed from a cure to a prevention, and remained to be considered as a beneficial "preventive" surgery. As pathological theories changed from the previous theory that stressed the importance of the nervous reflexes to the significance of bacteriology, the amputation of female genitals ceased but MGM remained to be common. It was only medical doctors who could fight diseases both surgically and medically, that is why "preventive" surgeries spread to include circumcision because they could rid the body of any potential septic focus; such as the adenoid, tonsils, gall bladder of typhoid carriers, and the prepuce that was considered a place for accumulation of dirt. However, the prepuce secretes a material which is called in Latin "smegma," which means "detergent." Gollaher said that most of the opinions on the subject of circumcision were mentioned in a book by Remondino in 1881 on the history of circumcision, in which he mixed folklore, his subjective views and incorrect information. For example, Remondino said that the prepuce is nothing more than a developmental rudiment. It has no function in modern men’s bodies. Moreover, he described the prepuce as an extra structure with extremely malignant effects. According to him, such malignant effects are invisibly done, like the acts of evil spirits and djin of Arabian tales, who can remotely harm their prey. Similarly, the prepuce makes a male prey to diseases and other problems all his life long. It makes him good for nothing; neither for work nor marriage. It turns him into a miserable person by making him vulnerable to continuous scolding and punishment. As a child, it causes him to have nocturnal enuresis and indulge in masturbation that weakens his body, mind and moralities. He may even end up in jail or a lunatic asylum. Thus, a male has to get rid of this evil body part to ensure leading a good life. Some Jewish medical doctors expressed theories on the prevention of cancer and sexually transmitted diseases by circumcision. They explained why Jews were more healthy than other people. One of the Jewish doctors said that "Judaism as a religion served science" (Gollaher 1994: 16). With the end of the 19th century, circumcision in the United States ceased to be a ritual and became considered a medical procedure. Some of the factors that lead to the spread of circumcision was the fact that anesthesia, disinfectants and medical care in hospitals were becoming more common in the United States. Childbirth was no longer a family event that took place at home. Obstetricians were technical practitioners rather than scholars. They learned the techniques through observation of their seniors and repeated them without critical thinking. Thus, they believed in routine surgical procedures. Doctors who were convinced about circumcision increased, which is why the procedure became more widely spread and accepted by people. It was found that the most important factor that increases the prevalence of any surgery anywhere was the increase in the number of the medical professionals in the area who were ready to do it. This can be applied to procedures such as Cesarean section and circumcision. Moreover, people tend to believe that the prevalent medical procedures are the best medical care that money can buy. But Gollaher believed that mere technology without scientific basis could be more harmful than beneficial. As a principle, science serves knowledge, whereas mere technology without solid scientific basis serves control over the human body.
By the early time of introduction of MGM to the USA, male adults did not find a reason to ask for circumcision for themselves. Thus, most of those who had this procedure done to them were children of higher and middle class families with diseases that were thought to be a result of retention of the prepuce according to the 19th century theories as stated above. Gradually, doctors convinced people with the principle of male circumcision especially at an early age when they believed that the child could not feel the pain sharply. They thought that circumcision pain was not more than that of the prick of a needle. They preferred to do circumcision at an early age to prevent diseases that could show up as a result of the presence of the prepuce and before the child grows up acquiring bad habits.
Gollaher mentioned that in spite of the doctors’ continuous attempts to convince people of the surgical safety of circumcision, medical research started to discover hazards of MGM as early as 1909, when an American medical journal published an article about circumcision complications, such as infections, tissue edema, excessive bleeding, hematoma, excision of the head of the penis and mutilation. Thus, the ideas of surgical practitioners contradicted the findings of medical researchers. Practitioners assumed that their empirical experience proves that the prepuce is harmful and that circumcision has curative and preventive significance, while these assumptions could not stand the test of experimental medical research, and hence, proved to be invalid. Medical practitioners disseminated their disdain to the prepuce to the public. Thus, its retention turned to be a sign of ignorance, negligence and poverty. These ideas played a role in increasing the demand for male circumcision.
In her article The Ritual of Circumcision (http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm), Karen Erickson Paige (1978) reviewed the development of rationales that are used by the modern American medical institution to justify MGM. These justifications emerged only after the widespread use of medicalized male circumcision in the USA. According to Paige, Western people used to be astonished when they heard about the types of body mutilations that are practiced by other non-Western people or tribes. On the other hand, they used to consider their own Western rituals that include body mutilation, including male circumcision, as medically justified procedures. Although MGM is practiced in some western industrialized, as well as some non-Western traditional societies, it developed differently in both types of societies. MGM started in the West with the masturbation mania that prevailed in the West in the period of transformation from agricultural to industrial economy between 1700-1914. Masturbation used to be considered a sin since as early as the Biblical era. However, it did not start to be considered as a medical problem before the time of modern industrial transformation. This medical theorization appealed to middle class parents because it provided them with an explanation of what they considered bad children’s behaviors, such as rudeness, rebellion, nervousness and interest in the opposite sex. Thus, establishing masturbation as a danger to be feared and controlled by various means served work, family, and parental institutions. British and American doctors suggested various treatments for this "problem," which included types of food and drinks to suppress sexual drives, different forms of chastity belts to prevent children from touching their genitalia, recommendation of intimidation and punishment of accused children, plaster splints or leather and rubber sheaths to entrap the penis, cauterization of genitalia, and in extreme cases doctors castrated the "sick" masturbators. In terms of these circumstances, circumcision was considered a more merciful alternative to some of these types of "treatment." Doctors promoted that circumcision ensures better health for the boy, improves his work capabilities, ensures more longevity, protects the boy from tantrums and diseases, and consequently saves money and time that would have been spent on medical consultation and therapy. In 1890 some American surgeons established the Orificial Surgery Society. Its main task was promotion of genital surgeries for males and females. Such surgeries gave parents a tool to control their children’s sexuality, and gave doctors a chance to emphasize their authority over children and women’s bodies. After masturbation mania in the West had faded, by 1925 writings that recommended horrible means to prevent masturbation decreased. However, male circumcision persisted with the emergence of a theory in 1932 about its preventive significance against cancer. This theory depended on research that was carried out by a medical doctor who concluded that cancer of genitalia is less prevalent among Jews and Muslims because they perform male circumcision. This theory helped to spread infant male circumcision in order to protect adult men from cancer, i.e. the strong controls the body of the weak whom he believes to be polluted. It was proved that this research had flawed methodology, and hence, its results were invalid. In this research, religion was the only variable that was taken into consideration. Other variables such as socio-economic standards and health habits of the sample’s population were neglected. Even the relative representation of Jews in the community, i.e. their percentage, was not taken into account. Another justification for circumcision was beautification. Paige quoted a doctor who said, "the circumcised penis appears as if it were erected even if it is not so. Thus it is a proof of manhood." However, social biases changed, as did the justifications for circumcision throughout the decades. For example, in the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, masturbation and sex in general were not encouraged; and doctors at that time considered circumcision as a tool to control sexual drives. Yet, on the contrary, in the late 20th century, when sex and masturbation were considered good and normal, doctors said that circumcision was done to increase the sexual sensitivity of both males and females. When a procedure is justified by contradictory reasons, that means that it represents mythic ritualistic thought, which is irrational and non-scientific.
Paige mentioned that some psychoanalysts suggested that circumcision represents the child’s willingness to submit to his father’s authority by giving up a part of his penis, or represents the father’s efforts to convey his supreme authority over the child by the procedure. She studied 23 local communities that practiced circumcision, and found that there were many common factors among them. The most important of which is that they came from pastoral or rural origins, also, that they have interest groups composed of males who were considered kin or brothers. Paige considered that it was the males who have the ultimate authority over females, to which they were related or bound to in marriage. In such cultures, the male was not circumcised for his own good but for the sake of the leaders of the family or the tribe. These leaders used to force the father to circumcise his son without hesitating. He should not object to the principle. The father’s submission to the leaders of the tribe was considered a sign of loyalty to the patriarchal society. The ritual that expressed this loyalty was done by amputating part of the penis and not the ear for example, because it was the penis that was responsible for reproduction. Hence its relevance to the group’s interests, because the departure of a senior male with his sons would weaken the power of the group that in turn would create a political and economic threat to the tribe. Paige interpreted the Genesis story in sociological terms saying that it represents conflicts in the tribe that increased in number and needed more males to defend it. That is why Jews identified circumcision in the Old Testament as a political agreement between God and Abraham, without giving it any medical or health explanation, as is the case with the Jewish doctors and those who were convinced by their opinions today.
One of the reasons of the increasing doctors’ acceptance to infant male circumcision is the belief that infants don’t feel pain, and that is why no anesthesia is given. This belief encouraged more research to be done on pain in the newly born children. One of these studies is a research by David Chamberlain Babies Don’t Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in Medicine (1991). [see also: Babies Remember Pain (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/chamberlain/), David Chamberlain, Pre- and Peri-Natal Psychology, Volume 3, Number 4: Pages 297-310, Summer 1989.] In it, Chamberlain explained the relation between doctors and children saying that the doctors considered that children are not mature enough to feel pain. In the first half of the 20th century, doctors considered the child’s reaction to pain as a mere reflex because they believed that the cerebral cortex was not developed enough at birth to perceive pain. But recent studies proved that on the contrary, children do feel pain and express it by crying and facial expressions. In fact, there are objective signs of pain on circumcised children, such as an increase in heart beat and a faster breathing rate, a lack in blood oxygen and an increase in the amount of cortisol in the blood. After circumcision, the child’s sleeping pattern changes, and he tends to become socially remote. His feeding habits change and even his interaction with his mother is disturbed. Chamberlain said that circumcision takes place as a result of social pressures and that the parents are not aware of its impact on the child. He further gave various explanations to the doctors’ denial of pain in children. One of these explanations is that the doctors who perform this surgery have patriarchal biases, hence, they disregard the child’s feelings. This applies also to female doctors who were trained by male doctors. Moreover, some doctors may still hold the old and outdated belief that pain is good, sacred, and a necessary part of regular human life. This denial of pain may be the result of the fact that these doctors wish to appear as scientists, who are usually characterized by dull and blunt emotions. Chamberlain mentioned historical evidence that reveals that doctors’ denial to the efficiency of infant’s perception of pain is rooted in bias against the weak. When anesthesia began to be used in the United States, doctors did not give it to Negroes, Asians, German, Irish, sailors, soldiers, rural and poor people because they considered them tolerant of pain.
In his book Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy (1980), Wallerstein criticized the research that had taken place in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, which stated that circumcision was a health procedure. He stressed the weaknesses in the research methodology that were of an unacceptable level. He explained the reason why the United States was the only Western industrial country that supported male circumcision for non-religious reasons. This was based on fallacies about the health significance of the procedure. Circumcision in the USA was also reinforced by the fact that the severed prepuces were considered a commodity to be sold on the market to pharmaceutical and cosmetics labs.
The assumed "health benefits" of MGM were nothing more than unfounded hypotheses that were not proved to be true by well-controlled scientific research. Moreover, researchers studied why doctors agreed to do this procedure. One of these studies was by Denniston in his article "Iatrogenic Epidemic" (1994). He said that doctors in the United States agreed to circumcise children with the denial theory in mind. Denial is a relief to the individual who experienced psychological shock. It also relieves guilt feelings of those who inflicted pain on others. Accordingly, doctors who were circumcised themselves wanted to do the same to others to relieve themselves of the harm they themselves experienced when they were children; and as a relief of the sense of guilt when circumcising others, considering it a normal health precaution.
In his book Circumcision the Hidden Trauma (http://www.noharmm.org/bookstoreBirth.htm), (1997) and in his article The Psychological Impact of Circumcision (http://circumcision.org/impact.htm) (1999), Goldman made an extensive study of the psychological aspects of male circumcision. He said that doctors ignore circumcised children’s pain because they are helpless and cannot put up a defense. It was proved by studying anatomy, chemical changes in the nervous cells, physiology and the behavior of infants that they are in fact affected by pain more so than adults. Other researchers, from the American Academy of Pediatrics, agreed with Goldman in the fact that they found a variation in the circumcised child’s reaction to his mother and that his sleep pattern has changed and the child became unduly hyper-reactive to painful stimuli. Some mothers said that the day their child was circumcised was the worst day in their lives, it was as if the child had been slaughtered. Trauma, according to the definition of the American Psychological Association, is described as "an event that goes beyond every day life experience of human beings, for example, physical violation, or torture, or anything that threatens the individual’s safety." Physical violation on one hand, is any abuse to the body, whereas, torture, on the other hand, is an infliction of pain or extreme stress. Both cases are traumatic, even if the attack or injury are not done with the intention of violation or torture. The above definitions are descriptions of the act itself and the human reaction to it irrespective of the intentions of the violator. The younger the infant is, the more he is harmed by trauma. Goldman gave some reasons why men do not reveal their feelings towards their own circumcision. He assumed that they do not talk about it because they accept it as a common belief stating the health benefits of the procedure or perhaps because they do not want to remember the pain the experience involved. So, they repress it as a defense mechanism in order not to feel the pain or humiliation. Another reason could be that MGM takes place at a very early age before the child has developed the spoken language. That is why males do not express their painful circumcision memories in words, but they express it in non-verbal ways such as insensitivity towards others or unexplainable rage. Goldman analyzed the psychology of doctors who circumcised children by saying that they subconsciously project their own painful experience on others because it was, at the time, unexplainable trauma to them. That is how people adapt their beliefs to suit customs and traditions. Thus, men from the medical profession support circumcision, which is common among them, with the excuse that the prepuce is not of any good and that children do not feel it anyway. Doctors who strongly believe in circumcision reject any new information that is not in agreement with their own ideas. The more the gap between their theoretical beliefs and the practical results of their deeds grows, the more they avoid new information. They say that they do the procedure according to the parents’ request. Thus, circumcision is the only surgical procedure that is decided by non-professionals. However, doctors play an active role in the parents’ decision to circumcise their baby by hiding information on the hazards of MGM and the functions of the prepuce from the parents, or even by suggesting that it is recommended. On the other hand, parents think that the procedure is good for the child since doctors agree to do it, so they request it. In both cases, circumcision is done because it is a socially accepted procedure.
Myths of social acceptance are not easy to be terminated; for when people fall under social pressures, they cannot easily be critical to the social group and they tend to conform to it. Especially when common norms are challenged by contradictory ideas, they tend to defend them. When Goldman studied circumcision in Judaism, he found that it was spread among the Jewish communities a thousand years before the Old Testament was written down. Therefore, it can be considered that circumcision was included in the written Bible as a divine law to eliminate the parents’ sense of guilt and to provide them with a good excuse that relieves them from personal responsibility of what had been done to their children. Circumcision was not stated in the Qur’an, although there is a lot of theological debate on its religious validity. And because of the skepticism that surrounds the religious justification for circumcision, both Jews and Muslims support their convictions on social tradition. These convictions are hidden behind a barrier of silence, which is why MGM has continued as a social tradition. Goldman explained the role played by medical "sciences" in the continuity of unnecessary social habits that are moreover, harmful and not healthy and gave circumcision as an example. He said that science is not a neutral institution but is affected by cultural values and serves them. One of the ways by which social systems preserve old values is to renew their credibility by inaccurate scientific research. That is how some intellectuals play a crucial role in concealing facts.
The article by Cold and Taylor (1999) entitled The prepuce (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/) refuted the common medical fallacies about the physiological insignificance of the prepuce. This article explained in details the embryological development of the prepuce, its anatomical structure and its various functions. Both male and female embryos develop prepuces. In infancy and early childhood the prepuce is naturally attached to the head of the penis or clitoris to protect them from irritation by excreta. Natural separation takes place gradually till it is completed when a child is between 4-17 years old. This anatomical fact was discovered in 1949, but many doctors are not aware of it, and they diagnose this natural phenomenon as a case of pathological adhesions that needs to be corrected by circumcision. Cold and Taylor explained that the prepuce is formed of five layers of tissues that are full of blood vessels and sensory nerves that are specialized to feel light touch. It is the most sensitive male organ, similar to the sensitivity of the finger tips, eyelids and lips. Taylor discovered the minute structure of the prepuce and its innervation and described it in an article published the British Journal of Urology in 1996 (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/). In the prepuce there are muscle fibers that are similar to the fibers in the scrotum. The role of these fibers in infants and children is to protect the urinary tract from infection. They act as a one-way valve that facilitates the passage of urine and prevents the entrance of any foreign body. As the male approaches puberty, these muscle fibers decrease in number and give way to an increase of elastic fibers, till both types of fibers reach an equilibrium that allows free mobility of the prepuce in sexual intercourse. The prepuce also has immune cells that are considered a primary defense against microbes. It also secretes a lubricant matter to make sexual intercourse more comfortable. Therefore, by circumcision, the male is deprived of all these advantages that nature granted him.
Some doctors, though, revised their attitude towards circumcision because of the knowledge they acquired on the subject; they criticized themselves and raised it as a problematic issue among their colleagues. In his book, Circumcision Exposed: Rethinking a Medical and Cultural Tradition (http://www.noharmm.org/TVS.htm#exposed) (1998), B. Boyd mentioned that some American pediatricians stopped doing the procedure after reconsidering circumcision and the pain it causes to the child. Boyd discussed the medical and cultural aspects of male circumcision in the United States. From the medical point of view, he discussed the function and structure of the prepuce, and the similarity between male and female
circumcision. Boyd criticized the involvement of modern medical institution in performing and justifying circumcision, especially that scientific research refuted any of the vindication put up by medical professionals to prove that circumcision is beneficial and healthy. Respectively, he refuted
all that was said about the significance of circumcision as a curative or preventive measure against masturbation, sexually transmitted diseases, cancer of the penis and cervix uteri, urinary tract infection, and finally AIDS. Circumcision, therefore, is not a valid scientifically justified procedure which cures diseases. In fact, it is “a surgery in search of a disease.” Moreover, Boyd reviewed other doctors’ efforts to criticize MGM. As for the cultural point of view, Boyd explained that circumcision is practiced by religious groups in the societies that strongly believe in it, even if their ideas do not come from religious texts themselves. He also reviewed some statements of Jews who experienced a conflict between their innate feelings of protecting the child from harm and the requirements of their religious institution. They, accordingly, became critical towards circumcision, and were satisfied by saying prayers as a religious ritual for the newly born. It is the spiritual significance that matters and therefore, it is not necessary to shed blood and deprive him of an important part of his body. Evidently, circumcision is a tool used by patriarchal societies to control the weaker and less powerful masses. All the religious explanations behind circumcision are nothing but excuses for making it a prevailing tradition. Boyd gave the opinion of the Jewish physician and philosopher Moses Maimonides (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/) who lived in the 13th century, as an evidence. He explained
that circumcision is done at a very early age because it is easier to control the infant who is unable to refuse to be circumcised, whereas an adolescent could easily totally disagree. Furthermore, as the child grows older, his parents’ emotions towards him become stronger and therefore, prevent them from letting the procedure be done because they do not want to hurt him. Boyd dealt with the social significance of circumcision. He said that it gives the individual a feeling of helplessness, because when he experiences extreme pain as a vulnerable child who is unable to defend himself, he learns that such violence is inevitable throughout his life in order to survive. This feeling increases as society insists on denying the psychological impact of circumcision on the individual and is indifferent to
it. This is a similar situation to societies with racial, gender, or ethnic discriminations. Boyd stressed the fact that it is only the individual who has the right to decide whether he wants to be circumcised or not. American doctors, lawyers, and other intellectual activists against circumcision, share Boyd’s opinion. Boyd further criticized American feminists who, in spite of the fact that they are against FGM, do not take an active role to stop MGM, with the excuse that it is not a practical endeavor. Boyd said that it is not their right to criticize a tradition that is foreign to them - such as FGM - while they keep silent when it comes to one of their own cultural traditions that implies a violation to the bodies of their children. He considered such attitude a political bargain that feminists use to prove
their loyalty to the dominant social culture, so that they can be allowed a wider space to struggle against a less dominant practice such as FGM among immigrants. This is similar to the strategy that was used by some white leaders of the laborers’ movement who refused to address the issue of racial discrimination.
Lightfoot-Klein discovered that the African justifications of FGM
were the same as the American justifications of MGM.
However, as feminists started to reconsider MGM; they revised their old conviction that FGM is a completely different issue. One of the most renown feminist articles is that of the anthropologist Lightfoot-Klein (1994) Erroneous Belief Systems Underlying Female Genital Mutilation in sub-Saharan Africa and Male Neonatal circumcision in the United States: A Brief Report Updated in which she said that she was not very interested in MGM, although she was not very convinced by its validity, because all her studies were on female issues, that is why she was not active in fighting MGM since this is "a male issue" that women cannot understand. It was also irrelevant to her because of the fact that she is a woman. As she continued her studies of FGM in Africa, she did find a similarity between sexual mutilation in both sexes. Lightfoot-Klein discovered that the African justifications of FGM were the same as the American justifications of MGM (http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html). Such similarities are found in the opinions that say that circumcision does not deprive the child from an important part of its body but it only takes off an unnecessary piece of skin; and that it is a beautifying procedure; it also has health benefits such as the prevention of infection, and other diseases; and since doctors agree to do it, it has to be beneficial. In both sexes, men and women do not find any relation between long term complications and circumcision that they experienced at a very early age. It was claimed that neither females nor males would find a partner if they were not circumcised.
Other thinkers realized that it is important for women to advocate the rights of children from both sexes in order to create a better future. One of these thinkers is DeMause, the founder and president of the International Association of Historical Psychology and who was also the editor of the Journal of Psychological History and published an article on the internet Women and Children at the Cutting Edge of Historical Change (http://www.bconnex.net/%7Ecspcc/crime_prevention/cutting.htm) (DeMause n.d ‘1’) in which he said that historical progress evolves when the older generation reconsiders their childhood traumas and therefore, they decide not to do the same to their own children. In another article The Psychogenic Theory of History (http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/10_psychogenic.html) (DeMause n.d. ‘2’), DeMause said that such improvement in child rearing enables new personalities to appear that can play the role of leadership in social, economic and political evolution to shape a better society.
"Why should we be objective about questions like rape, wife battering, and circumcision?
...it is time to be biased by siding with the weak and to declare that the emperor is naked!"
Human rights activist agreed with this trend as expressed in Nobel’s article "Just say No: Issues of Empowerment." (1991). She denied the idea of "objectivity" in dealing with the rights of the weak who are subject to injustice from the more powerful social actors. She wondered, why should we be objective about questions like rape, wife battering, and circumcision? She said that it is time to be biased by siding with the weak and to declare that the emperor is naked!
In the United States, some intellectuals pioneered the movement against MGM. Their efforts resulted in a decrease in MGM prevalence from 90% in the 1980s to 60% in beginning of the 1990s. In a pamphlet published by an active American organization, the National Organization to Halt Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM (http://www.noharmm.org/)), there is a description of the efforts of intellectuals against the mutilation of the human body that is done everyday to males. The pamphlet (http://www.noharmm.org/mensay.htm) includes testimonies of men who have been circumcised and have suffered from this traumatic experience. (NOHARMM, 1994).
No research has been done on male circumcision in Egypt, which is why there is no extensive bibliography on the subject written by Egyptian thinkers. Moreover, the available written materials do not include any academic research. The earliest written material I found is a translation by Essam Eddin Hefny Nassif of Joseph Lewis’ book Circumcision: A Harmful Jewish Fallacy (1971) with an introduction by the translator. The book dealt with the historical background of circumcision especially in ancient cultures. Nassif commented on the influence of some Jewish ideas "Isra’illiyyat" that were transferred to Islamic thought by some Jews who converted to Islam. Isra’illiyyat gave a false impression that circumcision is one of the requirements of Islam. However, it is a harmful fallacy spread by the rabbis. It is also a ritual with political significance as a symbol that encouraged the Israeli to occupy Palestine.
The writer Mohamed Afifi reviewed Nassif’s book in an article Bewildered Guide to Circumcision (1997). Afifi considered that circumcision is a representation of the rabbis’ sadism, it is a new Jewish personification of ancient bloodthirsty gods that were alive in the primitive man’s imagination. Afifi ridiculed the medical myths that hold that circumcision is done as a preventive surgery; describing them as a ridiculous argument. He said, "Why should we assume the existence of such a disgusting man who has rejected personal hygiene and has left his body secretions to accumulate day after day till he gets cancer?! If this pig has to be really there, don’t you agree that he should deserve to get cancer?!". Afifi said that people who die from circumcision are much more than those who die from cancer of the penis. He exclaimed why a female does not have her breasts amputated when she is eight days old to prevent her from getting cancer of the breast that is common in women. Afifi, then explained Nassif’s point of view that refuted circumcision in Islam, stressing sheikh Shaltut’s views that says:
The way I see it is that the opinion of Shari’a (Islamic law) on circumcision is not subject to a written text, but is subject to the common view that considers it wrong to inflict pain on anyone except when necessary according to their best interests, which should overweigh the inflicted pain. After reviewing all opinions on circumcision, we have reached the conclusion that it does not have any religious significance according to Sunna, let alone its existance in Fiqh. This conclusion was reached by some early theologians. One of them expressed it as follows: "There is no valid reference – neither through stories nor Sunna (Prophetic tradition) - to circumcision" (Afifi 1971).
Afifi concluded that insisting on circumcision in the age of space is irrational.
Gamal el Banna is an Egyptian intellectual who wrote his opinion on this subject in an article entitled A Point of View About Male and Female Circumcision (1999). He denied that circumcision is a mandatory Sunna. According to him, mandatory Sunna is what the Prophet was told to do by Allah, or what he said as an explanation to what has been stated in the Qur’an. Neither case applies to circumcision. Moreover, El Banna considered circumcision a contradiction to the concept of the perfection of creation that was stated in the Qur’an. Circumcision does not add anything to the human body but on the contrary it is a sort of amputation. Therefore, we should not impose it on children, and deprive them of what Allah gave them, for it is the child’s right to keep his whole body intact.
Dr. Nawal El Sa’adawi wrote various articles in the Egyptian press on male and female circumcision. The first article was published in October magazine in 1995 in which she told of her experience as a medical doctor at the beginning of her career, when she refused to do this procedure to either sexes, and that was in 1954 when she was newly graduated from medical school. She was convinced that a scalpel should not be used to cut off a healthy part of the body. She mentioned some operations made by doctors as "preventive surgeries" that were later considered by research to be harmful, such as routine appendectomy, tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy, especially if these operations were not necessary. She reviewed some modern studies that proved that circumcision is contraindicated and harmful. She also mentioned the conferences held in Europe and the United States that dealt with this subject. In her opinion, circumcision is a remnant of slavery and idolatry rituals of blood sacrifice. Moreover, she explained the beneficial function of the prepuce and the disadvantages of the procedure in both sexes.
...the health justifications of circumcision
are nothing but excuses to hide its oppressive nature.
Dr. Sa’adawi published another article in Rosal Youssef magazine in 1998 showing the relation of male circumcision to the patriarchal society. She interpreted the story of Abraham’s circumcision that was revealed in the Old Testament, saying that Sarah ordered his circumcision as revenge for his delay in sending Hager and her son Ishmael away. As for the Jewish motto that says "Land in exchange for circumcision" she said that its interpretation needs more study of the ancient slave societies and the history of conflicts on power and land throughout humanity. Dr. Sa’adawi wrote that the health justifications of circumcision are nothing but excuses to hide its oppressive nature. Dr. Sa‘adawi had access to many updated resources on MGM when she taught in Duke University in the United States between 1993-1995. Moreover, she reviewed two theological opinions on circumcision: one by Sheikh Muhammed Abdu and the other by Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut. Both say that there is no relation between circumcision and Islam. Then she expressed the importance of the same procedure in Judaism as a purification of the infant from the birth pollution by the blood shed in circumcision. This ritual was replaced in Christianity with baptism, which was done with water. She said that El Raazi, who was a Muslim Arab doctor who lived in the 10th century A.D., objected to any interference with the healthy human body, including circumcision. She mentioned that El Raazi’s books were forbidden from circulation in Egypt. If these books were available, people would have known that the call against circumcision was not from a Western origin, but it was an old indigenous call that dates back to the earliest debate between rationality and irrationality.
Dr. El Sa’adawi also published an article in Rosal Youssef in 1999, a response to a young mother who had told her that she had tried to defend her baby son’s bodily integrity but did not know how to discuss it with the doctor and family who insisted on circumcising the child saying that it was a beneficial procedure. The mother asked Dr. Sa’adawi to publish some information on the matter. Dr. Sa’adawi reported that after having published her article on the historical and cultural aspects of circumcision, the magazine refused to allow her to publish any medical information on it. However, Dr. Sa’adawi gave brief information on the sensitivity of the prepuce, its immunological function and the harm of removing it. Then, she explained the psychological problems and the traumatic experience that the child is exposed to, and the pain involved, even if it is done under anesthesia, because local anesthesia does not penetrate the five layers of skin, and she also said that general anesthesia is dangerous. Moreover, she explained that circumcision is one of the causes of male sexual frustration and male violence against women, especially their wives.
III) The theoretical framework
A) The first theoretical concept: Gender
My analytical framework is based on feminist gender theory, where gender is sociologically defined as social intervention to shape male and female identities to match the dominant cultural image of masculinity and femininity. This intervention starts in childhood to socialize boys and girls into the presumed patriarchal gender roles. Feminism is rooted in enlightened concepts of emancipation and justice, and tries to interpret the established social organization in terms of these concepts with the objective of bringing about a social change towards a more fair society for the weak and the vulnerable social groups (Lenon and Whitford 1994). The feminist point of view sees that such social change should serve women in the first place, taking their ethnic and class specificity into consideration. However, all social groups that are marginalized and denied their full rights under patriarchy are meant to benefit from social change. Such groups include children of both sexes (Sacks 1980).
a) Patriarchal gender politics and biases
In patriarchal societies, women and children from both sexes have lower social status because of their economic dependence. Women depend on their husbands and children on their fathers for protection and provision of everyday living needs in return for their submission to his authority (Lerner, 1986). The impact of this dependence increases during transitional stages from the traditional social system that is based on subsistence economy – where women do some home activities that have a socio-economic value – to the market economy that does not evaluate these home services socially (Meillassoux, 1972). In such conditions, women are unable to make independent decisions, and whoever tries to do otherwise is unacceptable and considered as a transgressor of her appropriate social limits.
Moreover, in patriarchal societies women cannot participate equally in the relations of ruling since it is men who set laws and customs. Thus, women are inferior and live in a lower social status in these patriarchal societies. Moreover, the female’s most important product in terms of patriarchal gender division of labor are children. However, children are not attributed to mothers and therefore do not belong to her but to their father and his kin after a period of maternal care (Moghadam 1993: 105). Women are responsible for the continuity of such gender politics by their silence (Smith, 1987: 34).
b) Shaping images of masculinity and femininity
Sherry Ortner attributed women’s social inferiority to the patriarchal conceptualization of masculinity and femininity; the female is always linked to nature and the male to culture. Women find their self-satisfaction and creativity in reproduction, whereas, men depend on technology and culture to achieve their creative abilities. Thus, a man is conceptualized as a powerful being, superior, intellectual, pure, dominant; and a woman is conceptualized, on the contrary, as associated to nature, inferior, weak, polluted, submissive, and home bound (Moore, 1988: 12-24).
In traditional societies, reproduction is the female’s essential social role, although the produced children do not belong to her but to their fathers and their paternal lineage as mentioned above; and this role affects young women’s social status. One of the indicators of social status is the individual’s ability to control the products of his/her labor (Moore, 1993: 31-32). Patriarchal gender politics and division of labor deny this right to women.
c) The link between children from both sexes and females
According to patriarchal traditions, a woman’s highest aspiration is to become a mother and especially to reproduce sons. It is her ability to become a mother that defines her social status. (Inhorn, 1996). It is known that women care for their sons more than their daughters because they believe that male children are more sensitive and more vulnerable. Therefore, their main endeavor is to protect them from being hurt or suffering. (Abd el Salam, 1998) According to Smith’s theory that deals with every day life issues as problematic in terms of the dominant relations of ruling, women’s private interests are considered political, exactly like all private matters with underlying social power politics (Smith, 1987). Accordingly, one can reveal the underlying power politics behind the violation of women’s interest in protection of their children by questioning the issues that violate this private emotion, the most important of which is circumcision. According to Smith, dealing with every day life as problematic means that the researcher has to find the link between the problem of her research and the relations of ruling that are represented by the relevant dominant social institutions, knowledge and ideologies. In this context, there is no issue that can be considered trivial or irrelevant as is always claimed by social power holders. This research is important because it reveals the hidden aspects of a practice that appears to be innocent and natural, although this is not the case. I suggest that hidden aspects of social phenomena are even more significant than clearly evident aspects.
d) Sex as a means of social control
Several studies have dealt with the relation between the traditional practices that are performed over the human body and politics of social control. The human body is a good medium for social control of the individuals by shaping their bodies to fit the socially acceptable image. This is evident, for example, in the social discourse about the female body figure and weight, if she does not meet these expectations, she is considered socially in need of therapy (Bordo, 1993). Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1987) described three levels in dealing with the human body that start from the concrete to the abstract. The first and the most concrete level is the individual body. On this level, the body is treated as a human body that feels pain and pleasure. This is the level on which the individual is able to experience and respond to subjective concrete sensations. The second level is the social body, on which the body is treated as an abstract object without any individual attributes. On this level, society can inscribe its symbols on the body. The third level is the body politics, on which society interferes to define and control the limits of what an individual can do with his/her body and what is forbidden.
Although sex is associated with the body at the individual level as it is socially defined, sexuality is not an expression of physical drives only but it is a very complex construct of cultural symbols and social conceptualizations of the individuals’ bodies, including the social conceptualizations of femininity and masculinity and their relation to how men and women should appear and act in the specific social and cultural context. Therefore, sexuality, as a social concept, is a mediator between the physical and social aspects of the gendered body (Abd el Salam, 1998). Sex is a physical function which is used by power holders in modern patriarchal society as a means of control over the weaker especially women and children. Therefore, in the age of capitalist transformation, dominant power politics defined the acceptable sexual behavior and what should be written or said or not said about sex. All this was used as a tool for capitalism. And since production is the most important capitalist objective, expression of sexuality was restricted to what helps the achievement of that goal. An acceptable sexual relationship was only that which is between a married couple for the sake of reproduction of labor force. Any other forms of expression of sexuality was socially unacceptable. Both religious and medical institutions did not hesitate to interfere to impose control over sexuality since it was considered a chaotic situation if left without rules to regulate it socially. (Foucault, 1984) When added together, the social alienation that is one of the characteristics of capitalist relations of production and the patriarchal biases against women and children, it is not strange that the society practices its control over bodies of individuals in every possible way so as not to allow any diversion from the main capitalist objective, which is production of commodities in factories and children in families (Trask, 1986).
To end the social bias against women and children, we cannot disregard or marginalize gender issues on the assumption that they are trivial and that the first priority should be given to issues of economic growth in the developing societies. This rationale is over-simplification that disregards the patriarchal social power politics. Therefore, development cannot be complete without taking gender issues into consideration. (Hatem, 1986). This analysis applies to children from both sexes as well as women. Therefore, it is not good for women to keep silent when it comes to issues that harm their children with the excuse that it is not one of the priorities in improving women’s social situation. The powerful do not dominate and control the weak as a result of a conspiracy, but it is the weak who give them the chance to keep their thumb over them by remaining silent. Actually, what makes the weak keep their mouths shut is their sense of isolation, weakness, and their feelings of inferiority, insecurity and lack of self confidence. (Janeway, 1980). According to Foucault’s analysis, exposure of social traditions with relation to sexuality to discussion enhances social change for the benefit of the weak (Foucault 1984: 6-8).
e) Men’s emancipation movement
In patriarchal society, men also have their share of gender discrimination and oppression. Some pro-gender equality men started a male emancipation movement in the West in the first half of the 1970s. The leaders of this movement compared between the advantages they achieved from institutions in the patriarchal society that gave them authority and their suffering from the burdens of the imposed identity and body shaping to meet the requirements of traditional masculine image and role. According to this image, men should not be sensitive but should be rough, violent and strong; and are allowed to create hell for women. Emancipation-oriented men revolted against the idea of preset gender roles, according to which they were expected to be tough and were deprived of having the chance to express their tender feelings freely. They considered that such rigid allocation of gender roles is disadvantageous to men and a factor that increased women’s subjugation. They, therefore, advocated that gender is exactly as class and ethnic identities, none of them should define social roles. That is, gender identity ought to be accepted as it is but social roles should not be strictly pre-defined. Thus, women should be able to reach leadership positions and men should have the chance to act as nurturers and care givers and vice versa. Members of this movement considered the division of roles according to gender as controversial and that this issue will not be solved except by bringing traditional gender roles to an end. Although society gives men the authority that is the upper hand, some men do not feel that they are actually powerful. In such patriarchal societies, the main criteria that asserts manhood is his success in his sexual life with women. Accordingly, he is responsible to take the initiative, and is expected to proceed with all the steps to achieve this goal. And yet, he is not supposed to express his emotions because of the traditional social image of masculinity. This contradictory situation makes it difficult for a man to interact efficiently as a partner. Therefore, he has to act roughly and have a mechanical sexual relationship with his female partner. This situation deprives him of an important part of his human rights. Thus, people who follow the patriarchal social norms suffer from oppression, whether they are males or females. Male emotional oppression is reflected on the female because he uses her to prove his virility to other men. By so doing, the female is turned into a sexual object; and the male turns into an object of success in terms of the patriarchal social norms. Therefore, the two genders turn into objects instead of interacting human subjects. Social theorists consider the transformation of the relationship between men and women from the role to the identity theory as an indicator of moving from the structuralist/functionalist theoretical paradigm as it was described by Talcot Parsons in the 1950s to the feminist theoretical paradigm.
Emancipatory men imagined that their collaboration with the feminist movement will lead to bringing about the expected change in gender relationships. But with the beginning of the 1980s, the male emancipation movement was divided to two groups. One group, the conservatives, thought that feminists concentrated on winning gains for their gender, so, they diverted from the movement and set up their motto which was "Men’s rights," since they considered themselves a victim of oppression and gender discrimination. Instead of allying with feminists as they did when the movements started, they turned against them; because they considered that the feminist movement allowed women to keep their traditional role in society that allowed expression of their natural human feelings, in addition to giving them access to competition with men and sharing the authority that they used to enjoy by virtue of their traditional masculine social role.
As for the progressive leftist wing of the men's emancipation movement, they remained allied with the women’s emancipation movement that aimed at lifting the burdens of the shoulders of both genders. They considered the patriarchal society as going through a critical period and that the only way to overcome it is to ally with women to bring about social change by turning established social institutions – such as the family – into institutions characterized by cooperation, peace and equality between the two sexes. Leftist members of the men’s movement see that patriarchal society shapes men’s bodies to imprint them with symbols of physical strength and violence. Social customs that aim at defining masculinity – such as sports for example – leave its imprints on the male’s body to define their traditional gender identity in opposition to the soft female body. Gender identity is not just a symbolic system of significant signs. It has also concrete material implications, like gender division of labor that allocates private tasks and space mainly to women and public ones mainly to men. Thus, traditional gender identity affects gender social roles. Men are given authority and power, while women are assigned to reproduction and child care. To trespass this crisis and establish social justice, emancipatory men and women think that they should collaborate to improve gender politics (Messner 1998; Martin 1998, Lorber 1998).
B) The second theoretical concept: the intellectual
My theoretical definition of the intellectual and his/her role in social change depends on literature by Antonio Gramsci (Gramsci 1971; Hoare 1971) and Edward Said (1996). Gramsci dealt with the concept of the intellectual in his analysis of the social and class hierarchy and relations, which is a major level of social organization. Although my research deals with gender, which is a minor level of social organization, Gramsci’s analysis is still valid to my research. Edward Said, on the other hand, dealt with the intellectual on a more general level of social organization; by so doing his views can be easily applied on the contemporary intellectuals who are interested in gender issues and can explain their attitudes and opinions and their effect on their proclaimed final objectives.
a) Who is the intellectual?
In Gramsci’s opinion, the intellectual is she/he who has a philosophical conceptualization of the world that can be applied to everyday life. Philosophy in this sense is not specified to the professional intellectuals only but is available to everybody. There is not only one single way of interpretation of life, but every individual forms his/her own concept based on common sense and inherited cultural background - including social beliefs, customs, myths, social views and behavior. After this general level of philosophy that is available to all human beings, there comes the level of critical world view, which is the level of the individual’s acquired awareness of his/her world in terms of critical revision of the established traditional collective wisdom of their communities (Gramsci, 1971). According to Gramsci, intellectuals can not be separated from their class consciousness. Therefore, there are two types of intellectuals: the professional intellectual and the organic intellectual. The professional intellectual, on one hand, is someone who considers himself a leader of other non-intellectuals. On the other hand, the organic intellectual is someone who can not be separated from the masses of people. One of the main differences between the two types of intellectuals is that the organic intellectual does not only have the ability to theorize for and talk about life, but can also offer active participation in humans’ everyday life, and can perceive history in its relation to humanity. Unlike the professional intellectuals who limit their action to their own specialization, organic intellectuals employ their specializations to propel history in a direction that serves to improve the human condition. According to this concept, the intellectuals represent their community and class members in positions of social and political sovereignty (Hoare, 1971).
Edward Said reviewed other thinkers’ definitions of the intellectual. Some considered the intellectual as an individual separated from the group and remote from common people. As for example, Julian Benda who sees the intellectual as a servant of the government, or as someone who is remote from reality living in an ivory tower. Others gave a class definition of the intellectual such as the American sociologist Alvin Goldner who said that intellectuals are elite people who formed a new class that took over that of landlords. People from this class enjoy what Goldner called the culture of critical discourse; and they use a highly specialized language to interact with other intellectuals. Other thinkers, though, did not consider intellectuals as a separate social class but as representatives of their classes. According to Gramshi’s theory of the organic intellectual who is committed to the public issues, Said defined people of our time who spread knowledge to the public as intellectuals. Michel Foucault described the common intellectual as a person who has a specific job, but has the ability to employ her/his experience in other areas beyond his specialization. Edward Said thought that without intellectuals, no modern or anti-modern movements could have been existed, because it is intellectuals who initiate social movements. According to Said, the intellectual who would have the ability to create social change, is he/she who acts in public life as a marginalized "amateur" who is worried about the stagnant status quo. Of course, all societies have intellectuals who are unlike those defined by Edward Said. Some of them serve the government, and others bear attractive slogans but back up reactionary politics in contradiction with their theories. Said called this group "professional intellectuals." Said defined professionalism as trading one’s intellectual expertise for wealth or status. Accordingly, such intellectuals are careful not to go beyond the limits that are accepted by institutions that hire their services. Thus, they could be known as objective and non- controversial persons, hence they become more valuable in the labor market. In Said’s opinion, professionalism is the main threat to the intellectual’s integrity (Said, 1996).
From Gramshi’s and Said’s analyses, one can deduce that there are two types of intellectuals: One is called the professional intellectual who serves the powerful at all socio-political levels. The other type is the intellectual who is in alliance with the marginalized and weak groups. Gramshi called this type the organic intellectual, whereas, Said called him the amateur intellectual. I prefer to call this type "the free thinkers." One cannot deny the co-existence of the two types of intellectuals in all societies, but Gramshi and Said valued intellectuals who side with the weak social groups, for they are the type of intellectuals that can enhance fair social development.
b) The social function of the intellectual
Gramshi elaborated on the concept of the organic intellectual. In his opinion, this type of intellectual is not remote from other social classes. All through history, each class provided its own intellectuals who represented their class and upgraded the social and political consciousness of its members. They had also to face intellectuals of old and conservative classes who try to resist social change; and who are mainly composed of clergy and medical doctors (Hoare, 1971).
According to Edward Said, the function of the intellectual is to eliminate stereotypes that restrict people’s thought and limit their ability to communicate with others. He defined them as personalities who cannot be stereotyped into a dogmatic ideology or political party slogans. They focus on human sufferings, irrespective of the sufferers national or party affiliations. The "knowlegeable professionals" who form the public opinion in a way that pushes people to conform to the established norms create a problem for the "amateur" intellectual. The amateur intellectual, therefore, has an important function. He/she has to attempt to convey facts to the ruling powers. Intellectual are those who have the ability to represent people, and carry new ideas, opinions, and attitudes to and from them. He/she also has the ability to face rigid ideologies and refrain from their replication, because his/her function is to enhance social change and the acceptance of new norms. Said said that the intellectual should represent humanity and speak for weak groups whose issues are usually neglected, because he/she believes that all people have the same rights in the quality of life, and should be treated equally by the powerful decision makers of the society. He should have the courage to face those who violate the weak members’ rights and struggle for justice. By this definition, the intellectual is a public figure; yet, he is independent of powerful and ruling institutions. And since he represents the public, he must accept his social obligation and be ready to face the risk that is imposed on him by his duty. Also, it is his duty to have the ability to associate the problems of his own community with those of similar communities from all over the world.
One of the most important problems that the intellectual faces is the counter views that aim at preventing any social change or challenge to the status quo. Such views numb people’s minds making them unable to think clearly; therefore, they are unable to accept change or new norms. It is always easier to adopt the established ideas and repeat the same social pattern that has been followed over the years. The intellectual who chooses to side with the weak has to reveal to the community how these outdated ideas emerged and developed till they became accepted as established facts beyond doubt. He/she must explain that these "facts" are man-made and not natural givens. Moreover, what a powerful group considers an acceptable "fact" is not necessarily so for their weak counterparts (Said, 1996).
c) The intellectual between conformity and deviance from the dominant norms
According to Gramschi, all people conform to the dominant culture in one way or another, however critically minded they are. The dominant culture of any community at any specific time is composed of various elements that accumulated throughout history. Thus, conformity alone is not a criterion of negative submission to or critical election from the dominant culture. The appropriate criterion is which historical period one conforms to. Some intellectuals inspire contemporary thought to suggest creative solutions to the problems of everyday life. Other intellectuals inspire past and outdated thought and suggest solutions that are inappropriate for actual contemporary reality. A third group of intellectuals may manage their actual everyday life in contemporary practical terms, while they have different theoretical thoughts inspired by traditional cultural beliefs. Gramsci concluded that the first type of intellectuals are capable of positive deviance from the dominant norms, the second type are conformists, and the third type has to reconcile their theoretical conceptualizations with practical facts of life (Gramsci 1971).
Edward Said explained that it is important for the intellectual who aims to bring about a social change for sake of the weak groups to work as an amateur. This is the only way that may empower an intellectual to face the pressures that are exerted on the modern professional intellectuals. The first type of pressure is the professionals’ imprisonment within the limits of their narrow specialization, and belief in their theories as dogmas. The second pressure is exerted upon those who are reputable experts in their profession, taking into consideration that an officially acknowledged "expert" is not necessarily the most knowledgeable member of his profession. Sometimes, ruling institutions give such acknowledgement to an intellectual because he/she conforms to its ideology. Such intellectuals are obliged to limit themselves to the choices of the institutions that hire their expertise. The third type of pressure is the professionals’ and experts’ desire to join the power holders. Thus, they become very keen to please the powerful rulers. Edward Said criticized some intellectuals’ tendency to refrain from siding with the difficult issues, even if they are just issues in principle. He concluded that this tendency is dangerous and even fatal to the intellectual life, because it cools down its inherent hot and enthusiastic spirit.
IV) Research methodology
This social field research depended on semi-structured one-to-one interviews with 23 men and women that were chosen from the intellectuals who declare that they are human rights proponents and FGM opponents. Twelve respondents are women and eleven are men. Twelve respondents are medical professionals, three of them are gynecologists. Among respondents with non-medical professions are two anthropologists. All the others came from various specializations from areas of humanities, law, development and arts. (for further details, see appendix 1)
I would have liked to organize several semi-structured group discussions with senior and junior activists from both sexes who have experience in reproductive health and activities against FGM. I would have liked to discuss the attitudes, experiences, and beliefs of the respondents on the subject of MGM. However, I could not organize such group meetings. I had to find someone to introduce me to people who could open the gate for me to the group discussions. I brought up the subject of MGM with a young doctor who worked with me as an assistant in the information center on FGM and violence against women, in which I worked as a consultant. This doctor is a member of a non-governmental organization made up of a group of young people who work in development. He promised to introduce me to the chairman of the organization, but the chairman utterly refused to discuss male circumcision in his organization. So, it was impossible to interview this group. As for senior activists who have experience in the field, they come from various organizations, so, I tried to bring them together in a meeting place. Since I am a member of the Association of Health and Environment Development (AHED), I talked with AHED’s chairman and secretary about this subject, who accepted to give me the chance to make the fieldwork meetings there. Although I had solved the problem of a place to work in, I had another problem which was how to bring these people together for two whole hours; even if that meant dividing them into two groups, because their schedules were full and varied.
Therefore, I had to give up the idea of group discussions. I chose instead to make individual in-depth interviews with as many respondents as I could within the time limit of this research. I already knew many individuals who can be approached as respondents because I had done a lot of field activities as a member of the FGM task force since 1994. I was also responsible for the information center that dealt with violence against women and FGM from 1996 to 1999. Therefore, I decided to choose research respondents from both sexes from anti-FGM activists who live in Cairo for several reasons. First, all the FGM advisory group members and many of the activists against FGM live in Cairo. Second, the time limit of the research would not allow me to go to other governorates in Egypt to collect data.
I planned that most of the respondents should be activists. Moreover, I gave priority to those who were more active in fieldwork whether in planning, awareness raising, or advocacy. I decided to allocate three months to collect field data through semi-structured individual interviews with respondents. There was some difficulties in making appointments because this fieldwork was done in Ramadan, which is a holy month for Muslims and it coincided with the Christian celebration of Christmas, and also the New Year vacation. It was difficult for the respondents to give me appointments because of their family commitments during this period. Some of the candidates refused to meet me either because they found the subject matter embarrassing, or because they did not consider it important and therefore, refused to contribute to such a research that studies a "trivial" subject as male circumcision.
Between December 1998 and the early March 1999, I met 25 respondents. At the beginning of each interview, I asked each respondent to choose a pseudonym. Some welcomed this suggestion, whereas others resisted the idea of not mentioning their true names, being public figures who had nothing to fear. Moreover, 5 of them insisted on having their true names mentioned in the research. A few days later, Dr. Nawal el Sa’adawi published a press article against MGM (Sa’adawi 1998), and was attacked by some of the public readers. One of the respondents, then, contacted me asking to conceal his real name because if not, he may face unnecessary trouble. So, I contacted 2 of the 4 remaining respondents who insisted on leaving their names unchanged. But I decided to use a homogeneous method and give all respondents pseudonyms, because declaration of respondents’ real names may create bias against or with their statements, since they are all public figures with fans and foes. On the other hand, use of pseudonyms may help the readers to focus on the significance of the respondents’ statements without being affected by any previous assumptions about them.
All respondents in this research were acquaintances, with whom I had good relationships. Some were friends even. This previous acquaintance facilitated this research, saving a lot of effort and time because it made respondents feel at ease with me during the interviews. It also made the research easier for me, especially that the subject matter can be quite embarrassing. Being familiar with the respondents made them respond without hesitation to my questions. Without this trust, my fieldwork could have been quite difficult. The respondents did not doubt my identity or my intentions. As to how I felt, I was quite free in my conversations with them. Although I am usually a shy person who cannot initiate an extended individual conversation with strangers, and usually I do not feel comfortable speaking to people I do not know. As I said, the male respondents were all from previous acquaintances and I was sure that they enjoy a high intellectual and moral standards, so, I did not feel embarrassed nor expected anyone of them to misunderstand me when I discuss sexuality with them. I tape recorded the interviews on pocket size highly sensitive tape recorder. But I always asked the respondents’ consent before recording. Two male respondents expressed their worry lest they might be identified by their voices. So, I assured them that no one would listen to them except me. Fulfilling my promise, it took me a long time to write down the data by myself without assistance, so, it took all of March and half of April 1999 to finish this task. Each interview took between 45 minutes and 2 hours. But I found technical problems in 2 tapes that I had recorded with one male and one female doctor respondents who called themselves Dr. Adham and Dr. Warda, so, I decided to neglect them because I could not hear the recorded material well.
My previous acquaintance with the respondents was not always an advantage, since at times it had a negative effect on gathering data about memories of personal experience of male respondents of their own circumcision. Although I encouraged all respondents to explain in details their experience with male circumcision, I did not force the males to talk more than they could about their personal experience with circumcision. I was clearly aware that I study a very personal and sensitive subject. Moreover, being a friend caused some embarrassment that I respected and that was a limitation. If I had had more time to interview each respondent more than once, or if I had not been so close to some respondents, or if the person who carried out the interviews with male respondents was a man, much more data could have been collected.
I was careful as much as possible to make the respondents feel that it was them who have the upper hand in the researcher/respondent relationship to encourage them to give me as much information as possible of their personal experience. I allowed them to choose the place and time of the interview on purpose. These meetings were held either at their homes, or in their offices. One of them chose to meet me at the club, and another chose to meet me at a restaurant on the Nile. I agreed to all their suggestions. Although I usually do not like outdoors meetings, respondents' generosity and encouragement made me overcome this problem. I did not offer respondents any material reward in exchange of the interviews. Perhaps I took some flowers for some of them or sweets for their children, but this is a normal behavior, given my close relationship to them. Moreover, I was treated as a guest in their places. This unintentionally gave them a symbolic superior position, which was an asset to the research as it ensured more confidence and comfort for the respondents.
I used to start the interview with a conversation on their beliefs, information, experiences and attitudes towards male circumcision. Then I would suggest that they look at illustrations that show the structure and function of the prepuce. All of the respondents agreed to look at them except for Horeya who refused. I asked them to tell me their opinions of the information I gave them and tell me about their impressions of circumcising their children in the future, and asked about their future public attitudes towards male circumcision in comparison to female circumcision. (see Annex 2 for the details of the steering questions).
After I finished the research, I kept in touch with the respondents especially that some of them were colleagues and friends. Some of them helped me to arrange public meetings to raise the issue of MGM. A few of the female respondents told me that they changed their minds and that they would never circumcise their future children. Every one expressed their interest to see the final draft of this research. Even some were afraid that the research would turn people against me, and this proves that the interviews did not change the respondents friendly feelings towards me.
V) Writing the research
After collecting the data, I started to categorize and analyze them. The research is divided into 5 chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography, and 3 annexes. The first chapter deals with the research hypothesis, its objectives, research questions, and its importance. I included also literature review that highlights the socio-political background of circumcision in antiquity and in modern times, and how circumcision was introduced to the medical institution in the mid-19th century. After that, I explained the two underlying concepts of the research’s theoretical framework which are: 1) the concept of gender, and 2) the concept of the intellectual. Finally, I gave a summary of the research methodology and the fieldwork.
The three chapters after that were dedicated to description of the collected field data. Chapter 2 deals with the respondents’ knowledge of and beliefs about male and female circumcision. Chapter 3 deals with the respondents’ actual experiences with male and female circumcision. Chapter 4 is a description of the respondents’ attitudes towards MGM. In chapter 5, I analyzed the respondents’ beliefs, experiences, and attitudes that were all described in the previous chapters. The conclusion included a general outlook of the subject and a summary of the 4 chapters.
Three annexes are attached to the research. The first is a description of the respondents, in which I was cautious not to reveal their identities. In the second annex, there is the list of questions that were used to steer the interview sessions. As for the third annex, it includes the illustrations that I used to explain the structure and function of the prepuce to the respondents.

[Hasbinbad]

Chapter II: What women know about men and what men know about themselves: Respondents’ Knowledge and Beliefs about MGM: The two perspectives
I will start by describing the respondents’ knowledge and beliefs about MGM before they get updated information on the subject. These respondents are intellectuals from both sexes (see Annex 1), who represent an important social group who affects and is affected by social biases. They are an elite group, who are preoccupied with attaining knowledge, analyzing it and matching it against the inherited cultural traditions. Thus, they may create new social conceptualizations that may or may not be accepted by the common public, but are always considered as worthy of thinking and group interaction about them. Medical doctors are a category of intellectuals with specific significance to this study of MGM because of its relation to the body. Doctors' attitudes towards such an issue are of crucial importance because they are formed by their biases that are created by their inherited social beliefs, personal experiences, and acquired knowledge. Byron Good (1994) explained that medical discourse is a combination of knowledge and beliefs. The experience of family planning in Egypt is a good example, since it shows how doctors performed their profession with their own personal beliefs and religious and social convictions in mind, side by side with their medical knowledge (El-Mehiary, 1984).
I asked the respondents an open question: "What do you know about male circumcision?" to know from which perspective they see male circumcision. Then, I discussed in detail their expressed beliefs. The respondents had two basic perspectives on MGM: Socio-cultural and medical/health perspectives.
A - The Socio-Cultural Perspective
The respondents who considered circumcision as rooted in social traditions that have cultural significance mentioned several beliefs forming this perspective; the most important of which is that male circumcision is a rite of initiation of the male into manhood. According to this view, the non-circumcised male’s appearance is unacceptable, that is why the procedure is a condition for social acceptance. The other key cultural belief of the respondents is that circumcision is grounded on ancient Egyptian religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Some of them expressed their astonishment when they saw pictures
of non-circumcised men because they did not seem repulsive.
The respondents did not find some of these common beliefs valid, but all of them were aware of their widespread prevalence among the common public. The respondents were especially aware of the belief that circumcision is a rite of passage or initiation. Some of them expressed their astonishment when they saw pictures of non-circumcised men because they did not seem repulsive. On the other hand, one of the women respondents expressed her opinion that a circumcised man is more sexually potent, that is why Western women are attracted to Egyptian men. Few respondents believed that circumcision is a religious obligation whether for Muslims or Christians. Whereas others believed that circumcision does have a religious background but it is not a religious obligation. Most of them stated that the relation between circumcision and religion is part of their information of people’s common knowledge. But some said that circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur’an or the agreed upon Sunna. Other respondents associated male and female circumcision because of the similarity of the rituals in both cases, for example, throwing away of the amputated part in the Nile, and this implies that it is a sacrifice to the river in order to make it flood. And this denies its relation to monotheism.
As the interviews developed, I discovered more about the details of the respondents’ background beliefs that were expressed during our conversation about the differences between male and female circumcision, the differences between the circumcised and non-circumcised males, the relationships between circumcision, masculinity and male sexual behavior, the social reasons that made Egyptians continue to keep this tradition, and how far they themselves believed in these justifications, their awareness of the attitudes of other communities all over the world towards circumcision and how they feel towards such people that do not practice male circumcision, and about their knowledge and beliefs of religion’s attitude towards male circumcision. Following is a detailed description of the results I got about the respondents’ social and cultural beliefs.
I) Backgrounds of the socio-cultural perspective

A) The Respondents’ perceptions of the differences between MGM and FGM
Expressing their beliefs, the respondents mentioned that male and female circumcisions are two different issues. Some of the differences that were mentioned to support this belief represent the respondents’ knowledge of the inherited Egyptian social and cultural traditions, e.g., age differences in male and female circumcision. Other differences represent beliefs, not knowledge. An example is the respondents’ beliefs about male and female infants’ psychological and physical set up. Respondent medical doctors mentioned differences that represent their professional interest to feel at ease when performing male circumcision, or at least to perform it without experiencing a sense of guilt. Such rationales reveal the biases that facilitate people’s acceptance of or tolerance of MGM.
a) The age differences on the time of circumcision
Most of the respondents realized that there is an age difference between MGM and FGM, since the male children are usually circumcised in early infancy, while female children are usually circumcised in childhood or early adolescence. But some said that circumcision of the male child when he is only a few days old, is a new trend, since originally according to Egyptian tradition, the male was circumcised between the age of 3-6. Dr. Yara and Seif associated this new trend with the transfer from the traditional local barber (hallaa’ issiha) - who used to be the one to do this procedure - to the medical profession. Dina said: "This trend is becoming a new fashion." Dr. Yara added, moreover, "in the old days, they used to let the boy grow up a bit so that they could celebrate by riding him around on a horse, and also because the hallaa’ issiha could deal with an older boy easier than a younger one."
Most of the respondents did not have any definite documented information of the reasons of the age difference between male and female circumcisions. Some of them just recounted what they knew from the common beliefs, and others expressed their own personal beliefs about such age differences. All of the expressed interpretations of the age differences on circumcision could be sorted out into two categories. One category includes knowledge and beliefs about the development of the male and female genitalia, and the second includes the beliefs concerning infants’ psychological and physical set up.
"It is easy to find something to amputate from the bodies of little boys,
but little girls do not have it yet, her genitalia are not yet enticing
to cut something off it."
All of the respondents had broad social interaction with various sectors of Egyptians from different social classes because of their activities or upbringing. Thus, they are aware of the common beliefs about the differences of the male and female genitals. Most respondents considered these beliefs as the background to the delay of FGM and the early performance of MGM. The most common beliefs are that the clitoris is not completely developed before the age in which the female is circumcised, whereas the male prepuce is already developed when the male is born. Some respondents stated that they heard about this belief from the common public. Whereas, others (Salah – Fathy – Seif – Nehal – Dr. Mona – Dr. Khadiga – Dina) said that this was their own personal belief. For example, Dina said:
"It is easy to find something to amputate from the bodies of little boys, but little girls do not have it yet, her genitalia are not yet enticing to cut something off it. That is my interpretation but I don’t know why."
Dr. Khadiga, on the other hand, said:
"Little boys are circumcised at a very early age, whereas girls are circumcised at the age of 9-10 because their clitoris development is completed at this age."
There is another common belief that states that the male prepuce does not grow once it is amputated whereas, the clitoris and labia minora will grow again if they are amputated at a very early age. Dr. Nader said that he was aware of the existence of this belief but he did not believe in it.
Most of the respondents (from the medical profession and others) shared, as do common people, their conceptualization of the infants’ psychological and physical characteristics that enable them to tolerate trauma, pain and injuries more than older children, since they tend to forget about it as time passes. The respondents, who believed in MGM, confirmed that the child’s crying during the procedure is nothing but an expression of discomfort because his movements are being restricted. The male respondents – as other males who I talked to in other meetings - also denied that the memory of the MGM trauma persists over time. They justified this belief by stating that they do not remember their own experience with circumcision because it was done when they were infants. Dr. Nader, Dr. Afkar, and Nehal, who was not a medical doctor, shared the belief that the earlier boys get circumcised, the quicker they heal and the less sharp they feel pain. But some medical doctor respondents who believed in the advantages of early male infant circumcision, because infants do not feel pain, were aware that such belief is contradictory to the basic medical knowledge that affirm that male circumcision at an early age is very dangerous to the child. One of them is Dr. Afkar who said that boys should be circumcised when they are babies so that they won’t feel pain but not before 40 days so that they don’t have a hemorrhage; for the clotting process is not well developed before that. Dr. Yara also expressed her confusion because of the contradiction between her personal belief – which was a common one - and her medical knowledge. She said:
"Medically speaking, the nerve supply of the prepuce is less developed in infants. So, baby boys do not feel pain so sharply; also, at this age, the healing process is quicker. But there is another problem, which is that, the younger the boy is, the more the prepuce is attached to the tip of the penis; this is very painful because the doctor has to draw the skin back and pull it forwards to tear this attachment before he cuts the prepuce off. This is very painful at such an early age because sometimes the prepuce is completely and firmly attached to the head of the penis".
Whereas Dr. Nazmi did not deny the fact that the infant does feel pain, and disagrees with people who say the opposite. But in his opinion, we can accept the child’s exposure to such pain because it doesn’t last except for a few seconds. He refused to avoid the pain by anesthesia because it is hazardous. He said, "It’s very dangerous to give anesthesia in an operation which takes only seconds … Of course, after a few seconds, the child stops crying and that is it."
Some doctors, however, explained that male circumcision is done at an early age to facilitate the surgeon’s task and save him difficulties. Dr. Nader said that the younger the boy is, the easier it is for the surgeon because he can easily manipulate him, even without anesthesia. Whereas, the older the boy is, the stronger his muscles are and one cannot control him. That is why it is commonly done by dissection of the prepuce and under anesthesia if the boy is older.
Dr. Fahmi added:
"In my opinion, the inherited experience tells doctors that it is much easier to do this procedure to a boy at an early age. Healing is quicker then, the amputated part from the infant’s body is small and therefore, the injured surface is small. So, it is not a major operation, but rather a minor one with removal of a less amount of tissues. When we were house officers, as you remember, we used to do this procedure in the outpatient clinic. Many mothers came with their children, who were one week to two months of age; we used to consider it part of our training on surgery. As for females, they are rarely brought to doctors to be circumcised, as if it was a secret cult. A midwife or even an elderly woman who did not necessarily have to be a midwife but has some experience in FGM should do it. That is why they don’t take females to a hospital or clinic in the same simple way as they do with males. That may be the reason why boys are circumcised at a very early age, whereas girls are circumcised later on."
There is, however, another explanation to the age difference that was mentioned by other respondents. This explanation is based on social discrimination against females. According to social custom, male circumcision is done at an early age, to make it less painful and less shameful to the boy because it is believed that he soon forgets about it. But females are not treated with such sensitivity or given the same attention, as is the case with males. That is why these respondents considered the age factor of this procedure as being less stressful to males than to females. That explains partially why they did not consider MGM a priority in their struggle for bodily integrity as one of the most important human and gender rights, as is the case with FGM.
b) The differences of motives behind male and female circumcision
One of the differences by which the respondents justified that MGM is not to be considered a gender issue is that MGM is not part of the social politics that control sexual behavior. Some respondents noticed, through their fieldwork, that the majority of people intend to remind females of the pain that goes with circumcision as one of the tools of social control. Whereas males do not have to remember such a traumatic experience because it is not meant to impose such control on them. That is why FGM is delayed to a later age. MGM is not meant to intimidate boys of sex or guarantee their chastity, as is the case with females. That is why a girl is not circumcised when she is an infant because this would not teach her virtue, which means virginity. And in their opinion, also, this aspect of circumcision conveys a painful social message to females: "When a female is hurt in this place and is conscious of it, she will be afraid; but, if this happens when she is an infant, she will not associate this painful experience with any disciplining lesson." The respondents considered that this message does not apply to males, even if they are circumcised between the ages of 7-12, since their circumcision is accompanied with celebration, and they are taught that this procedure is beautification procedure that prepares them for masculinity, reinforces their sexual potency, and keeps them healthy. This is different from the situation in female circumcision that is followed by restriction of the girl’s mobility in the public space, prevention from mixing with the other sex, affirmation of sexual taboos and prohibitions and stressing that circumcision is done to her to preserve the family honor.
Some respondents, though, considered that there is a difference in the cultural motives behind FGM and MGM. Most of them believed that FGM is not mentioned in any of the three monotheistic holy texts. They considered that MGM is a Jewish religious ritual, but they have different opinions as its validity in Christianity and Islam. However, they believed that most of the common people who reject FGM accept MGM and justify it by their belief that it is one of the religious requirements. Nevertheless, respondents are aware that common people also believe that FGM is a religious requirement.
c) Differences concerning the nature and consequences of the procedure
The respondents believed that there is a difference in the nature of the surgical procedure in males and females because of the variation in anatomical structure and function between the prepuce and the clitoris. They believed that MGM is a form of beautifying since an extra piece of skin, that has no sensation or function, is cut off. On the contrary, in FGM, it is the sensitive part of the body that is cut off, which is responsible for sexual pleasure. Even to those who have previous knowledge as to the sensitivity of the prepuce and its physiological and psychological significance and its protective function for the tip of the penis, such as Dr. Laila, the procedure is considered different in either sex. The respondents also believed that male circumcision has only one degree, which is the cutting off of the "extra" piece of skin, whereas FGM has various degrees and forms.
...he got his impression of the insensitivity of the prepuce as a result
of the fact that anatomy books illustrated the penis without the prepuce
and; therefore, did not mention any information about its sensitivity.
Abu el Fotuh had read a great deal of modern medical literature concerning this matter and thought that pre-mature ejaculation is a potential negative consequence of MGM because it is the cover at the tip of the penis that prevents it. He said, though, that he got his impression of the insensitivity of the prepuce as a result of the fact that anatomy books illustrated the penis without the prepuce and; therefore, did not mention any information about its sensitivity.
Most of the differences considered by the respondents, though, between MGM and FGM are limited to the psychological consequences of the procedure. They considered the psychological consequences in males to be very rare and trivial or even absent as a result of the procedure being done at a very early age. Also, some respondents believed that sexual pleasure in females is a psychological element and not a biological one. That is why they considered FGM as harmful and a violation; whereas, MGM does not have any effect on men’s sexual pleasure.
Other differences considered by respondents were related to the complications of FGM and MGM. They believed that MGM is not a dangerous procedure if done by a doctor in a clinic; contrary, to FGM in which many complications can occur if done by a person who is not from the medical profession and even if a doctor does this surgery, things would not be much different. The only difference would be that the wound would not be easily contaminated.
Some respondents believed that there are other differences in the consequences of male and female circumcision as to sex and health, the most important of which is that MGM is beneficial to both sexes because it makes the male more sensitive and cleaner.
d) Differences concerning medical literature
Some medical doctors respondents mentioned this kind of difference. Dr. Nader, for example, said:
"There are two aspects that doctors take into consideration. The first is that the benefits of male circumcision are documented in medical literature, whereas, there is no medical documentation stating the benefits of female circumcision. The second is that male circumcision was taught to us by our professors and consequently, we taught it to our students, but we did not study female circumcision as a subject, neither did we practice it in our early years as house officers."
B) The Respondents’ perception of the difference between the circumcised and the non-circumcised male
Some respondents believed that there are no differences between the circumcised and the non-circumcised males. From their point of view, in Western culture people are not circumcised but still are healthy and sexually potent. In societies where people are circumcised, such as the Egyptian society, the only difference is that a circumcised male is more socially accepted.
Other respondents expressed their perception of sexual differences between the circumcised and the non-circumcised males. These differences are related to the extent of sexual sensitivity, since some respondents thought that exposure of the head of the penis decreases its sensitivity because it is rendered more rough by the loss of it’s protective cover. Also, the respondents said that there were other differences such as the extent of potency. Some respondents thought that FGM has a negative effect on female sexual ability; whereas, this is not the case in males. Therefore, to them, there is no difference between the potency of circumcised and non-circumcised males. Sexuality, to them, is manifested in erection and sexual intercourse. Sa‘eed, moreover, said:
"The appearance of the organ is the same in a state of erection, irrespective of the male’s circumcision status, because the prepuce retracts on erection anyhow. But FGM is a different matter. They remove the essential part that is responsible for sexual pleasure."
As for Nehal, who is one of the respondents who believed that there is a difference between the circumcised and the non-circumcised men as to their sexual potency, she interpreted it in favor of the circumcised male:
"They say that foreigners are sexually cool because they are not circumcised. Here, men are hot because they are circumcised because the cut off part makes them more potent."
This is not only Nehal’s opinion. I have heard similar statements from some audiences of seminars on reproductive health. Once a man asked me: "How can a man perform sex with a woman if he has a prepuce? Wouldn’t it be a barrier?" Another man said that humanity would end if males were not circumcised because he believed that the prepuce prevents sexual intercourse.
"I believe that a woman enjoys sex more with a non-circumcised man."
Only one respondent (Salah) believed that the non-circumcised male is able to give more pleasure to his partner. He knew this from his interaction with people from other cultures that do not practice circumcision. He said: "I believe that a woman enjoys sex more with a non-circumcised man. I don’t know why but when I was in Europe, a woman told me so."
Other respondents expressed their belief in the differences in health conditions between the circumcised and non-circumcised males. Many respondents varied in their belief that circumcision tends to make the penis easier to clean. Some of them doubted this belief because they were aware of the fact that there are many non-circumcised men in the world who do not have any health problem nor are they considered unclean. Whereas, other respondents were doubtful because they read that the prepuce can easily be drawn back and cleaned. Those who believed so, thought that circumcision could in fact make the male cleaner. Dr. Yara; moreover, said:
"Non-circumcised men get secretions that are not present in the circumcised men, and if they are careful about their personal cleanliness, there is no problem. I cannot imagine the amount of the secretion nor its consequences. I would not know if both did not have a bath for two days, which one would have a smell."
Dr. Afkar added:
"I imagined that it would be cleaner not to have a prepuce, I thought it was a useless piece of skin, a dangling piece of skin that each one had to cope with according to the situation. For example, if he passes urine, he has to clean it. I imagine that it is like a tube around the penis that is difficult to clean if it is dirty. I imagine that when he has intercourse with his wife, he must pull it up or I do not know what exactly he does with it. I cannot imagine the situation … because I have never seen it."
It is strange, however, that Sa‘eed himself suffered from infections in the urinary tract that remained for months after circumcision. But he believed that the non-circumcised male is more exposed to urinary tract infection.
"Lower class women used to say that a circumcised penis looks good.
I wonder, how does it look good?"
Other respondents believed that the main difference between the circumcised and the non-circumcised is in the appearance of the organ. They did not think that such difference has any functional or hygienic implications. Their attitudes towards this difference ranged between neutrality to disapproval. One of those who were neutral was Salah. He based his opinion on the fact that the difference in appearance of the penis disappears in erection. Thus, he concluded that there is no difference between the circumcised and non-circumcised males. He said:
"Lower class women used to say that a circumcised penis looks good. I wonder, how does it look good? I do not understand that? Haven’t you spoken with a woman from the lower class and been told the same thing? When it is erected, it looks the same. It looks good in both cases."
As for Dr. Salma, who saw a son of one of her friends - who was not circumcised and was of school age - said that his appearance did not seem repulsive but only astonishing.
Those who disapproved of the appearance of the intact male justified their views saying that they are accustomed to seeing the penis circumcised. But they add that the prepuce is a dangling piece of useless skin. Dr. Afkar asserted:
"Of course, there is a difference in appearance. I imagine that there is a piece of skin dangling from the penis. I imagine that if someone had not been circumcised, he would have a soft piece of extra skin dangling and I cannot imagine when he grows up, how big it will be. Also, we are used to seeing the circumcised penis; so, we consider that is the way it should be. Once, I saw a Western movie, the actor in it was nude and not circumcised. I was astonished and said, that guy has something strange. I felt that the circumcised man is better, perhaps because I’m used to seeing him that way."
Dina said with an expression of disgust on her face:
"The only difference between a circumcised and non-circumcised male is in the appearance of the organ. Nothing else. One of our friends’ son is not circumcised and the only difference in him is that he has an extra piece of skin hanging a little, but no other differences."
C) The Respondents’ Perception of the Relation of Circumcision to Masculinity and Male Sexual Behavior
When I asked the respondents about the relation between circumcision and masculinity, they equated masculinity with virility, which meant to them sexual potency, except Samia who said that in her opinion, masculinity is not represented by only the penis and Dr. Fahmi who said that masculinity is a complex concept. All respondents agreed also on their belief of the fact that there was no relation between MGM and restriction of their sexual behaviors. Some of them believed that MGM has no effect on sexual functions. But others believed that it did have an effect. Some said that it is a negative and some said that it is a positive effect.
However, most of the respondents believed that there is neither a positive nor a negative relation between MGM and masculinity. For, a non-circumcised male can get married and have children without any problem. Evidently, men from all over the world are married and have children whether they are circumcised or not. The respondents did not voice their own opinions only, but some expressed their knowledge of the common culture that was popular about the relation between circumcision and masculinity. For example, Aisha believed for a long time that circumcision was necessary for the male’s sexual ability until she recently read some books that convinced her that she was wrong.
Seif did not find any relation between circumcision and masculinity. He said, though, "If we considered the prevalent social belief that the circumcised male gets harder erection, then there is a relation, but personally I do not believe there is."
Salah added that the popular ideas among common folk concerning the relation between MGM and FGM and both masculinity and femininity are a patriarchal fallacy. According to that belief, it is thought that FGM ensures women’s chastity and fidelity; and MGM makes men more sexually appealing.
Moreover, those who believed that MGM does not affect sexual functions based their belief on the fact that erection is the most important sexual function, and the prepuce has nothing to do with that, and therefore, MGM has no sexual consequences. Moreover, they believed that as long as men do not remember their circumcision, this has nothing to do with their sexual behavior, which is not the case with FGM. But all of the respondents agreed that circumcision does not affect sexual desire, or the mechanism of sexual intercourse. But they differed in their knowledge and beliefs of its effect on sensitivity and consequently sexual pleasure.
Some respondents, though, had read about the functions of the intact male sexual organ before I interviewed them. These people thought that circumcision has a negative effect on sexual sensitivity, which limits the male’s sexual pleasure. On the other hand, other respondents considered that if males were not circumcised, it might have a negative effect on them. According to social norms, a non-circumcised man is considered abnormal, and in turn, this might have a negative effect on his self-image. As a result, circumcision does have a positive effect on masculinity. Sa‘eed said:
"In Upper Egypt, circumcision is considered a representation and reinforcement of masculinity. When a man is circumcised, he is in his full state of masculinity. For example, he does not have an extra piece of skin. People say that the presence of this extra piece of skin is against masculinity due to its appearance. When we are young, the male organ is small and weak. So, when the piece of skin is on it, the whole organ really looks like a piece of skin because of its skin cover. And when it is circumcised, it all takes the form of a fully developed masculine organ. So, a circumcised man appears more masculine because the head of the penis becomes exposed. It is, therefore, well shaped. However, a non-circumcised man can get married and have children. Everybody does this, or how do you think the nations that do not circumcise males survive?"
Dr. Fahmi though said:
"There is no relation between masculinity and sex. Masculinity is a complex concept. However, there is a relation between circumcision and masculinity. To build the child’s masculine image he should identify with his father and other male relatives and friends and look like them. At school, he compares himself to other children older than himself, and he wonders whether he has the same male characteristics as them or not, because sexual attributes are only a part of masculinity. Masculinity is a group of characteristics; such as chivalrous behavior, in the medieval sense, the brave man who protects others and the man who endures hardships … etc."
Dr. Salma added:
"There is no relation … but socially, circumcision is the shaping of a future man because it is taken for granted that men are circumcised. So, when a boy is born, he is shaped according to social norms."
Some respondents – all of whom are from the medical profession – considered that circumcision has a positive effect on sexual satisfaction. They based their belief on an ancient concept that stated that by exposing the head of the penis, it is made more sensitive. As for the respondents who gave a social interpretation of the belief that circumcision has a positive effect on sexual functions, they said that if the boy is circumcised at a later age, when he is more aware of what is happening, he would be more interested and conscious of his sexual organ, especially if he is told that this is a preparation for the new stage in his life and his role in it. This would have a greater impact on him if it happens right before the age of puberty, especially if the procedure is accompanied by the rituals that make him feel that he has become a grown up. He hears them saying that circumcision has an effect on erection and they congratulate him by calling him ‘a groom’ "‘arees".
D) The Respondents’ perception of the Egyptian’s social justifications for MGM
A lot of respondents stated that they believed in circumcision because it is a common social norm in Egypt. That’s why I inquired into the reasons for which Egyptians circumcise their children. The most important of these justifications is the respondents’ belief that it is a religious ritual. Most of the respondents (Muslims and Christians) agreed that religion is the most important factor that makes Egyptians circumcise their sons. However, some respondents doubted this justification because circumcision is not related to a certain religion to be considered one of its rituals. For example, both Muslims and Christians, in Egypt, circumcise their children. Most of them expressed their belief in the fact that circumcision is part of the ‘Sunna.’ Moreover, some said there is no doubt that male circumcision is a definite Sunna, contrary to the case of female circumcision. Although some of the Christian respondents said that it was not an obligatory procedure according to the New Testament, yet Hureya stated that most Christians still adopt the Old Testament. Moreover, Nehal said that circumcision was transferred to the Egyptians from Judaism. She also believed that Abraham lived in an earlier period than the ancient Egyptians.
Traditions were among the strong justifications that the respondents were aware of, for the continuity of male circumcision in Egypt. Moreover, it was the strongest one because both Muslims and Christians follow it. Sa‘eed continued that circumcision is an experience that was transferred to us by the Pharos and our ancestors. Its being practiced by one generation to the other without questioning reinforced the continuation of circumcision. Society doesn’t even doubt it. That’s why people do not stop to ask themselves why this procedure is being done. Dr. Mona, however, had an experience with people who defend MGM against any doubt. She raised the subject of MGM in meetings she had with some non-governmental organizations in various governorates. People got shocked because she dared to challenge an ancient tradition. They defended male circumcision as being one of the religious necessities. But Dr.Mona though, thought that people are attached to a religious justification because they are indulged in their old habits and do not wish to change.
Most respondents believed that the health justification is stronger than any other held by the intellectuals. Although all Egyptians call this custom "Taharah", i.e. purification, in the sense that it is a materialistic and moral cleanliness, the majority of common folk still practice it as part of tradition; whereas the intellectuals attain the information on the health benefits of MGM by their interaction with medical doctors and through reading books and other sources.
Although the respondents themselves doubted what is said about the necessity of circumcision to facilitate sexual intercourse and reproduction, some of them were aware of the common public belief in such "benefits." Seif heard that circumcision helps in sexual intercourse. He heard that if a male is not circumcised in childhood he cannot be erected when he becomes an adult. Moreover, Dr.Yara recounted that one of her relatives had not been circumcised as a child because his parents died, so when he was 22 and wanted to marry, he had to take the initiative himself. He went to the local barber "Halaq al Sihha," who used to perform first aid and some minor surgical procedures, and got circumcised because he believed that he would not be able to get married unless the procedure was done.
E) The Respondents’ perception of the validity of the social justifications for circumcision
What would happen if a boy were not circumcised?
They all agreed on the fact that there would be no harm,
and most of them answered my question briefly saying, "Nothing."
As seen above, the respondents were aware of the common justifications that are prevalent in the Egyptian society on the subject of MGM. That is why they followed the tradition and circumcised their children. Many doctors agreed to do this procedure to clients who bring their children to them (as will be explained in the following chapter), but did they really believe in what they were doing. In exploring the respondents’ awareness of the truth of the social justification of circumcision, I asked them: What would happen if a boy were not circumcised? They all agreed on the fact that there would be no harm, and most of them answered my question briefly saying, "Nothing." Others explained their points of view. Fathi, for example, said, "The development of the child would not be affected." And Aisha said, " He won’t die if he is not circumcised." Dr. Mona, moreover, added that she thought that it would be better for the child if he remained without circumcision. More than one respondent backed up their opinion by explaining that Europeans do not practice male circumcision and still have a normal life.
F) The Respondents’ perception of the world prevalence of MGM
Some respondents thought that most of the men in the world are not circumcised. They believed so because of their experience and interaction with other nations or from what they read. Other respondents believed that most men are circumcised as they assumed from what they know about the extent circumcision is practiced among Muslims and Jews, for they believe that most of the world’s inhabitants adopt either of these religions.
Those who believed that most males in the world are not circumcised knew that Europeans do not circumcise males. Some of them believed that Americans also do not practice male circumcision and were surprised when I told them of the spread of male circumcision in North America. Others, though, knew that Americans practice male circumcision under the effect of the Jewish lobby. Most of the respondents who believed that most human males are intact based their assumptions on the fact that it was only Jews, Muslims and Christians who interacted with them, who insisted on practicing male circumcision. Therefore, they considered them a minority especially when adding the population of non-circumcised males in Asia.
Strangely enough, during our discussion, Dr. Salma laughed ironically. Suddenly she discovered the contradiction between her familiar information about the relation between lack of male circumcision and poor hygiene, and her certainty that European males were not circumcised, but still they did not suffer from cancer of the penis or cause cancer cervix to their partners, because they were concerned with their personal hygiene. Moreover, Nussa was surprised because European men are not circumcised and at the same time are Christians, although she knew an Egyptian Christian friend whose brother is circumcised. She said: " I don’t know why Western people do not practice male circumcision although they are Christian and why we do it here! "
Those who believed that most men in the world are circumcised mentioned various beliefs all of which are not supported by either experience or theoretical study but are merely inferences. There were opinions as to whether some or all of the Europeans and the Americans were circumcised. Some of the respondents said that they were 90% of the world’s male population, such as, for example, Abu el Fotuh who got his information from the films from various countries in which he had seen nude circumcised actors. So he concluded that all Western men were circumcised and took for granted that circumcision was practiced and accepted by the medical profession all over the world.
Samia believed that there were only the Australian aborigines and some Africans tribes who did not practice this custom.
Hureya, though, believed that all the countries that had the influence of Christianity or Islam circumcised their male children. She was aware of the movement against MGM in the West. She thought that this movement takes place in Europe, and that it is not successful because Europeans believe in the procedure. Moreover, in spite of the fact that Mostafa has been living in Germany and France and knew that their men are not circumcised, yet he still believed that the majority of the world’s male population are circumcised because this custom is related to Islam and Judaism and he thought that Muslims and Jews form 50% of the world population.

G) What the respondents thought about nations that do not practice MGM
"Maybe the higher social class is more concerned about children’s rights
and so they leave the choice to them when they grow up."
If the respondents were aware of the fact that there is a percentage of the world’s population that do not practice MGM, how do they imagine the social and health status of people who are not circumcised? Some respondents thought that where MGM is not a tradition, men from all classes or ethnic groups are intact. Most of these respondents thought positively about non-circumcising groups and communities. They stated that this custom is not practiced in upper classes that are more liberal and well to do. Dr. Nader, moreover, said: "maybe the higher social class is more concerned about children’s rights and so they leave the choice to them when they grow up."
...these are the nations that enjoy a more comfortable life,
such as the Scandinavian countries, that consider assault
on the human body as an unacceptable act.
Dr. Hazem, further more, said: " They are the ones who accept change and do not comply with social norms and have a more liberal attitude."
Americans do not have a specific national culture based on
longstanding civilization, and that’s why they practice customs
taken from other cultures such as MGM.
Abu el Fotuh, though, thought that these are the nations that enjoy a more comfortable life, such as the Scandinavian countries, that consider assault on the human body as an unacceptable act. He justified the spread of MGM in North America by the fact that people there come from different nations and that’s why the Americans do not have a specific national culture based on longstanding civilization, and that’s why they practice customs taken from other cultures such as MGM.
The more civilized the society becomes,
the more culturally and intellectually developed they are;
and therefore refuse to believe in the assaults on the human body.
Dr. Yara said that the more civilized the society becomes, the more culturally and intellectually developed they are; and therefore refuse to believe in the assaults on the human body. It is then that they open up and start to discuss issues to find solutions to the problems they face. By getting to the depth of their problems, they realize the truth and accordingly decide whether to give up their traditions or insist on practicing them.
What made Aisha think positively of the groups that do not practice MGM was the fact that she compared them with what she thought about FGM in Egypt. FGM is practiced less among the intellectuals and the more educated people who read and therefore are more understanding. As for the health conditions of those who are not circumcised, some respondents thought that they are more aware of what is considered healthy and hygienic. They justified this belief by saying that the nations that have a higher level of health care do not practice MGM. Other respondents thought that nations that do not circumcise males like to adventure and take risks. Thus, they accept the risk consequences of non-circumcision.
Hureya was the only respondent who thought that those who do not circumcise their children were the more illiterate and came from a lower cultural standard. Therefore, she believed that the intellectuals of the nations that do not practice this custom might perform circumcision as a kind of health awareness; where as the non-educated do not care to practice circumcision because they are not aware of its health advantages.
...they have European friends who are not circumcised
and who are still both physically and sexually healthy.
Most respondents had positive imaginations of the health conditions of non-circumcised males. They believed that they do not have any problems related to the fact that they are not circumcised. Some of them are sure because they have European friends who are not circumcised and who are still both physically and sexually healthy. These respondents denied the idea of the spread of cancer in nations that do not practice MGM as well as denying that they were the nations who were affected by urinary tract and reproductive system infections. Moreover, Dr. Nazmi described what is said of the filth of the men who are not circumcised and their exposure to infections as " Nonsense!" "kalaam faregh." He added that it would not be the case if these men were not keen on personal cleanliness. Seif stated that even if they do get infections they have good medical services to help them, although, personally he did not think that would happen.
...(he) commented on people who do not practice MGM saying,
"Good for them."
...(he) expressed his positive ideas towards people who are not circumcised,
describing them as, "the best."
Nussa commented on people who do not practice MGM saying, "Good for them." "‘amalu kheir." Dr. Fahmi furthermore, expressed his positive ideas towards people who are not circumcised, describing them as, "the best." "agda‘ naass."
Abu el Fotuh thought that the nations that do not practice MGM, especially the Europeans, do not tolerate dirt. He clarified his notion by giving an example of their idea of a bathroom; they consider it a nice clean place where as we have thought of it, till very recently, as unclean and dirty.
As for the two respondents Dr. Yara and Dr. Khadiga, who were gynecologists, they both attained their knowledge from updated scientific resources. Dr. Yara, thus, realized that in the last 15 years the medical concepts had changed; she found from what she read that the smegma was no longer considered one of the causes of cancer of the uterus. Both doctors moreover, did not believe that non-circumcised males suffered any harm. Dr. Yara added that whether circumcised or not, there are some males that are considered risky and may transmit diseases to their female partners. She acquired these new ideas from reading recent studies especially after her painful experience with her son’s circumcision.
Dr. Khadiga agreed with this opinion, she thought that people who claim that the non-circumcised male causes cancer of the uterus cervix to his wife gain their conviction from social biases and not from medical scientific knowledge. She supported her point of view by saying that this kind of cancer is more common among the Egyptians than the Europeans, in spite of the fact that Europeans do not practice MGM, whereas Egyptians do. In Europe, she explains, technology is more developed making early intervention easier. Finally, she concluded that European men and women are healthier.
While most of the respondents commented on the general health of the non-circumcised males, some of them commented on their sexual health. Sa‘eed considered that there is no relation between MGM and sexual health, if there was, all nations would have been keen on practicing this procedure since all the developed countries are keen about sexual health while most of them do not practice MGM.
Accordingly, Salah believed that a European man can enjoy sex up to age of 60, and said comparing the case with Egyptians " I do not think that an Egyptian man can reach that age and still be that sexually fit, just to age of 40 and then he quits."
Two of the respondents who were doctors, Dr. Afkar and Dr. Nader, expressed negative thoughts concerning the health of men who were not circumcised. The former based her beliefs on what she studied in medical school 25 years ago, when the common idea was that cancer of the uterus cervix was more widely spread in Europe because they do not practice male circumcision there, that was what she was expected to write in answering exams. As for Dr. Nader, who had been graduated about 10 years ago, he was not so sure. He doubted what he had studied and yet could not resolve the contradiction between what he had read in medical school and the more updated information he gained after his graduation.
H) The respondents’ perception of the attitude of religions towards MGM
The respondents’ perceptions of the relationship between religion and MGM ranged between certainty to doubt; some thought that it is a religious requirement, whereas, others thought that there is no relation between it and religion at all. The majority doubted such relation.
Dr. Hazem was among those who thought that circumcision is a religious requirement. He believed that circumcision is an Islamic religious ritual whether it is clearly stated in Qur'an or not. He thought that religion is a complete cultural system in which circumcision forms a part, and submission and obedience is the essence of this system. However, he believed that such a submission decreases among Muslims with the rise of rationalism and individuality. Moreover he believed that Judaism also commands people to perform circumcision, and although he did not know the actual verses, he believed that there is a story in the Old Testament on Abraham’s circumcision. He certified that in Christianity and Islam Allah’s power is ultimate. He thought that the Jewish concept of God is not that exalted. Jewish deity is almost conceptualized as the most mighty human, like Hercules for example. He also thought that the rituals are most significant in closed religions, and that Judaism is one of them. This gives the rituals their significance to become a symbol of the Jewish identity. As for Christianity and Islam, Dr. Hazem considered them more open religions, but he believed that Islam is turning now to be more closed. Accordingly, Muslims are more keen to highlight the difference between them and other non-Muslims. This is a new trend that did not prevail in the early days of Islam. Judaism however has been a closed religion all the time. Dr. Hazem combined the concepts of the perfection of Allah’s creation on one hand, and the evolution theory on the other to justify human interference in the male body by performing circumcision. He said that if God had made things perfect through His absolute will alone, neither religion nor moral instructions would be necessary. It is by religion and moral instructions that humans can interfere to complete the creation according to Allah’s pattern. If God had interfered physically there would not have been a religion. He added that the deity uses both His willpower and the submission of humans to complete His intended creation. The prepuce had a function in a certain stage of man’s development when he lived in wild nature without clothes. In another stage, it had to be reformed and trimmed because it is considered filthy from the religious point of view. It is worth paying for such a reform since there are clothes. This does not mean that the prepuce in itself is a defect, it is like the wild instinct that in itself is not something wrong but needs to be tamed. When man is committed to such taming he complies with social norms. When I asked him whether circumcision is done according to God’s will or the will of the father of the child, he answered saying, that on the philosophical level, it was God’s will; but on the procedural level, it was the father’s will.
Nehal justified her opinion that circumcision is a requirement in Christianity saying that Jesus Christ had been circumcised and there was a feast for that occasion. But when I asked whether all Christians should be crucified because Jesus was crucified, she laughed and said that there was in fact a symbolic crucifixion in Christianity; it was unnecessary to use nails and wood, but it was done by tolerating painful experiences and giving the other cheek to those who slap you. Then when I asked her why they insisted on performing circumcision, and why they did not have a symbolic form of this same procedure similar to the symbolic form of crucifixion, she answered that there was a symbolic circumcision which is represented in the experiences that men and women share. She said: "I think, but I am not sure… But there is a type of moral circumcision… Crucifixion is circumcision." Then, she stopped talking, thought for a moment about what she said, then she laughed and said: "What did I say!!… Oh my God!!!!" "ya lahwi!!!".
Abu el Fotuh, however, believed that there is a relation between circumcision and Judaism; moreover, he said that he had got his information from religious books and that it was stated clearly for the first time in the Old Testament. He referred to Sayyed Al Quimni, Mohamed Hussein Haykal, and Al Sheikh Al Ghazali to prove his point. He also said that he had heard in religious debates that the Prophet had adopted circumcision from Judaism; similarly, the Prophet had adopted fasting from dawn to sunset and the Forbidden Months "al ashhour al haraam". Therefore, he believed that Islam commanded Muslims to circumcise their males, although he was aware that it is not stated in the Qur'an. Neither could he remember what was said about circumcision in the Prophetic tradition. He admitted that circumcision was practiced in pre-Islamic times and also in the early days of Islam and that the Prophet went to such celebrations to which he approved. Abu el Fotuh said that although the Prophet did not circumcise his daughters, it was alleged that his grandsons, Al Hassan and Al Hussein, were circumcised. He added that circumcision was a private custom that the Prophet himself approved of, and yet if it was necessary to divert from this custom for any medical reasons, it is not considered religiously wrong. He gave more explanation of his point of view by saying:
"In the same manner, the Prophet used to have a beard and used to wear a gown; some people said that that was Sunna, but I think it was because that was the custom in those days. If the Prophet were still alive, he would have worn a suit like us. If he had followed a certain pattern of behavior that had been suitable for his time, it does not mean that I should behave accordingly."
As for Dr. Salma, she believed that MGM was a command stated in the Qur'an because she had heard clergy who preached against FGM saying so. She recalled hearing that FGM was not mentioned in the Qur'an, contrary to male circumcision which was. Therefore, she believed what she heard and was convinced in it.
Nussa also believed that Judaism and Islam proclaimed MGM. She got her information from what she heard people saying. Moreover, she assumed that she had heard or read a verse that said that God commanded Ibrahim to have it done.
Dr. Nazmi, however, justified his opinion saying that male circumcision was a religious matter as a part of the Sunna. Although he thought that Allah’s power is absolute and that there was a certain purpose for the presence of the prepuce, because Allah did not create anything haphazardly, and yet he thought that it should be cut off because men of religion say that it is part of the Sunna. He added:
"Why then, did God send the Prophet Mohamed if not to tell us Allah’s laws and explain certain things. For example, God did not tell us in Qur'an how to pray and what verses to read in prayers and yet prophet Mohamed explained all that."
Some respondents, though doubted that circumcision was referred to in religion. Salah, for example said that Judaism proclaims circumcision although he believed that it was an old cultural tradition among the ancient tribes who adopted Judaism. He added that he did not believe that any sacred book could have a command to amputate any of the genitalia. He denied any mention of such commandment in Qur'anic verses.
Fathi, however, thought that there is a prophetic tradition in which male circumcision is mentioned but he did not know the exact statement, neither did he know whether it was true or not. He had got his information from various discussions on the subject with his friends; but he himself did not believe it was a prerequisite for religion, but since it was stated in the prophetic tradition it must have a religious significance.
Dr. Nader also said that the three monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam proclaimed circumcision as far as he knew but he did not know exactly where to find the precise holy statements. He personally believed that God did not create anything haphazardly, but human beings could modify what He created. He believed also that religion was partially conditioned by people and circumcision belonged to the social conditioning of it. That is why people have the prepuce amputated or leave it as it is according to their acquired knowledge; each group of human beings is free to do what it believes in.
Nehal believed that true religion is manifested in its spirit
and not in its text.
Nehal elaborately said that Paul the Apostle, the philosopher of Christianity, said that circumcision was a written law but not to be applied, and she believed that he did not consider it necessary, he only mentioned it as an example of the Jewish law. Nehal believed that true religion is manifested in its spirit and not in its text. She thought that circumcision as stated in the Old Testament, was a symbol of sacrifice that had no longer any significance. If Christ was circumcised, that was because he was an ordinary little boy at the time. Nehal believed in what she heard that the Prophet Mohamed had said: "Reduce but do not cut too much from it" and although some men of religion said that this was not true, she used it in her anti FGM campaign. She said that this statement reflects the Prophet’s wisdom because he did not totally oppose people and their customs so that they would not dislike him, but he did not have FGM done to his daughters. Finally, she said:
"We Christians, believe that Jesus lived till the age of thirty as an ordinary human being, but in the last three years of his life he appeared as Lord. That is why we say that the cross is for one person only who used to live before as an ordinary human being. That explains why he could not tell people that circumcision is not good like the Prophet who said reduce but do not violate."
Whereas, Aisha believed that there was a story of how the Prophet circumcised a boy and celebrated it but she did not know the text of this prophetic tradition. She said though, that her belief in it does not mean that she thinks that male circumcision is a religious matter; to her it is associated with the social but not a religious heritage.
Hureya thought that circumcision is a religious matter that was mentioned in the verse that tells about Ibrahim’s covenant with God. She also believed that it was mentioned in the three monotheistic religions. It passed through the Pharos to Judaism by Moses who was born in Egypt and lived with the Pharaoh, and that that is how he adopted many of the Pharonic rituals. She thought that the Old Testament is full of Pharonic rituals. Accordingly, she knew that circumcision was transferred from Judaism to Christianity and Islam. In her opinion, it is not explicitly a divine commandment but it is a matter that has come as a result of the interaction between the deity and mankind. She believed that man interacts with the devil too. Accordingly, the virtuous acts are a result of his interaction with the deity, and yet there is the evil side of man, which is part of the human diabolic nature. Accordingly, she saw circumcision not as part of some divine wisdom but as a practical prudence. So when medical scientific development considered it a beneficial procedure it was all right to do it but if this theory proves to be wrong people should stop to perform it. She gave an example comparing MGM with tonsillectomy that was common because people believed that it was healthy but later the medical sciences proved this wrong. So it is no longer done at the same rate. As for the Christian conceptualization of circumcision, she was aware that the apostles had various opinions on the subject. Some of them considered that it was a prerequisite in order to enter Christianity. Whereas Paul had a vision in which he saw himself being hungry and presented with a table full of different kinds of food; he was told to eat but answered that he could not because the food was of the polluted type. He was told that it is not the things that enter the mouth that pollute a man but what comes out of it. In the same way, circumcision is not a condition to make people Christians, what is more important is what’s in people’s hearts and their faith in Christian concepts. Hureya used Paul’s vision and its significance to prove that MGM is not a religious matter but it has to do with hygiene.
Dr. Afkar had believed til recently that male circumcision is definitely proclaimed in Islam. She based her information on what was being said by people that surrounded her, that was before she had read anything on the subject. She did not try to find the religious text concerning that matter. Moreover, she believed that although Islam was the religion that proclaimed this procedure, she was well aware of the fact that Christians in Egypt also have the custom of circumcising their boys. But she explained this phenomenon as a social custom that had become so deep rooted in the Egyptian community that everyone did it.
As for Dr. Khadiga, she also considered circumcision as a religious commandment but this does not mean that one can not debate it. In her opinion, since human beings have a mind they have to use it in finding out why things were proclaimed in religion. It is important to read the updated studies concerning circumcision to take into consideration whether to support it or give up the idea completely. She was aware, moreover, that what she had read about the relation between circumcision and cancer of the uterus cervix is no longer supported by recent scientific theories.
To Dr. Salma, God’s power and will in the Islamic concept is ultimate and people use this point of view to justify their inability to change their lives. In trying desperately to alter their life condition and fail, they say that this is God’s will. As to her experience in the matter of circumcision, she had heard someone say that it is stated in the Qur'an and believed him without doubting him or matching what he said with the concept of God’s ultimate power; since He delivered the Qur'an, Allah could also have created man without the prepuce since His power is ultimate.
Dr. Hussam said:
"Personally, I don’t believe that any religion proclaimed circumcision. As far as I know, it is a recommended Sunna and people had various interpretations to it. I do not know any text that states it and I don’t like to use religious justification in my personal affairs but, I do know that there are definite Prophetic traditions concerning circumcision. In my opinion, one should not use Sunna like the Qur'an."
Dr. Yara believed that MGM is an Islamic religious proclamation, and this in her opinion does not interfere with God’s power, which is absolute, and yet circumcision is not a divine proclamation since it was not stated in the Qur'an. Still circumcision should be considered by religion since it is part of the Prophetic tradition that was stated in the books of definite Sunna. That is why it is not a religious commitment.
Another group of respondents believed that there is no relation between religion and circumcision. Sa‘eed proved this point by saying that Christians, Muslims and Jews practice it. And although Seif knew a Prophetic tradition that proclaims circumcision, he did not know the exact text; he said that in such context, one should take matters as they are. He says:
"In my opinion, there are a lot of things in the texts that are either conditioned by the circumstances of that particular period or related to what people knew at the time or their culture. I think one should rationalize things according to scientific and medical facts. I don’t think, therefore, it is a religious matter."
Dina and Dr. Mona, moreover, probed into the matter and were convinced that there was no text in the Qur'an that mentioned MGM, which is why they strongly believed that there is no relation between it and religion. In Dr. Mona’s point of view, the assumptions about the relation of MGM to religion is similar to the same assumptions about FGM. She thought that both subjects have no relation with religion.
Although Samia knew the story from the Old Testament of Abraham’s circumcision, she is aware of the fact that it was not stated in the Qur'an. She concluded that religion did not proclaim circumcision because it never inflicts harm on mankind.
Dr. Fahmi, furthermore, who had studied jurisprudence in Islam, considered MGM similar to FGM, both of which were not one of Allah’s instructions in any of the three monotheistic religions. He believed that ancient Egyptians did not perform this procedure on their males, and that it was originally a Jewish custom to mark their individuals in order to show their identity during the exodus from Egypt, at the time the Pharaoh wanted to kill the Jewish male children. When I asked him about his interpretation of the pictures that illustrated male circumcision in ancient Egypt, he gave a different interpretation. He said that it might have been a ritual related to the ancient Egyptian religion. In that case, the source of male circumcision and female circumcision was the same; it was a sacrifice to the Nile to make it flood the land every year. That is how the Jews adopted this custom from the ancient Egyptians making it part of their religion. Since the Bedouins, who escaped to the Jewish territories, were not circumcised, the Jews used this procedure as a mark to show their identity. Dr. Fahmi, furthermore, knew that male circumcision was mentioned in the Old Testament and said:
"Personally, I think, like many others who studied Judaism and Christianity, that books of the Old Testament were written in various periods by different people and that is how it reflected the common cultures of those times. The problem is whether what is written in it are the actual words of Allah or are they the words of human beings; and here there is a big question mark. As a proof to what I say, is that the World Church Council has a meeting every 2-3 years to revise and reconsider some of the things stated in the Old Testament."
As for Islam, Dr. Fahmi said that there is only one prophetic tradition on the subject of female circumcision and even that is not very strongly supported. It is known as Um Atteya’s tale which is single referenced (Hadith Ahaad ) and is of an uncertain validity ( Mogarah ). There is no mention, though, of male circumcision. As for texts that say "circumcision is Sunna," "Do not act like a disbeliever, and shave your pubic hair and get circumcised." Dr. Fahmi considered them anecdotes and not Prophetic traditions. Accordingly, he thought that male circumcision is not part of the Sunna although generation after generation it had been considered so. He said:
"To define what is from the exact Sunna is a big problem, since they began documenting the Sunna at the end of the first Hegira century till the middle of the second Hegira century. That means that there was a range of a hundred to a hundred and fifty years after the dawn of Islam when the Prophet was alive, and the time of documentation by oral tradition (‘An‘ana ). That is why El Bokhari and other scholars of the prophetic tradition started searching for a way to verify that Mr. So-and-So told Mr. So-and-So such a thing, and so forth, all of which was attributed to the Prophet. These scholars have what they considered ascriptions "Isnaad" and texts "Mutn"; first of all, ascription should be an unbroken link of speech, and the first one to tell the Prophetic saying should have lived with the Prophet himself and have heard directly from him whatever was said. Secondly, the text should confirm what is stated in the Qur'an and should be rational and not conflicting with the human mind. Therefore, El Bokhari gathered 140,000 Prophetic traditions and reduced them to not more than 6,000 or 7,000. Moreover, Muslim and Ibn Hanbel reduced them further, so that now the agreed upon prophetic traditions are 4,625. Other scholars say there are not more than 7 valid ones ( Ahaadith Sahiha ), and in conclusion the written documentation of what the prophet did or said as Sunna happened in a later period and by means of oral tradition (‘An‘ana). Scholars have tried hard to be sure of the truth of these Prophetic traditions. Al-Imam Al Ghazalli elaborated on this matter in his book Al Sunna Al Nabawaya Bayn Ahl Al Fikr Wa Ahl Al Hadith (Prophetic Sunna between men of thought and men of Prophetic tradition). We can depend on only seven of the Prophetic traditions in their constancy and all the rest are single referenced Prophetic traditions "ahadeeth ahaad" or fairly accepted ones "hadeeth hassan," and so forth."
Dr. Fahmi considered that customs like circumcision, putting coal in infant’s eyes, or putting drops of silver nitrate in their eyes are all not part of religion but are customs practiced at a certain period of social history and change from one period to the other. If these custom are considered part of religion they limit the progress of social development. Customs that were adequate for mankind who lived five centuries ago are not adequate now. Furthermore, he did not believe even that it is the concern of religion to probe into these matters. According to him, the essence of religion is to pave the path for mankind to worship God and on the other hand it gives instructions providing the laws that regulate the relations between people. Accordingly, this makes the fatal struggle of humans less, in order to enable them to establish a society which realizes Allah’s will to populate the earth.
II) The medical/health perspective
The most important feature of this perspective is the belief that MGM is part of the hygienic requirements in modern Western culture. Some respondents who began their rationalization from this point described the surgical procedure in which the prepuce is cut off as the main thing they knew about it. Some minimized this surgery describing it as "A simple minor operation" or "removal of a skin cover" "ta’sheer." Similarly they did not give much importance to the role of the prepuce saying: "It is only a piece of skin that covers the tip of the penis." Whereas others recounted some justifications that associates male circumcision to health conditions such as facilitating the cleanliness of genitals. They thought also that MGM prevents infant’s urine retention, cancer of the penis and protects the male’s partner from developing cancer of the uterus cervix. Most of the respondents who expressed their knowledge on this subject, bearing this viewpoint, believed in the common notion that MGM is actually related to health conditions. A few of them though, expressed their doubt in the validity of MGM because they disagreed with the manipulation of the child’s body, even without knowing the function of the prepuce. Some of the respondents who were medical doctors recently acknowledged that the preventive aspect of MGM is a fallacy, although they found it difficult to accept these new ideas that they acquired after their graduation from medical school. Those who could accept that MGM has nothing to do with cancer could not give up their belief in its relation to facilitating the male’s personal hygiene. On the other hand, some respondents who were not medical doctors, believed that MGM was introduced into medicine by Jews, and that it is a fallacy that unduly mixes Jewish religious beliefs with preventive medicine. Whereas, medical doctors who attended their own children’s circumcision said that it was a temporary traumatic experience but it would not persist in the child’s memory. Following is a detailed description of the background knowledge and beliefs of respondents who perceived MGM to be mainly a medical / health issue.
A) The respondents knowledge of the structure and function of the prepuce
Most of the respondents, even the doctors, said that the prepuce is merely a piece of skin covering the tip of penis. Some of them described it saying that "it is an extra and useless piece of skin" "zayda gildeyya" or "An insignificant piece of skin." "hetet gilda malhash aii ma‘na." Moreover, some did not know whether it had any nerve supply. As for those who had the opportunity to read more recent studies on the structure of the prepuce, they knew well that it is a fold of skin which is lined with a mucous membrane formed of cells that secret a sexual lubricant and that it is densely innervated. Furthermore, Dr. Yara knew that in infants the prepuce is closely connected to the tip of the penis, making it difficult to remove it without tearing it apart causing injury and bleeding.
Some male respondents who believed that the prepuce did not have
a function justified their belief by that they themselves
did not miss anything.
Some respondents moreover, did not know anything about the function of the prepuce, and they could not even imagine what that function could be. Even the doctors, who had not had the chance to read articles that were not from their medical school curriculum, could not find any help in what they had studied. Some male respondents who believed that the prepuce did not have a function justified their belief by that they themselves did not miss anything. Some male and female respondents justified their belief that the prepuce has no function by that it is a common belief, and that doctors got used to removing it and that is what gave circumcision a scientific significance. These respondents appealed for proof by scientific experiments to show that the prepuce actually did have a function. They said: "Science has to convince us that our old scientific information were not correct and provide us with research results as a proof.." Whereas, others believed that the prepuce had a protective function in primitive man who was naked. So when he started to wear clothes, the prepuce no longer had a significance.
"Circumcised males must be missing something.
...They say that circumcised women can compensate for their loss
and gain sexual pleasure through other areas of the body,
but still their sexual function lacks something."
Furthermore, some female respondents believed that every part of the human body has a function and a certain benefit, this applies to the prepuce even if we can not define its function. They are convinced that in spite of the fact that circumcised males can establish a normal sexual relationship, that does not prove that the prepuce has no function. As an example of such a belief, is what Dr. Mona said:
"Circumcised males must be missing something. I can not say that if I cut off a finger there will be a substitute for it because I have four others. Still it is a fact, I have lost a finger. OK; They say that circumcised women can compensate for their loss and gain sexual pleasure through other areas of the body, but still their sexual function lacks something."
"Of course it has a role in sexual intercourse."
The respondents from both sexes, however, believed that the only function of the prepuce is mechanical protection of the head of the penis. Only a few of them, as Dr. Laila, knew its other protective mechanisms. Dr. Laila said:
"It is the cover of the head of the penis. Its function is to protect and lubricate it. The prepuce serves as a protection because it secretes an anti-bacterial matter to prevent infection and also prevents premature ejaculation and exposes the head of the penis to stimuli, and a million other functions. Of course it has a role in sexual intercourse. If you take off the cover of the head of the penis, it is like removal of the scalp. Imagine your head without a scalp. It has no compensatory alternative. The prepuce protects the penis and when it is removed, the head of the penis becomes rough as a compensation. That is why circumcision is dangerous."
Most respondents, who mentioned the protective function of the prepuce, believed that it has no sexual function, except for Dr. Laila. As for Dr. Nazmi, he thought that the sexual function of the prepuce lies in it’s lubricant secretions that facilitates intercourse but he did not believe that it has a role in enhancing sexual sensitivity or pleasure. He based his opinion on the fact that the two sexologists Masters and Johnson (http://www.noharmm.org/masters.htm) proved by experimentation in 1966 that there is no difference in sexual sensitivity between the circumcised and non-circumcised males.
Some respondents, most of whom were doctors, believed that the prepuce has a harmful function, for they thought that it causes infections because of the urine drops and secretions that accumulate under it. Those who were not from the medical profession heard the same ideas from medical doctors or had read books on the subject that were written by doctors also, and accordingly believed them. Nehal, furthermore, had read and heard such information in seminars she had attended in which doctors had spoken against FGM but promoted MGM. This information made her think that it is better for males to be circumcised.
I set two questions to all the respondents who either believed that the prepuce did not have a function or had a negative function: Why are all infants born with it? Are there any other parts of the body that can be considered harmful? Most of them did not have answers to these questions. They could not guess why nature still continued to reproduce the prepuce as part of the human body. They gave various justifications for this phenomenon. Some believed that the prepuce is one of the remnants of evolution like for example, the appendix which is most commonly referred to by the respondents as a comparative example. In their opinion the appendix does not have a well-defined function, and therefore they compared it to the prepuce. They thought that if the appendix is a natural remnant of evolution, the prepuce is a remnant of culture. Abu el Fotouh for example, said: "I think that the prepuce was made to protect man in his wild natural environment." Since human beings had invented clothes ages ago, Dr. Hazem tried to justify the presence of the prepuce in spite of this cultural change, by saying:
"It has only been a short time since man has become a rational being. This period has not been long enough for the prepuce to disappear. To stand upright, it has taken man half a million years. Therefore, for a part of the body to disappear, it would take a longer time because cultural progress is much faster than biological evolution. That’s why although nature does not require it any longer, the prepuce has not disappeared yet."
Some respondents were surprised when they knew that the appendix is part of the immune system. Another explanation for the presence of the prepuce mentioned by the respondents, is its analogy to the cornified skin appendages like nails and hair that are both insensitive. For example, in Nehal’s opinion, cutting the hair and nails means that one is allowed to dispose of his body parts since this behavior does not harm the spirit. According to Nehal, circumcision is one type of this behavior because she thought that it is like the nails, a place under which dirt is accumulated. She only objected to the fact that circumcision is done to a male by another person. As for Dr. Salma, she compared the prepuce to the grease of the face, and if the face secretes this grease to protect it, that does not mean that one should not wash his face once every day or even three times a day if necessary. She said though, that she is not all for MGM but she is only giving a comparative example to explain the existence of the prepuce in all infants.
"What we say about girls should be applied to boys as well."
The respondents who could not find a biological explanation to the presence of the prepuce in all infants, said that it was God’s will, that is why they are all born with it. For example, Aisha said:
"When we say that God created girls like that, boys are also created like that. This is one of the things I’ve started to think about. What we say about girls should be applied to boys as well. We say God has created her like that and we should not change God’s creation. This also goes for boys."
Some respondents compared the prepuce to other parts of the body that they thought were unnecessary and might cause health problems or collect dirt, nevertheless, people were born with it. They were unable though, to provide objective justifications for keeping such "harmful" organs and removing the prepuce. Dr. Afkar said that toes were a representative of such harmful body parts. She said:
"We don’t think about everything that deeply. For example, why didn’t I think about the fact that I have five toes? Why aren’t my feet like a duck, which has three toes? Why five since I don’t use any of them. I could have had one small toe and one big toe even if I don’t have any toes at all, it would not mater because I feel that I don’t do anything with them. The leg could have been like a stump without any toes that are useless and I have to clean them all the time. The toes are really useless, in fact, they are insidious organs; they get contaminated and consequently are exposed to tinea. I don’t know what’s the use of having five toes. They are antique organs that have been descended to us over the ages from other species. They are useless although they have nerves. However, I never thought of getting rid of them because no one ever thought of doing so."
Moreover, Dr. Yara compared the prepuce to the uterus and ovaries since there is a trend to remove them after their reproductive function ends at menopause as a protection from cancer. Dr.Yara, though, disagreed with this trend. She thought that women need to feel that they possess all their organs even during menopause. Furthermore, Dr. Fahmi disagreed with Dr. Afkar’s opinion on the mater of toes. He compared the prepuce to the ears and tonsils; the ears secrete wax but no one ever thought of removing them to prevent this secretion. Moreover the tonsils were considered a potential septic focus, but later it was discovered that they are a part of the first line defense mechanism against microbes.
Dr. Nazmi considerd that the prepuce exists in all infants because it is a part of the natural development of the fetus. He said:
"It is a result of the natural development of the fetal genitalia. The male frenulum is analogous to the female frenulum. This means that the prepuce of the female clitoris is the same as the prepuce of the penis and is part of the sexual development of the fetus. Both of which appear in the sixth week of intrauterine life from a common fetal origin."
Although he was aware of this development and that each of the sexual organs in one sex has its equivalent in the opposite sex as to its structure and function, he excluded though, the male prepuce from this rule. Although, he thought that the female prepuce has an important function, he did not think that the male prepuce has the same function. He said:
"It has been proved that if the female prepuce is removed, it would mean the removal of the protective cover of the clitoris so that the erected clitoris would be exposed to friction during the second stage of sexual excitement which would be very painful."
B) The respondents’ perceptions of the significance and objective consequence of MGM
Some respondents said that they do not know any health benefits for MGM and do not even imagine that it has any. In their opinion MGM is not done with the purpose of gaining certain benefits. It is just a custom which is followed without much thinking, like giving the child a name. Dr. Salma said that it is difficult for anyone to gain a benefit by removing a part of his body. Some female respondents said that they never thought of asking men, even their husbands, whether they had gained anything by being circumcised. That’s why they knew nothing about this matter. Whereas, others imagined that there were, in fact, benefits to this procedure as a result of common beliefs they had heard either from their social surroundings or from medical doctors. The doctors had got their information from medical school as undergraduate medical students and had not become updated with most recent knowledge on the subject.
Other respondents perceived MGM as beneficial. The most common of these assumed benefits is to facilitate cleanliness; even those who did not believe in it considered it beneficial in social classes that did not reinforce teaching children personal hygiene. That is why they have justified the continuity of circumcision over thousands of years. Some associated it with certain contexts, for example, Dr. Laila considered that the rationale behind such bad customs, like circumcision, is that they helped to preserve the personal cleanliness of ancient people who lived in desert areas where there was very little water. Another benefit mentioned by the respondents is the prevention of certain diseases such as urine retention, cancer of the penis and cancer of the uterus cervix. The respondents who were medical doctors got their information from medical school; some said that they had not read anything different from what they had learned. Whereas, others got hold of more recent articles that proved the opposite. As for the lay men, they got their information on this subject from doctors. Two female doctors stated that MGM moreover, is beneficial to women and not to men themselves since it protects women from getting cancer of the uterus cervix.
Some of the respondents believed that MGM increases sexual sensitivity and said that by uncovering the head of the penis it is made more sensitive. Nehal tried to justify this benefit, that she had heard from some doctors, by saying that perhaps the uncovered head of the penis is more sensitive than the covered one. As for Dr.Yara, she said that the doctor who circumcised her son explained that after circumcision the head of the penis gets adapted to continuous rubbing against clothes and hence develops more sensitivity. Thinking about it for a moment, she said that this is contradictory statement and that she could not find a suitable justification to explain this belief.
Many respondents doubted the agreed upon "benefits" of MGM even after they had mentioned them. Then they stated the true one that they thought would be achieved: male circumcision was done to comply with traditional social norms that have been deep-rooted for thousands of years in a conservative society which does not easily accept different customs.
A few respondents however considered MGM harmful, whereas most of them considered the procedure, in itself, not dangerous. The only danger in their opinion could arise in a mistake in the surgical procedure especially if done by someone who is not a medical doctor. Such mistakes are for example, if part of the prepuce is not removed, if the head of the penis is injured or if it causes bleeding. Some males backed up the idea that MGM is not a dangerous procedure by saying that they themselves did not have any health or sexual problems. For example Dr. Fahmi said that he does not think that the risks of circumcision are more than risks taken when crossing a road or eating food that is not clean. He continued saying that if anything goes wrong it is just unexplainable fate "quadaa’ wa quadar" and not a result of the procedure itself. On the other hand, some respondents stated some physical and psychological damages.
Dr. Afkar compared her doubts of MGM hazards,
because she never heard a man complain of problems from his circumcision,
to rural women who defended FGM, because circumcised women do not complain.
As for the physical damages, Dr. Khadiga and Dr. Mona both recounted from their practical experience that they had seen excessive bleeding that was about to kill a boy. It was caused by the fact that the boy had a blood disease and the doctor had injured the head of the penis. Dr. Yara got her information about the hazards of MGM from both her readings and from her experience with her son. According to her, MGM hazards include mutilation, painful erection, infection, deformity and the possible development of neuroma that causes persistent pain in the scar.
Dr. Salma said that if we compare our excuses for not performing FGM, they apply also to MGM In both cases there is an unnecessary removal of part of the genitalia. Dr. Afkar compared her doubts of MGM hazards, because she never heard a man complain of problems from his circumcision, to rural women who defended FGM, because circumcised women do not complain.
On the other hand, Seif was the only respondent who said that the pain a child feels during and after circumcision is considered a problem in itself. All other respondents had controversial opinions on the psychological consequences of MGM. They did not deny that it is a painful experience but they thought that the child does not remember the pain if he is circumcised in infancy. They added that in this case, MGM does not have a negative effect on the boy. Many of the respondents believed that this experience could be traumatic if the child is circumcised at an older age when he is aware of what is going on. This belief, though, is opposite to what Sa‘eed said about his own experience with circumcision when he was eleven years old. As for Dr. Laila, who worked as a psychiatrist and who had received many men with psychological and sexual problems in her clinic that were a result of circumcision, she described these cases as having very serious problems.
After this review of the respondents’ knowledge and beliefs about MGM, we will go on to describe their actual experience with MGM.

[Hasbinbad]

Chapter III: Cutting of live flesh: a closer look at circumcision: The respondents’ experiences with MGM and FGM
I) The respondents’ experiences with FGM
Some of the respondents assured that female circumcision is not practiced in their social class. Others, moreover, said that they had only heard of it recently. Sa‘eed said:
"FGM is not practiced in my family nor in my village; all my female relatives are not circumcised. I had never heard of FGM except when I came to Cairo."
Nousa said, "I heard about FGM recently and that was in 1994."
Moreover, Dr. Hazem said: " I didn’t know that FGM existed except when people started debating it. For, we did not study it in medical school neither had I seen it nor heard of it."
Dr. Nazmi said: " It is a well established fact that FGM is a sexual rubbish, of course, and that is how it is considered both scientifically and medically."
As for Dr. Khadiga, she said that her family has no idea of FGM. She furthermore, tried to convince her servant of the harm that could be made by this procedure but she would not listen and circumcised her daughter.
On the other hand, other respondents said that FGM is not practiced in the new generation although it was a custom in their grandparent’s days. For example, Dr. Nader said:
"In the social class from which I came in Upper Egypt, and in the popular area in Cairo where I was brought up as a child, FGM was done. But in the class I live in now, which is a high middle class, FGM has ceased ten years ago."
Moreover, Dr. Fahmi said:
"Females in this generation, my daughter and my nieces, all of them are not circumcised. Things are obviously changing in this generation. I think that 90% of the females from the age of 25 and less are not circumcised in Cairo. But in rural areas it is completely the opposite."
Furthermore, Nehal gave some explanations as to how her family recently stopped performing FGM; in general education and her mother’s increasing knowledge. She says:
"People from lower standards circumcise their girls, whereas the educated do not. For example, my mother was circumcised and experienced the pain of it, that is why she would not have her daughters circumcised. Even though she had not read anything about the subject."
Aisha added: "In my family, I was the last female to be circumcised."
Hureya certified: "FGM was practiced in the older generations but then it stopped."
Other respondents did not know whether FGM is practiced in their families or not because they were aware of the fact that the rate of FGM in Egypt is 97% according to 1995 demographic health survey. Even the respondents who came from the high class said that it could be possible that some of their neighbors still practice female circumcision. Mustafa said:
"The demographic health survey surprised me since I thought that FGM was not practiced in my family, among my friends, nor in the high class in which I live. But now I have to probe into the matter in detail. Although my mother and sisters are not circumcised, they have friends who are. Although the area in which I live is supposed to be a high-class area, it has apartments that belong to the old system of low rents. That means that you can find people from various social levels in one building; that is in one building you can find both ignorant tenants that have not exceeded primary school education on one hand, and elite businessmen on the other."
II) The respondents’ experiences with MGM
All of the respondents, whether Muslims or Christians, confirmed that MGM is a procedure done in their families, among friends and in their residential areas. As far as they knew, it was part of the birth rituals and part of the prevailing Egyptian culture that was done in hospitals even without taking the baby’s family permission. It is no longer considered an occasion to be celebrated.
MGM was a matter taken for granted among families of the respondents. It was out of the hands of young parents; those who hesitated to do this procedure on their children experienced a great deal of pressure from the older generation to circumcise their little boys. For example, Dina said:
"We never brought up the subject in front of anyone, although my mother and father always used to ask me: ‘Haven’t you circumcised your son yet? When he grows up he will have a very bad time.’ They were afraid that the boy would have a shock if he got circumcised at an older age. He will certainly be aware that something wrong is happening, especially that children don’t know why this is being done to them. I was afraid to have him circumcised when he grows a bit older because it might affect him psychologically. But really it made no difference to me if he remained without being circumcised."
Moreover, Dr. Hussam said about his experience with his son:
"When we said we did not want to circumcise him, no one took us seriously. They kept on asking, ‘when will you circumcise him?’ And we did not want to quarrel with our family because of this subject."
I was introduced to more than one category of the respondents’ experiences with MGM. All of the male respondents were circumcised and spoke with me about their personal experience although not with the same detail. Some of the respondents were parents to boys who had been circumcised and could speak more freely with me about their experiences. Moreover I was provided with statements that showed the differences between how men and women perceived the conditions of children who had been circumcised. I also asked the respondents who are medical doctors about their experiences with MGM in their professional practice, and from their statements it could be deduced the various elements that formed the bias of the medical institution on this subject. Moreover, I had a chance to get information concerning respondents’ observations of circumcision experiences of other boys rather than themselves, their sons, or their clients in case of medical doctors. Either they observed the circumcision experiences of sons of their relatives, friends, or neighbors. Because all the respondents belonged to the high middle class, their memories gave me a chance to explore the middle class practices and beliefs concerning MGM.
A) Male respondents’ personal experiences with MGM
Most of the male respondents did not remember anything about their personal experiences with circumcision. Neither did they question their families about the reason for doing this procedure to them nor did their families offer an explanation. They thought that it was a natural procedure that should be accepted without discussion and therefore, took it for granted. This meant that society considered this mater indisputable. Therefore, no one asked why circumcision was done nor did anyone explain the reason for it. Everyone dealt with it as an inevitable truism. The male respondents rarely asked even themselves about its significance. One of those was Dr. Hussam, who started considering the matter at the time of the circumcision of his son, when he began to think of the psychological impact of his own circumcision on himself when he realized that MGM was a traumatic experience to his little son. Dr. Hussam said:
"I was circumcised when I was very young and was not aware of the procedure at all. I could not associate the shock I had with anything else. I must have experienced a shock like my son and maybe it was kept in my sub-conscience. On the contrary, I think that I would look strange if I had not been circumcised because all my life I’ve perceived myself like that."
All of the respondents who were circumcised when they were infants had this procedure done in hospital by a doctor and they were not aware of who was the decision-maker. Although Mustafa believed that it was the doctor who suggested it, he could not prove it. Only three of the eleven males whom I met could clearly remember the experience of their circumcision. Two of them were circumcised when they were four; these were Dr. Nader and Seif. The third was Sa’eed and he was circumcised at the age of eleven. All of these three respondents remembered some ritual celebrations that had accompanied their circumcision. The experience of traditional circumcision that was most close to the traditional rite of passage from childhood to manhood is Sa’eed’s. He says:
"Personally, I was circumcised when I was eleven in Upper Egypt where it is done in a ritual similar to a wedding. It was a joyous occasion on which many boys were gathered to be circumcised. If someone decided to have his son circumcised, relatives and neighbors who had sons who had not already done this procedure brought them to share the experience, which turned it into a celebration. That is how the ritual is done. On that day my brother and I were circumcised in the midst of a group of no less that 30 or 35 boys. We were each given a sum of money (Noqut) as a gift to every newly circumcised boy to buy whatever he wants. I remember that I bought a goat. After the procedure was over drummers played and the celebration began."
Sa’eed recounted more details and continues saying that the decision of circumcising the boy is taken by the parents and the rest of the older members of the family. He was not taken by surprise but was fully aware of what was going to happen. He said:
"I don’t remember who told me but I knew what was going to happen and was prepared for it. I participated in the preparations; inviting the drummers, someone else inviting the flute players, and with us was an older cousin doing other preparations. Thus, we were not deceived or taken by surprise. It was an expected tradition that we all knew would happen and waited for because we would get money from it. It was going to be a celebration and visitors were going to come."
Sa’eed, moreover, considered circumcision at an older age to be an advantage because it makes the impact of the traumatic experience less. He said:
"I was not a small child then, and I knew what was going to happen because I had been to other similar celebrations. So it was no problem for me. On the contrary, I was looking for the day of my circumcision to come. In Upper Egypt, it is nice because they perform this ritual when the boy is totally aware of what is going on. That is nice because the pain is not too much and it occurs in the middle of the celebration as if the boy is going to be married and enter the world of men."
He said that he was not afraid in spite of the fact that he knew it would be painful; he added:
"I was not afraid because I had previously seen the circumcised boys cry a little then after half an hour, they would join us and have fun. It was only a temporary pain that lasted a short while. Personally, I was not afraid. I was keen on listening to the flute because I liked it a lot."
Sa’eed described the role of the ritual celebrations in making the male accept MGM and moreover reinforcing this acceptance in spite of the pain involved. He said:
"I only felt the pain for a short while then I got involved in the celebration and had fun. And after everything was over, my main concern was to see how much money I had got. Society creates a delightful story with a beginning and an end so the boy is always eager to complete it."
Sa’eed described the beginning of the story as follows:
"The women held us, either our maternal cousins, paternal cousins or aunts, with our hands behind our backs, and circumcision was performed by the local barber. The story is so simple, for the one who circumcised me is the same one who used to cut my hair so we are intimate."
I asked him whether the circumcision had an effect on this intimacy but he said, "No we remained friends." In spite of this friendship though, Sa’eed blamed the barber for being the cause of one of the most common complications of MGM which was urinary tract infection. He said:
"Something happened though, that lasted for many years and that was that I had a burning sensation whenever I went to the WC to pass urine. In my opinion the reason was because the barber had done something wrong."
Like the other two respondents, Sa’eed remembered that he wore a white gown (Galabaya) and that the women were singing wedding songs but he did not remember exactly which. He was the only respondent though, who remembered that circumcised boys were given certain types of food like chicken and boiled food.
"There was no choice. I could not agree or disagree.
It is something done beyond one’s consent."
As for Seif, he said: "I remember my experience well. I was circumcised when I was four and I remember the horrible pain." Contrary to the intimacy between Sa’eed and the barber, Seif expressed his alien feelings towards the person who circumcised him; he said:
"Some one came in but he was not a doctor. He must have been a male nurse or a barber. He told me ‘I am going to have a look at you only.’ After that, I felt the horrible pain and then I fainted. It was early afternoon and when I regained consciousness it was very late at night. There were a lot of visitors coming to congratulate but still the pain was very sharp."
In spite of the pain that Seif described as horrible, he denied that the experience left a long term negative effect; he said: "I can not say it affected me although it was painful at the time but that was all." When I asked him if he had chosen to be circumcised, he said: "There was no choice. I could not agree or disagree. It is something done beyond one’s consent." Seif was unlike Sa’eed, no one took his opinion or told him what was going to happen. Unlike Sa’eed too, Seif was not happy about his circumcision. He expressed his feelings by saying: "Any painful experience of course will not be a happy one." The celebration, as he remembers it, was rather limited; he said: "People only came to pay congratulations and take sweets. This was because we used to live in the city and not in a rural area; consequently, the celebrations were different." When I asked him about the details of the celebrations, he said: "The boy wears a white gown and nothing underneath because of the wound. I don’t remember anything about the food. I only remember the white gown."
As for Dr. Nader he did not remember a lot of details of his circumcision and said that no one told him anything about it before hand. All he remembered was that the circumcision happened and he had worn a white gown.
B) The male and female respondents’ experiences with circumcision of their sons
Although most of the male respondents did not remember their personal experiences with circumcision, most of the respondents who had male children remembered it and expressed their feelings about this experience.
a) The male respondents’ experiences with circumcision of their sons
Dr. Nader was not present at the circumcision of both his two sons. He said:
"I did not attend either of my sons’ circumcisions because it was done to both of them in hospital. The youngest was circumcised directly after he was born. The oldest was a couple of months old when we took him to a doctor we trusted to be circumcised, but neither their mother nor me attended the procedures."
Moreover, Dr. Nader did not remember how the two boys were after they had done it. He thought that MGM is a medical procedure more than a social custom. He said: "It is a surgical procedure that is done in hospital like any operation we have like opening an abscess etc." That is why his family did not hold any rituals or celebrations as the more common classes used to do. As for the decision, it was made by both his wife and him because it was a procedure that "had to be done." That did not mean that medical doctors do not have a significant role in encouraging the families to circumcise their boys. Concerning this matter Dr. Nader said:
"When we had our youngest son, they asked us in the hospital ‘would you like him to be circumcised and take B C G?’ We wanted to get over with this procedure before leaving the hospital instead of coming back after a few months. The oldest though, was circumcised after a few months, not because we did not want to do it after he was born but simply because no one asked us at hospital whether we wanted to do it or not. Circumcision was not done in that hospital. After 6 years, when we had our second boy in the same hospital, we were asked if we wanted to do it. The nurse came in and asked us and we welcomed the idea because we wanted to get over with it just like a vaccination. As for our relatives’ situation, they were totally satisfied because what had been done was the expected procedure. ".
Dr. Nader explained that he did not celebrate his sons’ circumcision because it was just a surgery, as if they had tonsillectomy.
Abu el Fotuh recounted his experience with his son saying:
"They told me it should be done after one or two days after his birth in order not to cause any pain. But I do not remember why I left him till he was one or two years old, then I felt I was very late so I took him to one of my friends who was a doctor and did the operation. The doctor gave him local anesthesia that is why he did not scream when he was cut. But afterwards on our way back home, he started feeling the pain. I think he fell asleep from exhaustion. When we got home, his face was extremely flushed. It was actually quite an operation, whereas I had thought it was a simple procedure! I was really concerned. It took quite a while till he calmed down. He suffered for a long time from the pain. Since he had not yet been toilet trained he used to cry each time he passed urine. So I had to keep my eyes on him. I remember that we suffered two whole days with him for it was very painful and the doctor had not been very professional either. Until now my sons’ penis looks deformed because it was not clean cut."
"I think he asked once about the ugly scar around his penis..."
Abu el Fotuh said that the word ‘decision’ could not be applied to male circumcision because it is a natural procedure that is not to be discussed and therefore it is taken for granted. Both his wife and him agreed on the matter beforehand. The discussion though was about the timing of the procedure. When should it be done. He said that he did not tell his son why circumcision was done nor did the boy ask. "He also took it for granted and that he had to undergo the procedure. I’m sure that when he sees his friends, he thinks that that is the usual appearance." But the boy noticed that he was different from his peers and asked into the matter. Abu el Fotuh said: "I think he asked once about the ugly scar around his penis and I told him that the doctor was stupid and had done a stupid mistake. He had not made a clean cut." Other members of the family though, did not object. It was not a matter to be discussed. They had had a small celebration on the seventh day of the circumcision but it was different from the traditional ritual celebrations. The child was not offered any special kinds of food and although he was wearing a white dress it was just a coincidence. He said: "He was wearing a white gown, one of the many white gowns he had, in order not to irritate the wound. We did not buy him a special one."
When I asked Dr. Nazmi about his experience with his son’s circumcision he disapproved answering, saying that: "It is not important. Why should it be?" But when I encouraged him to speak more about it he said briefly: "Of course, my son was circumcised like all of us." He said that the obstetrician who helped his wife in labor, was the same person who circumcised his son. Dr. Nazmi himself attended the procedure. He also disapproved of my question on how his son felt at the time. He said: "That is a strange question. A child of only three days old, and you are asking me how he felt?" But when I insisted he said: "He gave out a cry and then was quiet." He said that both he and his wife made the decision together to have the procedure done. Moreover, he did not have a celebration on that occasion. He said: "Circumcision is not a special occasion. It is done in all families. But in the common class they usually have a party. This though, is an old custom." When I asked Dr. Nazmi about his son’s feeding and sleeping pattern before and after circumcision he said: "Of course, there was no difference."
Dr. Fahmi furthermore, said: "My son was circumcised after the first week when he was still in hospital. They did not take our permission. It was part of the usual rituals." He gave the excuse for the procedure by saying: "It was done to his father, his father’s brother and mother’s brother. All the males born before him and that are still to be born are circumcised. It is the natural thing to be done."
b) Female respondents’ experience with their sons’ circumcision:
Dr. Salma said:
"My son was circumcised an hour after he was born. I do not know the details of what happened because I had had a Caesarean section and I was under anesthesia. I woke up and found my son dressed in bandages. Two days later, when I left hospital I could see nothing except some anti-septic solution on the penis. So I did not have to dress his wound and accordingly, I never heard him scream."
She said that it was the doctor who made the decision to do the procedure but she and her husband agreed to it. She recounted: "they waited till I awoke from anesthesia and fed him and then they told me, ‘we will take him for a moment.’ But they did not tell me why. My husband told me that they were going to circumcise him." She did not notice any change in her son’s feeding or sleeping patterns because he was circumcised after a couple of hours of his birth and had not yet developed any feeding pattern. As for the rest of the family, they had no reactions; they neither congratulated nor objected to the circumcision.
"I must tell you my story because it shows how
the American society is bigoted. It is an awful society."
About her experience, Dr. Laila said:
"My son was borne in New York 34 years ago. I was studying for my masters’ degree at Columbia University. I must tell you my story because it shows how the American society is bigoted. It is an awful society. I should have sued them. I gave birth at hospital and on knowing that I am Muslim; they circumcised him without taking my permission. The fact that I was Egyptian and a Muslim made them think that all of us circumcise our boys but I think that they do it as a routine procedure."
Dr. Laila’s son was circumcised when he was a week old and she noticed changes in both his feeding and sleeping patterns. She said:
"The wound remained open for two or three weeks, because as you know, a child’s immunity system is still weak and its wounds don’t heal easily. All night he cried from the pain and I was a student at the time and was so tense and did not know how to cope."
I asked her whether she had thought, when she was pregnant, about what she would do if it is a boy, would she circumcise him? She said: "At the time, I did not think of the subject. But when they did circumcise him, I should have sued them." But in those days, she did not because she thought that circumcision was an ordinary routine procedure.
As for Dr. Mona, she said:
"I did not attend both my sons’ circumcision procedures. But it is really repulsive to cope with the baby after the procedure; the continuous screaming, and the feeling that you have to cope with a baby’s wounded penis that is bound in bandages makes you afraid to handle it. Every time he did pee-pee he screamed! It was repulsive really, until the healing was complete. You are afraid the wound might get contaminated."
About the feeding and sleeping patterns, she said:
"Of course they are affected. When the boy is circumcised he has a wound and naturally he cries a lot and every time he passes urine, he screams. Even if he is asleep, he screams because obviously it hurts."
"Is there any child who does not feel pain? Of course not, because he screams.
Is not there a wound and something cut off?"
She circumcised her oldest son at the age of two weeks, whereas, she circumcised her youngest son when he was three days old. She justified the age difference between the two boys by saying:
"I had my youngest son circumcised earlier because the elder one suffered a lot after circumcision. I suppose it was because he had got older and could feel the pain. Doctors say that the younger a child is when he is circumcised, the better because he wont feel pain."
When I asked her what actually happened when her youngest boy was circumcised, she said: "Is there any child who does not feel pain? Of course not, because he screams. Is not there a wound and something cut off?" Dr. Mona though, did not remember the procedure’s effect on the baby’s feeding or sleeping patterns but she said: "Usually if the child is screaming for any reason, he stops crying when he is given the breast, then he starts screaming again." She said that both she and her husband took the decision of circumcision for both of their children. The doctor did not spontaneously offer to do it. She said:
"Their father and I made the decision. But the women of the family asked us when were we going to have them circumcised. The nurse, who was a woman, came in and said, ‘The doctor is here. Would you like to circumcise the little boy?’ I agreed without thinking."
Dr. Mona noticed that her two sons got different degrees of circumcision. She commented: "The two boys got two different types. The oldest still has an ample amount of foreskin. As for the youngest, the skin of his organ is tight, that is why I was worried." She described her feelings when the nurse took her sons saying: "I was tense and very worried. I was afraid and anxious for my sons." She said that these feelings were the reason that she had postponed the circumcision of her eldest son until he was two weeks old, after which she gave in. She said:
"The women of the family and the women nurses roused me saying, ‘Are you going to wait till he grows up to be a man? He will be traumatized then. The younger he is the easier the healing will be.’"
She described both her and her son’s conditions after the procedure saying: "After the operation he came out of the theatre crying and the nurse told me to take him to be fed. I took him and I was so sorry for him." Dr. Mona did not hold any celebrations for either of her sons’ circumcision. But her relatives congratulated her when they knew she had done it. She expressed her astonishment at the custom of being congratulated for her sons’ circumcisions saying:
"I do not know why people used to congratulate each other for circumcision! I felt it was absurd. My children were wounded and I wanted them to get well again. But we were told that it had to be done. It was a must that we had to get over with."
"My cousin congratulated the baby by bending over him, kissing him
and saying, 'Never mind, this is the only time you will be hurt.
After that you will hurt others.'"
She said that the strangest comment that she heard and that really made her mad, was her cousin’s words. She said:
"My cousin congratulated the baby by bending over him, kissing him and saying, ‘Never mind, this is the only time you will be hurt. After that you will hurt others.’ "ma‘alihsh, el marra di inta ‘illi ha tti‘awwar, ba‘d kida inta ‘illi hat ‘awwar". I was surprised and said to her, ‘You wicked woman!! "ya mugrima!!", what are you implying now? Is this the right time to think about such things?’ This comment really surprised me. I felt that she was dealing with him as if he was a man although he was still a baby. It gave me the impression that he would have the upper hand and that he was going to be a man and injure women. Her comment gave me that feeling. It was an audacious statement. Why should he injure women? Of course she was implying something sexual but the statement did not give the impression that that was all to it. It made me feel that she wishes that he would have the upper hand in everything."
Hureya said that it was the doctor who made the decision to circumcise her sons. She said:
"I don’t know, there are some things in life that are deep rooted in society, but I did not take circumcision as a deep rooted custom. I was convinced with it as a principle when the doctor advised me to do it after I had told him that my son cried every time he passes urine. He was very young, only one week old. The doctor said ‘Because he must be circumcised.’ It was not the doctor though who did the procedure. At the time there were still rabbis in Egypt that were specialized in circumcising boys. So I got one of them who came to the house and circumcised my son. I can’t tell how much he cut off exactly but I think that he took off all of the foreskin. This is my personal experience but after that I did not think about it."
About the boy’s condition after the procedure she said:
"He screamed for a moment after that he was all right. I felt that after that, the boy was better. Maybe that was my imagination because of the ideas that the doctor had put into my mind and that was in the end of the 1950s."
c) Married couples’ experience with their sons’ circumcisions:
Among the respondents there were four couples; and below are the comparative statements and reactions of the mothers and fathers towards their sons’ circumcisions.
a) Sa’eed and Dina
Contrary to the positive memory Sa’eed had of his own circumcision, that was done in a traditional method in the middle of a ceremonious atmosphere, he had negative memories of the circumcision of his son. He said:
"When I circumcised my son in the modern way, he was still very young, and it was quite a problem. He was over one year old. The doctor gave him an injection of anesthesia. I was worried about him and told myself, ‘Why didn’t I circumcise him in the traditional way, waiting till he grows up and knows what is going on?’ We were worried about him because he remained a whole night completely doped."
Dina agreed with her husband about her being worried for her son, but they had different statements as to how the decision was made. Although Sa’eed confessed that Dina had hesitated at the moment of the procedure, he said that she shared him in making the decision. Dina said, though:
"It was the boy’s father who made the decision, but to tell the truth, it wasn’t only his father; a friend of ours thought he was doing us a favor, he said he had found a doctor who would do it without causing the baby any pain. We were cautious to make the operation with a minimum amount of pain. I didn’t object to it but I was simply worried."
She then recounted: "I have a daughter, but of course, I had not thought of circumcising her." Sa’eed remembered the disagreement he had with his wife concerning their son’s circumcision. He said:
"She asked why we had to circumcised him? I told her, ‘Because everybody has to be circumcised.’ It never occurred to me to ask that same question. I added, ‘He will be odd if he isn’t.’ She answered, ‘Of course not. Who told you everybody is circumcised?’ she was very nervous and anxious for her son. She used gender rights to support her argument. I told her that even all our Coptic friends were circumcised so why should we be odd?"
Sa’eed justified his determination to circumcise his son saying:
"I couldn’t say no to the procedure because I was convinced that it was healthy to do so. I don’t know till now if that’s true or not. I have no idea. But logically speaking, it seems to be healthy because there is no extra skin to keep the dirt underneath and consequently, cause infections. I couldn’t keep him uncircumcised in a society in which everybody is."
Dina then described the critical moments before the procedure was done. She said:
"I gave birth to my son prematurely, after seven months of pregnancy. He was born abroad. Usually boys in Egypt, according to how things are done now, are circumcised after a day or a week of their birth. My son though, remained without circumcision till he was about 12 months. It made no difference to me, I mean I wasn’t worried about it like his father who wanted him to be circumcised so that it wouldn’t affect him when he grows up. We ought to have done the procedure while he was still young so that he wouldn’t feel any pain. So when we went to the doctor, he insisted on giving him general anesthesia. Of course I was shocked because I hadn’t expected a child to take general anesthesia for circumcision. I thought that it might be bad for the boy’s heart. So I asked the doctor before doing anything, ‘Must boys be circumcised?’ I was serious because I had no pre-established ideas. I didn’t know why, but I found myself saying that there was no reason for male circumcision although I had no idea where I had got this information from. It just came to my mind by chance. Maybe because I was worried about my son. He said, ‘Some people say it’s not necessary.’ I was surprised because the doctor was a man who observed religious rituals, such as prayers. I told him, ‘Well, let’s not do it.’ I was about to take the boy and go home but his father insisted saying, ‘It is over. We are here now."
The doctor played a major role in motivating Sa’eed to insist on having the procedure done and in changing Dina’s mind. Sa’eed described the doctor’s role saying: "Actually, we were about to change our minds. There was a long discussion between my wife and me, and the doctor interfered and told us about the harm of the extra piece of skin." Sa’eed moreover, said that Dina was forced to comply with the doctor’s point of view and it was too late because the boy had already taken the anesthesia. But she was not really convinced. He said:
"The doctor did not convince her but the boy had already taken the injection and the doctor almost started to circumcise him. He was calming Dina down by telling her that it was more healthy to have it done."
Dina expressed the confusion that she experienced at that moment; although the doctor had told her that it was not necessary, the boy had already been given the anesthesia and he was telling her about the disadvantages of the prepuce. She said: "I wanted to withdraw but it was too late. On leaving the clinic, I was in a very bad state." Contrary to the elaborate celebration that was made on Sa’eed’s circumcision, his son’s experience was done in silence and surrounded by anxiety. Dina said:
"All the family was worried because he was prematurely born after seven months of pregnancy. They said, ‘Thank God it's over and done with.’ No one came to congratulate, there was no celebration or ceremony."
Feeling distressed on that occasion, which was opposite to his own happy experience, Sa’eed said:
"What I believe is that circumcision at an early age is not good. If I ever have another boy, and I still consider circumcision, I won’t circumcise him till he is 10 or 12 years old according to the Upper Egyptian traditions."
Sa’eed and Dina differed in their estimation of the amount of pain involved during the procedure. Sa’eed said: "The pain was very mild but it was the fright "khadda" that made him cry." Dina said however, "It hurts of course, isn’t it a wound it should hurt."
b) Dr. Hazem and Dr. Afkar
Dr. Hazem was one of the respondents who did not remember his personal circumcision, because he was circumcised when he was very young. He attended his son’s circumcision, which was done when the boy was an infant, and he was moved by it. He said:
"We spent three miserable days. He cried such a lot. It wasn’t a pleasant experience at all. Imagine a father watching his son being circumcised and the poor boy is screaming! To me it was a horrible experience."
Because he had said that it is better and less painful to circumcise boys when they are infants, I asked him if he knew the extent of pain felt by his son. He said: "To my surprise, the boy suffered a great deal of pain." He tried to reconcile between the pain his son had felt and his belief that infants do not feel pain as much as adults. He said:
"Being his father, I perceived the slightest pain he feels as an exaggerated agony. I had imagined though, that because he was so young, he would not be aware of the pain. But of course it was painful."
He tried to console himself for causing so much pain to his son and said: "The most important thing is that the shock would not affect him psychologically." I tried to test Dr. Hazem’s objective perception of children’s sense of pain - especially that he justified his son’s pain by his paternal emotions – by asking him about the children he had circumcised when he was still under training. Dr. Hazem said:
"Of course, when I was a house officer I took it as part of my professional practice and I was happy because I knew how to do it. But although I saw a child in pain, the mother was happy and that used to encourage me."
As for Dr. Afkar, she realized the extent of her son’s pain. She also recounted that he had been exposed to one of the complications of circumcision and that was bleeding. She continued by giving the example of her nephew who had similar problems that were quite serious. She said:
"My son was two months old when he was circumcised. A friend of ours who was a doctor did it, and I was afraid he might have some complications. After the procedure was done, I was worried he might bleed and that I would not be able to get to the doctor in time. This reoccurred with my nephew two years later. He was about four months old; I refused to let my sister take him home. I insisted on making her spend the night at hospital, so that we would be there if anything happened. After the procedure, my son was so pale and I was worried about him, but still he bled. I remember that my nephew was also pale and bled too and I had been very anxious."
She found solace in another way by saying: "It seems that it is natural that boys bleed when passing urine for the first time after they are circumcised." In the same manner she justified circumcised children’s sense of pain. She said:
"They felt the pain and were crying and screaming but I thought that that was normal. The whole experience was normal and all little boys have to go through it. It is just one of those painful experience in life that makes them like everybody else, like for example, piercing the ears of little girls."
Dr. Hazem and Dr. Afkar agreed in that they both made the decision to have the procedure done. Dr. Afkar said:
"That was the way it had to be. Both his father and I decided to have it done. Although we were worried that something might go wrong, we wanted to have it done. We felt that it was a must. It was better to get over with it while the boy was still young than have him grow up and do it then; it would be more painful for him then."
Dr. Hazem, furthermore, said: "The discussion was about when it should be done. The boy’s mother suggested that we have it done after a month of his birth so that he would not bleed. I personally, felt sorry for him." When I tried to deduce the implications of the father’s pity, he denied that it had anything to do with his objecting to the procedure itself. He said:
"No it was not an objection. In general I don’t like surgical procedures. I have my own escape mechanisms. When the time comes for anything to be done, I always wish that something happens to stop it."
I asked him how he had overcome his fear at the time? He said: "I knew it had to be done so that the boy would not have further problems." Dr. Afkar’s mother told them that they should observe the traditional precautions that are known as (Moshahara) . She said: "I think it was my mother who said that no one who has just been shaved should see the boy. We always used to do what she said just to satisfy her."
c) Dr. Hussam and Dr. Yara
"I discussed the matter with my wife and we were convinced
that it was unnecessary; but we took the decision under social pressure."
Dr. Hussam and Dr. Yara are close friends of mine, they hesitated a while until they made the decision to circumcise their son. Dr. Hussam had read some articles that were against male circumcision before his son was born. When I congratulated him on having a baby boy, we had a long discussion on the subject. He told me about his state of confusion and anxiety and about the stress he experienced on knowing he had got a boy till finally he had him circumcised. He said:
"The issue was: should we circumcise him or not. I was aware of the scholars who thought that it was not necessary and I could not make up my mind whether to do it or not. If I were living in another society, I would not have done it. It really would not have been necessary, why should I? I discussed the matter with my wife and we were convinced that it was unnecessary; but we took the decision under social pressure. Family members and friends used to ask us, ‘Isn’t the boy going to be circumcised! Isn’t the boy going to be circumcised!’ We postponed it till we made up our mind; it might have been better though if we had circumcised him three or four days after his birth. People told us it would be better but we said we would wait and circumcise him after a month of serious thinking. Finally we decided to have him circumcised like all other little boys. Why should he be different? I don’t have the right to take the decision to make him different. I don’t know what would happen if a child like him went to the club and other children ridicule him because he would not be like them. He would even get psychologically upset for, how would I know that things would change in his generation? So we decided to have him circumcised. We were worried though, as to who should do it so that there would not be any complications. Hoping that there would not be any psychological problems, we had the procedure done."
As for Dr.Yara, she described the social pressure and said:
"I had never thought of it except when I gave birth to a boy. Then the subject was brought up. It wasn’t a pleasant experience. Apart from the convictions or beliefs, I could not accept the idea of my baby son’s being tied up to have the operation without any anesthesia or anything to soothe him. I could not accept the idea of him being exposed to so much pain for the purpose of cutting off a piece of his body! I just couldn’t accept it and why should I? What was the good of it?"
Although Dr. Yara wasn’t convinced of circumcision, she finally gave in to the social pressure. She said:
"People kept nagging me saying that he will be odd in our society because everybody does it. He might have psychological problems when he grows up and finds himself the only one who is different. His sexual satisfaction will be less because circumcised males are more satisfied sexually; when the head of the penis is exposed it is more sensitive. But I wasn’t keen on it. All I wanted was that the boy would not suffer pain. I didn’t want him to go through anything I didn’t really understand neither did I want him to be different from others."
She went on to mention who put pressure on her saying:
"My brothers and sisters, my mother and my husband’s relatives. You were the only one who told me not to do it. At the time I was reading a book by Dr. Spock, who was a Jewish pediatrician, he acknowledged circumcision. I read an Arabic translated edition of the 1980s in which he was neither against nor for it. He had written that circumcision was a procedure done and was describing how to cope with the child during and after it but I didn’t feel he had any objection to the procedure itself."
Dr. Hussam said that he and his wife played an equal role in deciding to circumcise their son. He said: "We discussed the subject and wanted to take your opinion but did not have time for at the time the boy was a month old. If we had waited any longer, it would have been more complicated." When I asked him about the signs that made him realize that his son needed to have the operation done urgently, he said: "There were not any symptoms or signs, the problem was that we had the idea that the longer we waited the more difficult it would be." Furthermore, Dr. Yara described her role in making the decision saying: "Although I did not refuse, it was his father who made the decision. But even his father, at a point, hesitated." Although this statement implied that her role was not as big as her husband’s, but she repeated that they were both equally responsible. Dr. Yara said:
"Both of us shared the initiative; he started looking for someone to do it but I said that I knew a doctor who could do it well. We all knew how to do it but I introduced him to this professor at the hospital. I could not attend the operation though, so I waited outside in the waiting room."
Dr. Hussam recounted that the doctor did not give the boy any anesthesia, in addition to other professional malpractices. He said:
"I was not pleased at all with this operation. My wife had chosen that doctor because she knew he was good at circumcising. He did it in the delivery room "kushk el wilada" and I went in with him. He went in without changing his regular cloths nor even wearing surgical gloves nor over shoes. I was not happy about what was going on. I did not like him going into the operation like that. He even let me enter the theater with my everyday cloths on. I did not care to put on a surgical gown, if the surgeon himself neglected it, why should I care? The boy’s prepuce was closely attached to the head of the penis so it bled when the surgeon separated it. The doctor said, ‘Usually, I don’t take any stitches but in this case I will have to.’ Till now, the appearance of my sons’ penis is strange because the scar edge is irregular. The head of the penis is surrounded by a scalloped scar."
Apart from the mistakes that Dr. Hussam mentioned about the surgeon who circumcised his son, he continued to describe his feelings and reaction to his son’s pain. He said:
"The situation was difficult it was not easy at all. I’ve seen circumcisions being done before and I know how painful it is to a baby. I felt its pain even more when it came to my son. I felt that it was a traumatic experience and I must say that circumcision is sure to have a psychological impact. However, I wonder how this traumatic experience would affect a boy of three days old?"
He explained his description of circumcision as a severely traumatic experience by saying: "There is a wound of course, because a doctor had to snip, press with the forceps and cut. The boy got disturbed and screamed. I don’t know what impact this will have on him." In spite of the fact that Dr. Yara was not present in the surgery theater, her state was not any better than her husband's. She said:
"I was in the waiting room and could not hear what was going on in the operation theatre but I knew the kind of operation and what was done in it. I’ve done it myself before. My friends were around me comforting me and saying, ‘Everybody has to go through it. It is a simple procedure.’ But in spite of all that I was in a very bad condition."
Dr. Hussam said that they were worried and tense for three weeks after the circumcision because the baby was having a lot of pain. Dr. Yara said though, that the difficult period was more than that. She said:
"He was in a very bad state for a month and half after the procedure, and I felt that he had changed a lot. I kept wishing I had done what you Seham had told me. The baby was sick and tired and so was I."
Moreover, Dr. Hussam described his son’s condition during that period. He said:
"He had become very nervous and cried a lot. He had a great deal of nervous movements. It was then that I felt that perhaps he had got a shock and I was worried and afraid. That is why, I tell you, I want to know more about the subject."
"What happened after the circumcision was that he cried a lot,
as if he was afraid of the world."
As for Dr. Yara, she described the child’s condition as follows: "What happened after the circumcision was that he cried a lot, as if he was afraid of the world." When I asked her what were the signs of the fear she said:
"He cried about anything and was afraid of everything. He cried when he woke up and cried when left alone. If you try to do anything for him he would cry even if what you were doing does not hurt. He suffered for a long time during which his sleeping pattern was irregular; he used to sleep a short while and then wake up and so on. He used to have stomach ache or that was what I imagined."
Dr. Yara furthermore had read some material that increased her anxiety: she said:
"After I had circumcised my son, I read two whole pages on the complications of circumcision, some of which I thought had happened to my son. He had stitches that were inflamed for quite a while after the procedure. The scar had rather an irregular edge that formed scallops around the head of the penis. The author of the article I had read said that that was one of the complications that could happen and it would persist all over his life. Perhaps if I had read that article before circumcising him, I would have strongly objected to having the procedure done. Moreover, I was very disturbed after reading it and remained terrified for many days and felt a deep sense of guilt. I felt that my son had experienced more or less all the problems stated by the author. I also felt that he had been psychologically affected; before circumcision he used to be very quiet and did not cry much."
Dr. Hussam however, tried to find other excuses that deny the relation between these signs and circumcision. He said:
"He cried more than usual that is why his sleep was disturbed, I’m not sure though that circumcision is the cause. During that period I was really worried and experienced a sense of guilt. I asked myself, ‘Could it be that we had really done something wrong?’ But gradually, my sense of guilt diminished because I thought that his crying might not necessarily be related to circumcision. He went through different stages; sometimes he would be all right and sometimes he would be sick this was not related to anything except developmental stages."
When I asked him if nervousness is a sign of normal development, he said that these signs might not even be nervousness at all. He said:
"We interpreted them as signs of nervousness. Before, in the first month of age we used to wake him up to feed him. Then, in the second month, he used to wake up more and cry more so we would consider that a sign of the child’s being nervous. I don’t have much experience though, with children; but because I want the best for my son, every time something happened, I would get worried."
Dr. Yara agreed with him in his opinion. She said:
"I don’t know, but even in research when they say that these signs are related to circumcision, it is not correct. There are other factors that are to be taken into consideration. The child grows up and changes. Perhaps there are other factors that changed him."
In this state of anxiety, it was quite natural that Dr. Hussam and Dr. Yara did not have any celebrations. Although some relatives called them up to congratulate them on the circumcision.
d) Seif and Aisha
Seif said that he remembered the experience he had in both of his sons’ circumcisions: "I was present at the time of both my sons’ circumcisions. They were very young. Although I did not go into the operation theatre, I was in the hospital." He expressed that the responsibility of making the decision lay on both parents and doctor. He said:
"Since it is a custom that we all went through, my wife and I made the decision to circumcise them. At the hospital, after our eldest boy was born, they asked us if we wanted to circumcise him. We answered, why not. As for the second son, we had him circumcised after 40 days."
Aisha described the role of the doctor in suggesting the circumcision of one of her sons saying:
"The youngest was circumcised at quite an early age because he had a problem in passing urine. So, instead of giving him medication, the doctor suggested to circumcise him because the prepuce was blocking the urethra. That is why the procedure was done after a month and a half of his birth."
She insisted that the doctor did not try to cure the boy with medicine but advised them directly to do the operation. About her experience with her two sons, Aisha said:
"It was a tragedy in both cases! No matter what I say, I can not describe it. The screaming!!! Oh my God!!!! I will never hear like it again! I left the clinic and went out and my husband was the one who stayed. After everything was over they called me to nurse the baby. On entering the room, I found my husband’s face as pale as a white sheet "bafta bida" and the blood vessels bulging out of my son’s face, just like the pictures you see of the African children in the famine. His face was so pale too "bafta bida." I could see an extraordinary expression of questioning on his facial expressions. I gave him my breast and all the time I was crying."
"With his eyes he was asking me,
‘What have you done to me? Didn’t you have mercy on me?’"
When I asked her about the expression on her son’s face, she said:
"With his eyes he was asking me, ‘What have you done to me? Didn’t you have mercy on me?’ I will never forget what happened to my two sons when they were circumcised. It was really terrible. When I was feeding him he stopped sucking every now and then from the pain and kept looking at me as if he wanted to tell me something. It was a real tragedy. I hated myself. The conclusion is that I hated myself for circumcising my two sons."
Seif too remembered the condition of his sons after circumcision. He said: "All I remember was that there was a lot of screaming and pain each time they passed urine for two or three days." Aisha added that her son was not sleeping well also. Although she realized the cruelty of the experience with her first son, she repeated it with the second. She justified this by saying that no one discussed the subject in front of her as an important issue. In her opinion, her feelings were not enough to stop her from doing it again.
Both Aisha and Seif agreed that male circumcision is a normal procedure. Neither should there be any celebrations nor should any one object to it. They said, accordingly: "We did not have any ceremony or celebration nor did we get presents. The same happened with all the other males in the family."
C) The respondents who recounted male circumcision experiences of other acquaintances
Some respondents could remember MGM experiences of other males rather than themselves and their children. Salah started by saying: "I do not care if I attend these ceremonies. I am not very interested in them." However, after much encouragement he said:
"Now I remembered. My nephew was a year old. They took him to a doctor to circumcise him. No one discussed the matter. They took him to the doctor as if it was a natural procedure. But no one suggested the circumcision of my niece."
He interpreted what happened to his nephew by saying that it was because they belong to middle class bourgeois and were not concerned with issues of human rights. They only had a small celebration like that of a birthday party.
Sa‘eed recounted experiences of some of his relatives saying that there were some interesting stories. On one hand, some of them gave in to the procedure like him, and others tried to run away. He said:
"Some children succumbed to the procedure and some ran away and were brought back crying. One cannot generalize. I remember that my uncle was a very strong boy. He used to be able to crush a coin in his hand. They circumcised him by three stages. Each time they would cut a piece and he used to run away and hide to be brought back after a day or two. It took them three or four days to complete the circumcision. He was 15 years old then and was as strong as a horse, but was afraid of the pain in spite of his strength. The funny story spread in the whole village about my uncle who was circumcised in four days."
Dr. Fahmi moreover, said that he came from one of the popular Cairene areas and was aware of how people considered it a happy occasion there. He said that he had seen processions like those described by Salah Jahin, a famous author, in the song "Sprinkle Salt 7 Times, Little Boy’s Mother" (Ya Um el Mittaher Rushy el Malh 7 Marrat). On such an occasion the child is usually dressed in a white gown and rides a chariot (Hantour) accompanied by drummers and flute players (Zaffa). Usually it is a group ceremony when three or four boys are circumcised together. He had not experienced such a ceremony because he was circumcised at the age of two weeks He remembered though, the circumcision of his youngest brother who was three years old at the time. The family had the doctor come in to do it at home. He said:
"He was given local anesthesia. At the time I was eleven and can remember. He screamed a lot of course. My father and uncle tied him down, and I remember that there was a male nurse as well. They did the procedure in the drawing room, lying him on a table in the middle of the room. The boy cried and fainted. Then my mother came and held him in her arms soothing him. The doctor prescribed a painkiller and told her he would be all right after he passes urine. For two or three days he walked with his legs far apart. The first two or three times he passed urine he screamed, but after that he was all right."
The family had told that child that he was going to be circumcised so, he was afraid and tried to run away. Dr. Fahmi added:
"We used to live in the ground floor, and had a garden. He hid in the garden when the doctor came. I remember we had a male servant who looked for him and finally got him. The boy was in tears."
But all the boy’s kicking and sobbing were not enough to make the family change their minds. Dr. Fahmi justified this by saying that that was a normal reaction. He explained: " It is just like when a woman screams during labor. It is normal that she screams and normal that her family accept it without being worried." The family did not explain why the child should be circumcised, nor did the child ask. Dr. Fahmi said about the decision: "Circumcision is usually taken for granted. Just like when a child turns six, he must go to school, no body necessarily makes the decision." After a week from his brother’s circumcision, the family celebrated. Dr. Fahmi described the celebration by saying:
"Mama brought a jug and put it in a big tray, similar to that we have in Soubou.‘ She bought it from Hussein area. At the time, my grandmother, God bless her soul, was still alive and she gave him sweets, nuts, and money. He was wearing a white gown and people who congratulated him told him, ‘Now you have become a man’ (Maborouk Ba’eit Ragel). Of course he did not understand. It was our custom on such occasions to have boiled meat with Fatta and rice pudding. We sent some to the neighbors. What I remember is that it was a sort of rite of passage into manhood."
Dr. Yara also remembered the circumcision of her younger brother, and said
"He really suffered! He was circumcised at a doctor’s clinic but he really suffered although he was given anesthesia. He was six years old. It was a torturing procedure. The wound was inflamed for a whole month. He knew he was going to be circumcised, and was prepared for it. They told him he would not feel anything because he was going to take anesthesia. Although he was afraid, the family did not change its mind. He was a quiet child and did not make a fuss, but suffered a lot after it."
Dr. Yara said that it was her father who took the initiative and her mother agreed to the procedure, so, the subject was not debated. She said that they did not have a celebration for the occasion, but some relatives came and gave him toys and chocolates and told him, ‘congratulations, now you have become a man’ (Mabrouk Ba’eit Ragel).
Nehal told about her personal experience with the circumcision of her nephews and friend’s son. She said:
"They were 40 days old, and did not stop crying. Their legs were apart. My friend’s son got a hernia from crying so much. My nephews cried constantly. One of them healed quickly, but the other did not. They could not pass urine easily and cried each time they tried to. That was all."
About the children’s feelings she said:
"It is known… it is said that children do not feel pain, and they cannot ask why you do it to them. I believe that if the fetus could feel anything, then, an infant would have a memory that records his experiences through his nervous system."
Nehal insisted that it was the family who made the decision not the doctor, but the latter was the one who made the procedure at hospital. Moreover, she said that the families usually decided to have it done a week after the baby’s birth because they believed that he would not feel pain. They said that he cried anyway, so, it made no difference whether he cried due to circumcision. Nehal’s family neither celebrated the occasion nor objected to the circumcision, but encouraged the mother to have the procedure done. Nehal said that she herself encouraged her sister to circumcise her baby boy. She justified that by saying:
"Because I know that the procedure will inevitably be done and I did not want him to suffer if he grows up and has it done then. When the baby is young, the wound will heal quicker."
Nousa, however, was a high school girl when she saw photographs of circumcision for the first time in her life. She said:
"My teacher brought photographs of her grandson’s circumcision to show them to us. It was really repulsive, all the blood and every thing. At the time, the photographs shocked me because they were so bloody and disgusting. But afterwards, I did not think about it."
In her family, it is taken for granted that the baby boys have to be circumcised at hospital by a doctor directly after their birth. She thought about the issue seriously though, when her best friend gave birth to a boy. Her friend told her that it was the doctor who took the initiative and circumcised the boy without taking the permission of the parents.
Dr. Salma also recounted her experience with the circumcision of her friend’s son, she said:
"He was 40 days old. I remember that he suffered a great deal of pain whenever he was changed. His mother suffered also while he was screaming all the time. He used to have her breast more than usual and did not sleep well at night."
Dr. Salma said that one of her relatives did not circumcise his son, not because he did not want to, but because something happened every time they made an appointment to do the procedure. Once, the child was ill, another time the family had other commitments. Dr. Salma said that the mother of this child though was not keen on circumcising him but his father wanted to have it done, although he hesitated a bit because he had read some information on the harm of circumcision.
Dr. Mona remembered her neighbor’s circumcision, she said:
"When I was a child, the neighbors had a boy. I remember that he was almost a young man when he was circumcised. It was known in the whole neighborhood that that boy had been circumcised then."
As for Dr. Afkar, she told me about her younger brother’s experience. She recounted:
"He was 3 years old. All I remember is that he was wearing a white gown and a skullcap and was hiding behind the wardrobe. He used to sit there. It was his favorite place. He was scared stiff while they were trying to drag him out. He was screaming and tried to run away. When I grew up I always wondered why mama had left him till he was three without circumcising him? Usually people do this procedure when the baby is one or two months old."
D) Medical doctors’ experiences with male circumcision as part of their profession
Most of the medical doctors whom I met as respondents, performed circumcisions themselves or had seen it being done. Dr. Salma however, was the only one who had not circumcised a child nor had seen the procedure done, because she is afraid of surgery. Even during the two months in which she was forced to attend surgical operations, when she was a house officer, she always used to volunteer to go to the blood bank instead. That is why she has never held a surgical instrument in her life. As for the rest of the doctors whom I interviewed, they either circumcised children themselves or only attended circumcisions as part of their training.
a) Medical doctors who did not circumcise boys
Dr. Hosaam, who was specialized in internal medicine, justified his not having done circumcision as a practitioner, saying that he did not like surgery in general. All he knew about it was how to help a woman in labor. Although he had not done circumcisions, he saw it being practiced when he was a house officer. About his reaction to the procedure he said: "I have always thought of it as a traumatic experience. But I did not have a certain attitude towards it." His idea of the experience being a trauma was not the reason that prevented him from doing it to children. His excuse was that he disliked surgery, even those types of operation that he knew were not traumatic; but necessary to save the patient’s life. An example of such operations was the removal of the inflamed appendix that all newly graduated doctors did, but Dr. Hussam had not performed the operation.
Moreover, Dr. Laila had utterly refused to do circumcision to children during the period of her training in surgery. She said: "I couldn’t. Simply I could not." Remembering this period she said: "As you know, house officers do not get adequate training. I did not do it partly because I was not trained for it. How can I do an operation without being trained?" Nevertheless, she attended operations in which children were circumcised so she had seen it practically done. About it she said:
"It is terrible, terrible, terrible! Who are the ones who do circumcision? Some young doctors who do not really understand anything! I really don’t know why people allow this to happen. It surprises me."
She described the procedure she called ‘terrible’ as follows:
"The boys are a week or two old and a doctor with big fingers, who can’t even hold the scissors, cutting. I saw terrible things and I just couldn’t take it. I couldn’t. I never ever performed male nor female circumcisions, it was against my nature. As you know, when I graduated I didn’t know exactly what was going on. I was not completely aware but I refused because I felt how horrible the operation is. They are both terrible. I felt that male circumcision was horrible and painful."
She described the boy who was been circumcised and said:
"He screamed just like a rabbit who is being slaughtered, yes a slaughtered rabbit! ‘arnab beyndebeh dabh!!’ And the doctor was holding the scissors and didn’t know what he was doing exactly. Once I had a quarrel with one of my colleagues who was holding the scissors and circumcising a child. I told him: ‘It is not done like that.’ I found him making a hole in the head of the penis without giving the child anesthesia and the doctor was digging into the child’s flesh; and blood was everywhere. I almost fainted. It is terrible, terrible. It is a terrible operation and naturally I refused to do it. Female circumcision is also terrible. When I saw it done, I vomited."
When I asked her whether the boy who was circumcised and that she had described was like a slaughtered rabbit, was suffering in the same way as the girl or if his pain was less, she said: "There was no difference actually. The pain in both cases was the same. It was terrible." Then I asked her if circumcision would have been less terrifying if a senior doctor had done it, or if it was terrifying in any case? She answered: "No it would not be that bad. At least a senior doctor would know what he was cutting. But with junior doctors it was as if an idiot was cutting the boy’s flesh."
Dr. Mona moreover, had not circumcised children by herself at all. She had taken this attitude because of her general ideas that were against inflicting violence on children. She said: "I don’t know, but it is terrible to fix a child down and cut off a piece of his body. It is really terrible." Nevertheless, she had attended male circumcision as part of her training and still remembers this experience saying:
"The child was very young. He was only a week old. Very, very young. The doctor first drew the prepuce back then pulled it forward, then applied the forceps to it. Of course the baby screamed. I couldn’t take it. I never did it again."
Dr. Afkar also had never circumcised children herself. She said: "I never liked surgery and therefore was never interested to learn it. I had seen only a few surgical operations when I was forced to help the senior doctors."
b) Medical doctors who circumcised boys
Some respondents who were medical doctors had performed a small number of male circumcisions. Those were Dr. Hazem and Dr. Khadiga. Others performed circumcision on a large number of boys, these were Dr. Nader, Dr. Nazmi, Dr. Fahmi and Dr. Yara.
Dr. Hazem was not specialized in surgery but had performed circumcision on a boy once while he was a house officer. He recounted his experience saying:
"At the time I was a house officer and I was very happy that I was performing circumcision. I did it under the supervision of a senior doctor. The boy was a couple of days old as far as I remember."
When I asked him if the child’s parents had brought him to the clinic with certain symptoms or signs of diseases that required the procedure, he answered, ‘No.’
As for Dr. Khadiga, who is a gynecologist and an obstetrician, she said that she had performed circumcision on a small number of children because it was part of her training but she did not ever practice it after that. She also said that the children she had circumcised did not suffer from any symptoms nor did they have any pathological signs. According to Dr. Khadiga, it was their families, especially the mothers, who brought them to the clinic to be circumcised. She said:
"The woman would come and say ‘I want to have him circumcised.’ So we would examine him first but we did not ask for a blood picture before the procedure. When some boys bled severely, senior doctors said that we should have a blood picture first so that we wouldn’t have further problems. We used to do it under supervision and did not give anesthesia. The boy would be a couple of weeks old and he used to scream, scream, and scream all the time! He suffered a great deal of pain although he would not remember the experience afterwards."
Because Dr. Khadiga said that she was aware of the child’s pain, I asked her why she had agreed to perform this procedure and not stopped after her first experience? She said that although she did not like this procedure, she was forced to do it while she was being trained to do minor surgical procedures since she was still a house officer. When her training period was over she did not do it because of the pain she had seen suffered by the children.
Dr. Nader is not a surgeon but he had performed circumcision on many boys while he was still being trained. The children did not have anything wrong with them pathologically. He said: "They were newly born children and their family had brought them without any complaints to have them circumcised at the out patient clinic in the hospital." He could not remember the children’s reactions to the operation. He said:
"As a house officer, I saw many children, and usually three or four doctors were present and circumcised them, one after the other. The patient used to leave directly after the procedure. Of course the child would be crying, for after all it is an operation. But I did not have older children who could express their feelings. It was just a baby crying from a surgical procedure."
Dr. Nazmi moreover, delivered mothers and circumcised their boys without their having any pathological complaints. He said: "We circumcise boys 3 or 4 days after they are born. There is no problem."
He admitted that the local anesthesia he gave the children was not effective.
Dr. Fahmi circumcised a lot of children while he was being trained as a house officer. He said that it was a simple operation. And when I asked him simple for whom? He said: "For the young doctor who does it" As for the boy, it is not simple. He said:
"Of course a baby 3-6 months screams. We were not allowed to do it to a child older than 6 months because the penis would have grown and there would be the possibility of bleeding. We used to do it with the bone forceps. In some cases we had to take stitches to fix the remaining skin to the underlying connective tissue. In this case, circumcision is quite an operation!"
He admitted that the local anesthesia he gave the children was not effective. He described it as follows: "The stupid thing you know. It is stupid because it is not effective enough." He said that he knew that it was not effective because the child could feel the operation. Some doctors had to tie the child down so that the doctor could cut the prepuce off. Dr. Fahmi said about his reaction to the circumcised boy’s feelings:
"I don’t think I sympathized with him. I was happy because I was learning something new so I did not feel sorry for the child. We put an antiseptic on the wound and the mother took the child in her arms. He would be quiet then. I didn’t feel I was being a butcher, and we bragged about who had performed the largest number of circumcisions today! And who was the best in mastering the technique!"
Dr. Yara is a gynecologist and an obstetrician and said that she had done many male circumcisions especially on newborn infants and sometimes to babies of one or two months old. All of them did not have any pathological symptoms or signs. They all screamed which did not prevent her from doing this procedure nor did she give them anesthesia to protect them from the pain. She said:
"I did this procedure when I was young and had not yet specialized in gynecology. I was happy because I had learned how to do surgical operations and was convinced that the child must have this procedure done. I believed that it was better to cry a bit than give the child general anesthesia and that the nerve supply is not as strong in babies as it is in older children. They cry because they do not want to be tied down not because of the pain. These ideas made me set my mind on what my hands were doing so that I would not make mistakes and complete my job correctly according to standard measurements."
In spite of her belief that newly born children do not feel pain as much as older children, her practical experience proved otherwise. But she had a different interpretation for the child’s screams that she developed according to the theory she had learned concerning children’s sense of pain. She said: "Of course they cried but probably because they were tied down."
III) Degrees of MGM according to the respondents' experiences
It is agreed that FGM could be classified into four degrees, according to the amount of cut tissues and the type of the procedure. This classification is not made according to academically determined quantitative surgical descriptions but is only a classification that was set by those who were against FGM to make the subject easier to describe. There is no parallel classification for MGM. From my personal experience with males that had come to see me in surgery and dermatology clinics during my practice because they had hernia or fungus infection, I found different degrees of the amputation of the prepuce. It varied from the cutting of the tip of the prepuce to the complete removal of the two layers of the prepuce, and sometimes it reached the skin of the shaft of the penis. Some of the respondents commented on the various degrees of MGM but most of them, even circumcised male respondents and female respondents who have circumcised sons, did not know exactly the amount of the removed part according to their personal experience. Most of the respondents who were doctors moreover, could not determine the degrees of MGM. Dr. Hussam said: "The doctor cuts as much as he can." Other doctors said that they don’t remove the entire prepuce. One of these is Dr. Nazmi who did not determine the degree of removal but said that he only used to cut the tip of the prepuce. As for Dr. Khadiga, she estimated that she used to remove as half a centimeter from the prepuce, so that an ample piece is left to cover the head of the penis. When I asked her why she did not cut it all? She said: "I did what the resident told me." But other doctors, as Dr. Nader, said that they cut the entire prepuce so that the head of the penis would be completely uncovered. Others described other degrees of circumcision that they had practiced personally or had seen done on their children. Dr. Mona said:
"It is evident that there are different degrees since there are some children who still have some loose skin whereas, in others the skin is tightly pulled over the penis so that it pulls the penis itself."
Samia said: "I think that doctors cut the entire prepuce."
Aisha said: "They cut the piece of skin that surrounds the head of the penis."
And Seif said:
"I think that the degree of circumcision differs according to the child’s age. A newly born child has less cut off than a child who is 6 years old because the size of the penis is different."
IV) Respondents who had non-circumcised male acquaintances:
She knew someone who is a European Jew and his family had decided
not to circumcise him. She added that he is in good health
and his appearance is clean. He accepts himself as he is
and considers himself normal.
Some respondents have acquaintances who are not circumcised most of whom are Europeans. Samia said that she knew someone who is a European Jew and his family had decided not to circumcise him. She added that he is in good health and his appearance is clean. He accepts himself as he is and considers himself normal.
Dr. Khadiga knew European men who were not circumcised but still were in good health and she believed moreover that their sexual life was normal, because of the fact that they were married and had children. Fathi agreed with Dr. Khadiga’s opinion because he knew non-circumcised European men. He added that he did not discuss the matter with them because he considered that they were normal. The same applied to Sa’eed and Dr. Fahmi with their non-circumcised European acquaintances.
Dr. Hussam was the only one to say that he knew Egyptian friends who were non-circumcised and considered them normal from health, cleanliness and sexual perspectives. One of these friends was a Christian man who told him about his persecution at school by his peers. Dr. Hussam thought that this had been a traumatic experience because of his being different, not only because he was not circumcised but also because he was from a different religion. I asked Dr. Hussam why his friend had not got circumcised in order to escape this persecution? He answered explaining:
"probably because the boys did so because they did not accept the difference of religion. He could not stop being Christian nor could he have changed his name. Circumcision is part of all that."
During his medical practice, Dr. Nazmi circumcised many children. He thought that personal hygiene is difficult with the presence of the prepuce, circumcision makes things much easier. In his opinion, if the mother does not clean the child and teach him how to clean himself, and if men do not know how to keep themselves clean by washing and bathing, and if the prepuce is narrow, he will develop infections due to the accumulation of secretions. When I asked him if he knew any people who were not circumcised and who had such infections? He answered saying that he knew some Europeans who are not circumcised but as far as he knew had none of the above mentioned complications. He considered them as they considered themselves to be normal health-wise. When I asked him to explain the contradiction between what he had said and his practical experience as to his non-circumcised acquaintances, he refused to answer. He told me to go and do a research on all the non-circumcised males to make a survey calculating the number of those who suffered from infections and those who didn’t.
A) Simsim’s story
Simsim is a pseudonym of a boy in primary school. He is the son of one of my close friends. His father is a friend of many of the respondents. When I went to congratulate him for having a baby boy, I talked to him to persuade him against circumcising his child as I do with all my acquaintances and friends. He did as I advised him and did not perform this procedure on his son. But still he is worried and not quite sure whether he had done the right thing. Simsim is referred to by many respondents as an example of a non- circumcised Egyptian person whom they know.
Samia is one of those who knew Simsim and she said: "He might have some complexes when he grows up." Hureya also knew him and felt sorry for him because he was ashamed to pass urine in front of anyone. Moreover, Dr. Salma knew Simsim too. In her point of view, he had a problem because he was ashamed to undress in front of others because of the fact that he is not circumcised. She said that once when his mother was away the family had a difficult time with him because he wouldn’t let any body else take him to the W.C. His regression to the stage of wetting his pants was due to his feeling different from other children. Aisha knew the boy and considered him normal, healthy and clean. She described him saying: "He is a sweet boy; so cute!" From her quick and sharp observation, she believed that he did not suffer any stress because he was not circumcised. Although she did not discuss the subject with his father, she thought that the boy was not circumcised because his father believed that it is not necessary.
V) The respondents’ experience of seeing intact male genitalia
Most of the respondents had not seen intact males neither in pictures nor in reality. Even doctors who had examined many males said that all their male patients were circumcised. Dr. Yara noticed that the ancient Greek statues represented non-circumcised men, but she could not imagine a live male who had not been circumcised. She could not imagine how he could have sexual intercourse while he still had the prepuce.
Some respondents went abroad and saw the difference between circumcised and non-circumcised males in reality. Mostafa furthermore, lived his adolescence in a European country and said: "Of course, at first I was astonished because we were not all alike. I thought that our appearance was better than them."
He interpreted the absence of the prepuce from the anatomy books
by the fact that medical books are influenced by cultural biases.
When Dr. Hazim went abroad on academic scholarship, he noticed that the men who appeared in sex advertisements promoted themselves by saying that they are ‘clean cut.’ For Dr. Hazem, this implied that male circumcision is a sign of being attractive and charming. He had not seen intact males before and commented that even in anatomy books males appeared without a prepuce. He interpreted the absence of the prepuce from the anatomy books by the fact that medical books are influenced by cultural biases. He said: "It is just like how medical texts promote the adult man image as a male who weighs 75 KG."
Dr. Hussam also had been abroad and commented:
"There are a lot of non-circumcised males abroad and their appearance is normal but different. I’m talking for myself. If I saw myself like that I would not accept myself. In the same way if I were blond, I most probably would be disgusted."
As mentioned above, Abu el Fotuh had saw Western films in which there were nude actors who were not circumcised. His reaction to them was similar to Dr. Hussam’s and Mostafa’s reactions who believed that the appearance of circumcised males is better. Dr. Afkar moreover, saw a similar film and the non-circumcised actor astonished her.
After review of the respondents’ experiences with MGM, I will move to probe into their present and future attitudes towards this subject.

[Hasbinbad]

Chapter IV: And now where do you stand? Respondents’ attitudes towards MGM

I) Attitudes of respondents before getting new information about MGM
A) The degree of adherence to MGM
Their intentions towards their sons’ circumcision did not necessarily
correspond to their theoretical opinion about MGM.
To explore the degree of adherence to MGM I asked the respondents about their theoretical belief of the importance of MGM, and their attitude toward any future sons. Most of the respondents expressed their confusion about the issue. They could not make up their minds about what they intended to do with any future sons. The respondents who determined either to circumcise their future sons or not were few. Their intentions towards their sons’ circumcision did not necessarily correspond to their theoretical opinion about MGM. Some of them who decided that MGM is not necessary were still confused about if it is appropriate to circumcise their sons or not.
...parents are responsible for the protection of their children’s
bodily integrity till they reach eighteen years of age
... (and) should resist any social pressures to circumcise their sons.
Some of the respondents thought that MGM is not necessary. One of them is Salah, who thought that the widespread ideas about the relevance of MGM are not valid. His evidence is that non-circumcised men are potent. Salah stated that if he ever has a son he would not circumcise him, because parents are responsible for the protection of their children’s bodily integrity till they reach eighteen years of age. Thus, parents should resist any social pressures to circumcise their sons. After eighteen, a boy is free to do whatever he wants to his own body.
Fathy was another respondent who thought that MGM is unnecessary because the presence of the prepuce does not justify parents’ interference with the bodily integrity of a baby who cannot decide for himself. Fathy said that when his wife got pregnant they discussed the issue of MGM in case that they get a baby son. They agreed not to circumcise the baby, irrespective of its gender.
Dr. Mona knew lately some information about the anatomy and physiology of the male prepuce. By the time of the interview, she thought that MGM is not necessary, and regretted that she had already got her two sons circumcised. She stated that with the new information, if she happens to have any future baby son she would not circumcise him.
Dina did not think that circumcision is necessary, especially after her son’s circumcision. From his experience she knew that MGM is harmful to boys, exactly as FGM is harmful to girls. At least, both types of genital mutilations have negative psychological impacts. Thus, she determined not to circumcise any future son of hers.
Mostafa thought that if circumcision were necessary, humans all over the globe would have adhered to it. However, he knew that the majority of humans are convinced that MGM is not necessary; hence, they do not perform it to their sons. Nevertheless, he stated that in case of having a future son he has to read a lot of scientific articles in order to get convinced and not to circumcise his son for traditional cultural considerations.
Aisha already thought about the issue. She concluded that the dominant assumption of the necessity of MGM originated because people are accustomed to see little boys circumcised. Apart from this, MGM is not necessary. However, in spite of her theoretical conviction that MGM is useless, and in spite of her difficult experience with her two sons’ circumcision, she intended to circumcise any future son of hers. She was even ready to pass through the same crisis once more and hate herself in order to make the new baby similar to his brothers.
According to her understanding, tahara is a meaningless term.
Nousa thought that the term "tahara," which means "purification," is not an accurate signifier of the nature of MGM, because it has nothing to do with either cleanliness or hygiene. According to her understanding, tahara is a meaningless term. However, she was still confused about her future sons. Her confusion started with reading about FGM. She said:
"When I started to read about FGM one year ago, I prayed God to give me daughters only, because at that time I was not sure if I should circumcise my son or not. Honestly, I was confused. Thus I prayed God to spare me that difficult test. In my confusion, I thought that it is not appropriate to cut part of my son’s body, but on the other hand, this cut may have a hygienic significance. Nevertheless, I knew that some researchers discovered the fallacy of the health justifications. Thus I started to think about dismissing health justifications and confronting my traditional biases. I do not want my son to feel strange and different, but how can I justify it to him if he later blames me, when he grows up, for what I did to him as a child. However, I was mostly worried about the possibility of my son’s death in circumcision. I will never be able to forgive myself for such a drastic mishap. I was very obsessed by this issue. Even one of my friends exclaimed that I make such a fuss about my future son while I am still single. She asked me to postpone such worries till I marry, and then I can start to think about what will happen if I get a son".
Dr. Khadiga thought that there is no difference between circumcised and non-circumcised males; hence MGM is not necessary. However, she was not determined about any future son. She stated that she does not care to circumcise her son or not. However, the desire of the baby’s father should be taken into consideration. If her future husband does not insist, and the child has no problem, she will leave him intact.
...confusion about MGM is like the confusion of women
who feel afraid to leave their daughters intact.
Dr. Salma did not think that MGM is necessary. However, she was not sure of what she may do with any future son. She was afraid that his schoolmates might tease him if he is not circumcised. Dr. Salma is very active against FGM, and she thought that her severe confusion about MGM is like the confusion of women who feel afraid to leave their daughters intact. She said that this part of the interview put her in a difficult situation. If she herself was not able to take the challenge of sparing her son MGM, how comes that she asks people to take the same challenge for their daughters? By the time of the interview, Dr. Salma had not find a solution to this difficult question.
She was not also convinced that she had the right
to carve her child’s body to match her taste.
Samia did not think that circumcision is necessary. She was not also convinced that she had the right to carve her child’s body to match her taste. However, she was afraid that he might be socially rejected if he is different and not conforming to the dominant social norms. That is why she was confused and not determined about her behavior with any future son of hers.
"...The day men say that MGM is bad I will support this issue."
Other respondents thought that MGM is necessary. Nehal is one of them. She stated that if she ever has a son she is sure to circumcise him. She explained:
"I will circumcise him because there is no evidence that circumcision is beneficial nor harmful. Thus, in terms of my knowledge, I have to conform to the dominant traditions. It is said that Egyptian men are very sexy because they are circumcised. Accordingly, besides being a tradition, circumcision will provide my son with an additional advantage. I accepted to act against FGM because it deprives girls from an important body part. For example, my mother did not circumcise me without hearing or reading about FGM because she suffered when she was circumcised as a young girl. So, she discovered by herself that FGM is bad. Have you ever heard males stating that MGM is bad? This is an important point. The day men say that MGM is bad I will support this issue."
Dr. Hussam and Dr. Yara thought that MGM has no health, biological, or psychological advantages, however, it is a social necessity. They experienced social pressures to push them to circumcise their son. Therefore, Dr. Hussam thought that if there were a social change that leads to the existence of a predominant majority of intact men, he would not have circumcised his son. Dr. Hussam said:
"I was under a social pressure to raise my son in conformity to the predominant social traditions. If I left him intact he would be different, while I had no information that circumcision will cause severe damage. In conclusion, I decided to let him grow in similarity to his peers. On the other hand, if I get well proven knowledge about the hazards of circumcision, I would be ready to quit it."
Dr. Hussam and Dr. Yara did not determine their intentions towards the circumcision of any future son. Dr. Husssam said:
"I did not like my son’s experience with circumcision. I would not like him to experience such a shock. Yes, circumcision is a shock. I do not know what sort of impact will it leave on him. What I am sure about is that it is definitely a severe shock"
In spite of Dr. Hussam’s perception of circumcision as a shock, he was confused about the decision towards any future son, especially because such a son will have a circumcised elder brother. I asked Dr. Hussam about his decision if the case were concerned with a limb amputation. In this case, would he get a younger son to have the same operation that was already done to his elder brother? Dr. Hussam laughed and said that in such case he has to accept the difference between the two brothers, because limb amputation is more harmful than prepuce amputation. Dr. Yara agreed with her husband. She added that she is well knowledgeable of the functions of all other body parts, and she ignores the long-term hazards of circumcision. That is why she does not consider circumcision equal to limb amputation.
Dr. Hazem thought that it is impossible to say that circumcision is better for health. Nonetheless, he strongly believed that it is very difficult to negate its necessity. Dr. Hazem justified his beliefs by that according to methodology, it is more difficult to prove a negative than a positive conclusion. Thus, the matter needs difficult controlled studies in order to scientifically prove that retention of the prepuce is not harmful to men. I asked him if there are other body parts rather than the prepuce that need difficult studies to prove that their retention is not harmful to the individual. He answered that there are a lot of such body parts. According to him, such parts include the ovaries and uterus after menopause, especially when there are fibroids. Nevertheless, he soon retreated to say that doctors stopped to recommend removal of these parts because updated studies proved that they are necessary for women’s health, even after menopause. Their removal increases the possibility of development of osteoporosis. Although Dr. Hazem defeated his own argument; I told him that I still see that such example does not apply to circumcision. His example is about pathological cases. No one doctor volunteers to remove the ovaries or uterus of a woman except if she visits him with complaints. On the other hand, parents take intact children who have no complaints to a doctor for circumcision. Then, he started to seek other justifications for circumcision. He said that humans used to perform MGM for thousands of years. They should have imagined that it prevents some health hazards, so that they continued to do it. He himself cannot guess what our ancient ancestors imagined about the hazards of retention of the prepuce. However, since they considered circumcision necessary, he agrees with them. Dr. Hazem affirmed that if he happens to get a future son he is sure to circumcise him. First, because he does not have sufficient accurate quantitative studies that prove that circumcision is not necessary. Second, because he will be afraid to make him different from the others. He said:
"If I get a new son now I will never imagine that he will not be circumcised, although I do not know exactly what is the health significance of circumcision. The quantitative studies have the problem of the negative variable. It is much more difficult to prove that something does not happen than to prove that something happens. Consequently I will not hesitate to circumcise any future son, even for mere social reasons. In other words, I do not want the boy to feel that he is different, even among his classmates. According to my knowledge – which is not decisively challenged up till now by any different information – circumcision has no health hazards. We doctors circumcise boys to eradicate the polluting secretions that lead to infections to the man and his sex partner. However, this was not the reason of circumcision of my elder son."
Seif believed that MGM is necessary because he is not decided if it is true or not that circumcision improves sexual performance. However, this uncertainty made him hesitant about circumcision of any future son.
Some of the respondents did not have a determined opinion. For example, Abu el Fotuh said: "I have a border-line belief, I think it is neither necessary nor not necessary". He was also unsure of his behavior towards any future son. He added:
"I am not sure. If I could not develop a belief about the sexual significance of the prepuce I may circumcise him because I do not want him to be different. With circumcision, he will avoid unnecessary embarrassment. I am sure that I will never be able to prevent him from being different from others all his life long. Thus, making him similar to them by circumcision will give him a chance to concentrate on developing more essential differences from his peers than just to be genitally intac."
Dr. Fahmi thought that the question about the necessity or non-necessity of circumcision is not worthy of being asked. He said that he preferred to leave things as they are because circumcision is a social norm, and it is not an issue of priority for him.
Sa‘eed stated that after his son’s experience with MGM he has to be careful with any new son. If he found that the hazards of circumcision overweigh the social harm of neglecting circumcision, he will leave him intact.
Hureya refused to answer the question. She said that she respects science and the other opinion. She said that she has no objection if controlled scientific research proved that male circumcision is not necessary. However, she did not develop a determined personal view about the issue.
B) The personal attitudes towards intact men
To explore the respondents’ personal attitudes towards intact men I asked them about their expected behavior if a non-circumcised man proposes to marry a dear relative, such as a sister or a daughter, or the respondent herself (in case of single female respondents). All of the male and female respondents agreed that in a situation of proposal to marriage, it would never occur to their minds to ask about the suitor’s circumcision status. In case that they accidentally discover that he is not circumcised, this will not make a difference. They will never refuse him for this reason, and they will never ask him to get circumcised as a condition for marriage. They justified their attitude by that it is not their right to ask someone to get circumcised because such a request is an inappropriate intervention in his personal freedom. Abu el Fotuh added that he may even interfere to convince his daughter to accept such a man if she hesitates. He will tell her that bodily integrity is a human right.
However, Dr. Hazem said that he will not refuse the man, but he may make the discovery of his non-circumcised status a subject of joking.
Dr. Nazmi started by refusal to imagine such a situation. He said that most Muslims are circumcised, and most of his non-circumcised acquaintances are Christians, this means to him that it is unlikely that one of them may propose to marry his daughter. I asked him to imagine that one of his non-circumcised acquaintances may convert to Islam and propose to his daughter. He said that in such case, he would not refuse him, nor ask him to get circumcised.
Dr. Salma laughed heartily when she heard the question. She said disapprovingly: "God forbids! Are you crazy to imagine that I may ask for a circumcision of such a man!" She added:
"I may joke with my female relative, and ask her to tell me the difference according to her experience… but no, I will never tell her to ask for circumcision of her intact suitor."
Aisha said that in such a situation she would advise her female relative to consult a doctor. If there is no health problem, she will defend the young man’s right to bodily integrity, exactly as she does with women.
Hureya shared Aisha’s attitude. However, she said that she would not even advise her female relative to consult a doctor; because she knows that lack of circumcision does not affect a man’s sexual potency. She added that if she is protesting against some men’s request to get their wives circumcised, she would do the same with any woman who asks for her husband’s circumcision.
This question was not an abstract idea, but rather a real probability for four female respondents, Nousa, Dr. Khadiga, Samia, and Dr. Mona. Nousa and Dr. Khadiga were single, i.e., they can imagine such a probability for themselves, not for another female relative. They stated that they were not worried about such a probability. Nousa knew a friend who insisted to ask an intact man who proposed to her to get circumcised, on the assumption that a prepuce is dirty. Nousa did not approve of what her friend did, and stated that if she were her, she would never have done that.
Samia is married to a foreigner. When he proposed to her family to ask her hand in marriage, her father was worried lest the suitor would be non-circumcised. He justified his worries by that an Egyptian woman’s marriage to a non-circumcised man is against the dominant social traditions. However, there was no problem for Samia’s father because the suitor happened to be circumcised. I asked her about her expected behavior towards this issue if it happened that her suitor was non-circumcised. She said: "Nothing, then I would get accustomed to his unfamiliar appearance, as long as it does not have a negative sexual impact."
When Dr. Mona was young, a European man proposed to her. She asked him, and knew that he is not circumcised. She got worried about this situation, which is unfamiliar to her. However, it did not occur to her to ask him to get circumcised. She said that they did not marry because their living circumstances were hard to match, and that his intact status was not a factor in their separation. I asked if she was not worried by her information at that time about the relation between the prepuce and cancer cervix. She said that this information did not intimidate her because she knew that cancer cervix is not prevalent in Europe, where millions of men are not circumcised. That is why she had no objection to marry an intact man.
C) Attitude towards the society’s right to alter the individual’s body
Fathy thought that parents have not the right
to take such a decision on behalf of the child.
Some respondents thought that the society has no right to alter the body of a non-consenting individual. From this perspective, Salah considered that FGM and MGM have a common background. Both are aggression against another person, who is a vulnerable junior, unable neither to object nor defend him/her self. In other words, he thought that in principle, it is horrible to cut a healthy body part. That is why he is against both FGM and MGM.
Fathy shared the same opinion. His attitude was based on the respect of the child’s bodily integrity. Accordingly, he thought that it is not appropriate to control a child’s body by a surgical procedure that does not serve his best interests as an individual, and that may have hazards. Consequently. Fathy thought that parents have not the right to take such a decision on behalf of the child.
Sa‘eed never thought about the social right to alter individuals’ bodies before, however, he developed the awareness that circumcision is an inappropriate interference in another person’s body after experiencing his son’s circumcision.
Abu el Fotuh said that he never questioned the dominant social beliefs about the polluted nature of the genitalia before. He knew that people from countries with hot climates think that excessive sweating makes it difficult to keep the genitalia dry and clean. Thus, the prepuce is thought to be in need of more effort to clean than the circumcised penis. Abu el Fotuh said that he recently revised his old beliefs, and he thinks now that they are invalid and do not warrant cutting a part from the child’s body. His motive to change his old ideas was that he developed more and more sensitivity against violation of the human body. He considered such violation as a sort of oppression, and he absolutely disagreed to it. When he recalled his own son’s experience with circumcision, he considered it difficult. Nonetheless, he did not change his attitude because of his new information about the sexual function of the prepuce. He still was not convinced of the great relevance of this function. He said:
"But even if nature is mistaken, and the prepuce is a sort of rudimentary remnant of development, even then, cutting it to satisfy parents’ beliefs, and without the individual’s will and consent is not appropriate."
I asked, who has the right to decide and seek the procedures to pay such price?
Dr. Hazem answered by giving a comparative example: abortion.
On the other hand, some respondents believed that society has the right to alter individuals’ bodies without their free consent. Dr. Hazem considered circumcision as a price worthy of being paid for social acceptability, which is realized by altering the male genitalia in conformity to the traditions. I asked, who has the right to decide and seek the procedures to pay such price? Dr. Hazem answered by giving a comparative example: abortion (http://www.noharmm.org/FAQ.htm#Abortion). He said that women claim the right to abortion for subjective social or psychological reasons. Abortion is a decision to eliminate a non-consenting fetus according to its mother’s, not its own will. By analogy, society has the right to decide to eliminate a piece of skin, even if it is attached to the body of an individual child. He said:
"As long as I am going to give women the right to get rid of a whole potential human being, not just a piece of his body, without asking his consent I have similarly to give the society the right to get rid of a piece of an individual’s skin without asking his consent."
Dr. Hussam justified his acceptance to the idea of social control of children’s bodies by the issue of guardianship. He thought that a guardian has the right to take critical decisions about a child’s body without his/her consent. For example, guardians agree on behalf of children in case they need major surgeries without asking the child’s consent. According to Dr. Hussam, the same applies to circumcision. The fact that the prepuce is a physiological not a pathological structure did not make a difference for Dr. Hussam. By the time of the interview, Dr. Hussam still was holding this belief, even after his son’s circumcision, which he described as a severe shock that may have long-term psychological impacts. Dr. Hussam thought that guardianship should give the guardian absolute rights over the minor, even the right to subject the minor to an unnecessary surgery against his best health interests such as circumcision as long as the guardian considers it necessary because it is a social tradition.
Dr. Nazmi refused the idea that a child should be left to decide for himself when he reaches majority. He believed that parents are entitled to ask for their child’s circumcision, and it is a doctor’s duty to serve their desire. He thought that parents’ request for a child’s circumcision is different, for example, from their request to cut the tip of his nose. In this case, a doctor should not obey them, because this is a body mutilation. However, he considered circumcision as an esthetic surgery because it is God’s law "shar‘ Allah."
Dr. Salma acknowledged that her acceptance of MGM in terms of its being a socially accepted tradition is inconsistent, exactly as her attitude towards ear piercing of baby girls. She used to urge her friends to pierce their baby daughters’ ears, and if she herself happens to have a daughter she will pierce her ear lobes because she likes to see girls wearing earrings. Dr. Salma added that this is an example of how people behave by instinct, because if the matter is left to the girl’s choice she may prefer not to wear earrings. However, some of her relatives did not pierce their daughters’ ears, but when the girls grew up they selected to have more than one hole in each ear. When I asked if adults supported these girls against ear piercing, she said no.
D) Attitudes towards conformity to the dominant social trends
No respondents expressed explicit tendency towards acceptance of deviation from, while some of them expressed clearly their tendency to hail conformity to, the dominant social trends. The rest of the respondents occupied different positions between conformity and acceptance of difference.
a) Hailing conformity as a value
Sa‘eed stated that his wife hesitated to circumcise their son, but he was unable to take a decision to leave the boy without circumcision in a society where all men are circumcised. He was afraid that an intact boy might seem strange among people, so that he may be treated as a special case. He said:
"Let us speak frankly. Even if it is sure that circumcision is not a hygienic requirement, it will make him look like other people. Thus, he will not grow up with a unique attribute that may result into his being abused by others all his life long, or gets him to be considered less masculine than his peers".
Sa‘eed used to wear eyeglasses, thus, I asked him if he intends to provide his son with one, even if he has no error of refraction, so as to realize the similarity between father and son? Or if his son’s friends tattooed their skin, would he take his son to be tattooed to make him look like them? He said that he will never do such behaviors towards his son, but he thought that circumcision was different from these two examples. I asked if he really meant to make his son a copy from his peers? He replied that the reverse is true. Sa‘eed said that current society is not in its best state, and he does not wish to see his son similar to an average member of it. He himself has more advanced ideas than the predominant social views. However, he did not think that rejection of circumcision is meaningful in this context, given that, as far as he understands, it is harmless.
According to Dr. Hazem, the worst result of convincing people to stop circumcising their sons is that non-circumcised men would not be conforming to social norms, where such conformity is a critical sign of social straightness. He found that the Egyptian society is similar to the American society in that both societies require conformity to the average social norms and behaviors as a price of social acceptance. For example, even a high class American person will be ridiculed and lose social acceptance if he celebrates his wedding in an odd manner. A contrast example is the French society, where an individual’s deviation from the dominant norms is an asset. Dr. Hazem concluded that by the same token, MGM is an important factor to emphasize the value of conformity.
He argued that prevalence of a specific tradition among
the average majority is a term that justifies conformity to it.
Dr. Hussam had a similar opinion. He argued that prevalence of a specific tradition among the average majority is a term that justifies conformity to it. Thus, he justified his acceptance to subject his son to MGM and his refusal to subject him to tattooing, even if it prevailed among his peers, by that MGM matches the average social norms. It is performed by the average majority, not only by a group of youngsters, or even by persons of a specific age group. When I asked Dr. Hussam what will be the case if his circumcised son selected to immigrate to a country where MGM is not the norm. He answered that in such case, he will have a lot of justified differences from the indigenous population, including circumcision. Even if he selected to live in USA where most men are circumcised, he will still have other national and religious differences.
Aisha thought that it is better for the mother and child to experience the circumcision crisis than to let the child go out to the society without circumcision. Society will not accept a non-circumcised male, thus, he will develop psychological problems. She knew that a child could be different from the others in many other aspects. For example, he may be the only person in his family without eyeglasses, or he may have a brother with a limb amputation while his own limbs are intact. However, she did not think that a child might safely differ from the others by being non-circumcised, because cutting the healthy prepuce is socially acceptable while cutting a healthy limb to ensure child/father or child/brother similarity is not acceptable.
Women who grew where FGM is a tradition insist to circumcise their daughters
because they think that non-circumcised women will look...strange.
Dr. Afkar said that she lately experienced a change of her theoretical ideas about MGM. However, this change did not extend to her practical behavior. She elaborated that MGM was not an issue to consider before, but now, she is revising her thoughts and attitude. However, if she really happens to have a new son, most probably she will circumcise him because she does not want him to deviate from the social norms. She added that the contradiction between her theoretical and practical attitudes drew her nearer to understand the reason why rural people circumcise their daughters. I asked her to imagine her behavior if she happens to get a new daughter in our society, where 97% of women are circumcised. She replied that her peer medical doctors and her social class do not circumcise their daughters. She added that if the situation was different, i.e., if doctors used to circumcise their daughters, she will never be the first one to refrain from circumcising her daughter, except if she were very convinced and knows all aspects of the issue. She was still hesitant about MGM. She was not too convinced to be a pioneer in sparing her son circumcision. She added disapprovingly:
"Most probably I will circumcise any new son of mine to avoid making him strange among his peers. Do you want him to be the only boy in the group with such a dangling piece of skin!! This will make him feel mutilated and abnormal."
Then she commented on herself and said that what she said reminded her of women who say the same thing about FGM. Women who grew where FGM is a tradition insist to circumcise their daughters because they think that non-circumcised women will look mutilated and strange. Although she is aware that her son has a lot of differences from his peers, e.g. he does not wear eyeglasses; she said that circumcision is different. She will never oblige her son to wear eyeglasses if they are not necessary for him, even if most of his peers wear them. However, circumcision is a ritual that emphasizes his belonging to a specific cohort and community. Such rituals should be observed for all people, so as to avoid differences during childhood and adolescence. She gave a comparative example by fasting. She herself does not keep the Islamic ritual of fasting. However, when her son was a child, she encouraged him to fast. She has no objection if he selects not to fast as an adult. She said:
"Because I do not want him to feel as if he were a strange beast if he is a non-fasting 6 years old child in a class of fasting children… a human individual needs to belong when he is a child… Circumcision is like fasting in this context… I circumcised my son on basis of the power of social tradition. Circumcision is one of our traditions, why do not we observe it?"
Dr. Afkar acknowledged that her example is not very significant. Circumcision is different from fasting in that it implies an irreversible cut, so that a circumcised child cannot revert to the intact status if he chooses so as an adult. However, she did not see this as big a problem as raising a different child. Not only did Dr. Afkar apply her ideas on her son, she also discouraged a couple of her friends to leave their son intact. They were reluctant to let their son suffer unnecessary pain. She said:
"I said to them, how come!!! Do you want him to be so different from other children just as ET?!!!… Circumcise him for God’s sake "haram ‘aleikoum." I used the term "haram ‘aleikoum" because I felt pity for the child. Other children may tease and chase him, and call him names because of his strange appearance."
Dr. Afkar was the only respondent who observed the ritual of Mushahara with her son’s circumcision at her mother’s request, although this ritual conflicts with her beliefs and knowledge. She said:
"As far as I remember, my mother said that we should not let any person who is recently shaved or who carries fresh raw meat to enter the circumcised boy’s room. We used to do whatever she says without discussion to avoid her stubbornness."
...she did not think that male genital integrity is so important
that it deserves making such an effort.
Samia agreed to circumcision for nothing more than conformity to tradition. She said that she had evidence from her social circle to support her choice. A non-circumcised 6 years old son of one of her friends felt shy to take off his clothes in front of others because several people commented on his different appearance. Samia thought that such comments from school personnel might have a severe negative psychological impact on the child. She imagined that the situation would get worse when the boy starts his sexual life. She expected that girls might destroy him psychologically when they criticize his appearance. Samia believed that non-circumcised men face no health neither sexual problems. Nonetheless, she thought that male circumcision has a critical psychological function. She argued that men identify with their external genitalia as part of their identity. That is why, unlike women who feel shy, men are proud of their genitalia. In spite of such argument, she believed that men do not desire to remain intact, because of the dominant beliefs about the health and esthetic significance of circumcision. She gave a comparative example by women’s attitude towards depilation of pubic hair. Some women select to spare themselves the pain of the unnecessary tradition of pubic hair depilation, however, they keep their choice as secret for fear of social rejection. Because schoolboys used to undress in front of each other, non-circumcised males cannot hide their intact status. That is why males cannot feel free to select not to be circumcised. I discussed with Samia the possibility of giving psychological support to her friend’s intact son to be able to face the comments of other people instead of suggesting circumcision to spare him such comments. Samia agreed that it is possible to support the child to encourage him to accept his difference, however, she did not think that male genital integrity is so important that it deserves making such an effort. Moreover, she suspected the validity of support as a tool to help the child to overcome his embarrassment. I personally knew this child whom Samia spoke about. His family circumstances allow him a chance to live in Europe if he chooses to do so. Thus, I asked her how would she imagine the situation of this child if his parents follow her suggestion and circumcise him, then he selects, as an adult, to live in a place where males are not circumcised? She said that this would not be a problem because she thought that all European men are circumcised.
b) Uncertainity (with inclination towards conformity)
They accepted difference at the theoretical level,
but selected conformity in actual behavior.
Some respondents were undetermined. They accepted difference at the theoretical level, but selected conformity in actual behavior. Abu el Fotuh argued that the only benefit of circumcision would be similarity to peers. For Abu el Fotuh, similarity is very important. Any deviation from the regular male appearance may make women reject a man as a sexual partner, or create other social problems to him. He said:
"Exactly as you give him a strange or an old fashioned name, as "Abd el Baset", while all his peers carry names like "Tamer", "Wa’el", or "Haitham". In such case, other children will ridicule him because of this name, "Abd el Baset". I think this is the only reason that may push enlightened people to circumcise their sons, even if they are convinced that the prepuce is an important body part".
I argued back that unlike names, circumcision is irreversible. A boy called "Tamer" can change his name to "Abd el Baset" if he chooses to do so, but a circumcised boy cannot restore what he lost. Abu el Fotuh solved this problem by arguing that it does not exist. He argued that the propensity towards conformity with the dominant social trend is so strong, that even if a family neglected their son’s circumcision, he will seek circumcision by himself as an adult in order to be similar to his peers, a situation which will cost him more anxiety and embarrassment. Abu el Fotuh stated that he would not be able to make his son similar to others all his life long. He will ensure his similarity to others during childhood only, because in this stage people are unable to face a different status. Children need similarity because it helps socialization and sharing a common life with peers. Thus, they can focus on becoming different in more essential issues. However, Abu el Fotuh thought that people would be able to resist social rejection of deviation from the norm in the context of a social movement that challenges the dominant concepts.
c) Uncertainity (with inclination towards deviation from the dominant)
Human history proved that development of societies has depended always
on deviation from the established norms.
Some respondents were undetermined, but they inclined to accept deviation from the dominant norms. Dr. Fahmi thought that it is possible to impose the acceptance of individual differences in spite of the ongoing attempts of stereotyping. This possibility is based on the privilege of having stronger attributes than the average majority. For example, a child without eyeglasses in a class with a majority of students with eyeglasses may be proud by the fact that he sees well from backseats, or by having a tall stature. On the other hand, members of a minority with a less socially privileged attribute, like individuals who have a short stature; red hair; furuncles; extremely low or high pitched voice; or an unveiled girl in a class with veiled majority, are sure to suffer because of their differences. It is impossible to solve all problems of that sort. Members of such a different minority have to confront ridicule all the time, till they develop other privileged attributes, like excelling in a special area of interest that may bring them equality with their regular peers. A non-circumcised boy will find himself in such a situation. Dr. Fahmi thought that deviation from the regular stereotype has a price to be paid by the different individual. Some of such individuals may either resort to violence or to excelling in other areas in order to impose their difference on the others. In other cases, their social or economic status may protect them. Dr. Fahmi thought that in many instances, deviation from the dominant stereotype deserves such a price. Human history proved that development of societies has depended always on deviation from the established norms. At a point, an individual comes who refuses to follow the public masses. Such a pioneer presents different ideas or behaviors. All societies used to attack such pioneers in areas of science, religion, and socio-cultural change. Thus, Dr. Fahmi perceived deviation from the established norm as the engine that propels a movement towards change. He added that this applies to MGM.
Dr. Yara stated that she is not theoretically convinced that circumcision is necessary. She said:
"The idea that some body part is harmful and has to be removed to prevent its harm is odd. I cannot understand such an idea. Most probably, the male prepuce is useful and important."
Nevertheless, she circumcised her son in conformity to the Egyptian social traditions. She explained: "Perhaps, if I was living in Europe or America or any other society that accepts non-circumcised men, I would have never circumcised him".
Dr. Salma believed that similarity is important in adolescence and that non-circumcised boys will be ridiculed. However, she did not consider this so critical a problem to push parents to circumcise a boy to spare him such ridicule. In order to avoid psychological problems, she advised that such a boy should be encouraged to accept himself as he is. She was aware that some young persons seek esthetic surgeries to get rid of their differences, however, she did not approve of that. On the other hand, Dr. Salma saw that various differences have various significances for individuals, in terms of the general importance of the difference, and the individual’s self conceptualization and esteem. She argued that similarity in appearance of male genitalia is of a relatively high significance among men. Thus, it is not comparable to having furuncles or wearing eyeglasses.
...it is not his parents’ right to unnecessarily cut part of his body,
then tell him that they did so for his own interest.
Nousa argued that one of the general problems of raising children is that mothers have to impose things on children. For example, a child may hate some kind of food, however, a mother forces him/her to eat it because it is nutritious. She thought that such compulsory obligation explains why people circumcise their sons. However, she said that if she ever has a son she would not circumcise him. However, she would be worried lest he may suffer because of his difference and lose confidence in his sexual potency. This worry will be relieved only when the boy grows up satisfactorily, and thanks her for her behavior. She argued that it is the child’s right to take the circumcision decision by himself, but it is not his parents’ right to unnecessarily cut part of his body, then tell him that they did so for his own interest.
E) Attitudes towards FGM and MGM
Aisha shifted from disapproval to approval
of raising the issue of MGM like FGM.
Some respondents thought that FGM and MGM are one issue. Fathy explained that he thinks so because it is not appropriate to violate a child’s body with no reason except for a fulfillment of a social or religious belief.
Aisha shifted from disapproval to approval of raising the issue of MGM like FGM. Several months before the interview, Aisha heard me raising the issue in a seminar. When I met her for this research interview, she told me that she disapproved of what I said then, on the assumption that MGM is a minor issue that should not be raised. However, she stated that she revised her attitude and discovered that she behaved as laypersons when she talks with them about women’s rights. She realized that any new issue usually creates similar reactions. Thus, she decided to let go of emotional reactions, and approved that I have an obligation to disseminate my information to the public, exactly as she herself does in the area of women’s rights.
I analyzed that circumcision aims to remove feminine attributes from men
and masculine attributes from women.
Nousa stated that she experienced anxiety for a whole year after she read information about MGM. During this year, she was unable to determine her attitude. She could do that at last when she situated MGM in the framework of social construction of gender roles, exactly as she did with FGM. She said:
"When I started in depth reading about the issue I discovered that masculinity and femininity are both socially constructed in their relation to each other. Accordingly, a male is considered a man as long as he is able to penetrate a woman. I interviewed people. They told me that this piece of skin should be removed from the male body in order to facilitate coitus. Then I revised what I heard from you and another anthropologist about the cultural relevance of circumcision, and that it is a symbolic removal of the masculine part from the female body and the feminine part from the male body. I analyzed that circumcision aims to remove the feminine attributes from men and the masculine attributes from women. In other words, given that weakness and pollution are feminine attributes and aggression and ability to penetrate are masculine attributes in our culture, circumcision removes a weak and polluted part from a man and an aggressive penetrative part from a woman. Thus, a male could be turned into a man and a female into a woman."
"I consider what happened as intentional torture.
It is different from accidental injury.
...I did not perceive MGM as an equivalent torture
except after my son’s experience."
Dina changed her attitude towards MGM and considered it as an equal issue to FGM after her son’s experience with circumcision. She said:
"I did not start to think about the issue except in terms of my relationship with my son, not because I was preoccupied with the issue of MGM, but because I am in a very intimate relation with my son. He is an integral part of myself; I was worried and reluctant to let him suffer injury and pain. However, he was circumcised under anesthesia. He was resuscitated from anesthesia, but he was injured and in pains. I consider what happened as intentional torture. It is different from accidental injury. In circumcision you take the boy to the doctor with the intention of cutting. Before my son’s circumcision my attitude towards MGM was different from FGM, because I myself suffered FGM. It was a bad experience. My mother is not circumcised and she opposes FGM. My grandmother arranged my circumcision. I attempted to escape for two days. The first day I locked myself in the small closet till the barber left. The second day I ran down the street, but they could capture me. Thus, according to my experience, I see FGM as torture. I did not perceive MGM as an equivalent torture except after my son’s experience."
"...the two procedures are the same, since there is cut in both cases,
with the same justifications such as cleanliness, purification,
esthetic appearance of genitalia and so forth."
Dina explained her new attitude as follows:
"My point of view is that circumcision is violence against boys and girls. Why should one discriminate? Of course, I am not a doctor; so, my opinion is not based on medical information. However, the two procedures are the same, since there is cut in both cases, with the same justifications such as cleanliness, purification, esthetic appearance of genitalia and so forth. There is one difference only. One of FGM justifications is female chastity, which is not so explicitly expressed in MGM. In other words, a boy is not considered a carrier of family honor. He is rather responsible for avenging any violation of his sister or wife’s honor. Absence of chastity as a justification of MGM is the only difference between it and FGM as far as I understand."
Other respondents viewed FGM and MGM as two different issues. Sa‘eed justified this attitude by that he thinks that FGM is not so prevalent in Egypt as MGM. According to him, this means that FGM is not based on an ancient social experience as MGM. Sa‘eed was astonished when I told him that FGM in Egypt has a prevalence rate of 97%. He said that it might be a recent increase, because his father used to say that female circumcision is a habit of Cairen slums. Sa‘eed came from an Upper Egyptian village. He said that girls in his village, including his sisters and female relatives, are not circumcised. Thus, Sa‘eed believed that FGM is a criminal act because it curbs female sexuality. This is the main difference between FGM and MGM according to his view, because he thought that circumcision did not affect his own sexuality.
Dr. Hazem did not consider MGM as an issue at all, while he considered FGM as a serious issue. The justifying difference is that FGM has a negative psychological impact.
He stated that according to his knowledge, male circumcision
does not result in functional disturbance.
The difference between FGM and MGM from Dr. Hussam’s perspective is that his definition of mutilation does not apply to male circumcision. He defined mutilation as an injury that results into functional disturbance, not just structural damage. He stated that according to his knowledge, male circumcision does not result in functional disturbance.
On the other hand, there is not enough information
about male circumcision. Thus, people do not understand
its negative sexual impact.
According to Abu el Fotuh, the difference between FGM and MGM is the degree of people’s awareness of the nature of each procedure. For example, from his personal social interaction with and observation of women, he knew that FGM has a negative impact on women’s lives and marital relations. He is from a rural origin, and he knows well the negative psychological impact of FGM. That is why he struggled to spare his female relatives the suffering of FGM. He thought that many Egyptians might do the same, because Egyptians inherently hate violence. On the other hand, there is not enough information about male circumcision. Thus, people do not understand its negative sexual impact. He said that apart from any cultural or religious considerations, people think that circumcised male genitalia are cleaner. Thus, no one thinks of sparing the prepuce.
...her delayed awareness of MGM may be due to her historical conflict
with men: her brother, her ex-husband, and her male bosses at work. That is why she hated men as a gender, and was not willing
to defend their rights.
Dr. Laila found areas of similarities and others of differences between FGM and MGM. The similarity is that both are humiliating. Stripping and cutting are humiliating and are remnants of slavery. However, there is a difference that separates the two procedures. Culture and society placate the males and compensate them for the humiliation of MGM by giving them great authoritative power. Thus, men hold patriarchal, class, family, and state powers. Dr. Laila is active against FGM since a very long time. However, she developed awareness of MGM since the last few years only. Dr. Laila justified this awareness difference by that she herself was circumcised as a child. She described the memory of her circumcision experience as an abscess that floats on the surface of her memory. She explained also that the reason of her delayed awareness of MGM may be due to her historical conflict with men: her brother, her ex-husband, and her male bosses at work. That is why she hated men as a gender, and was not willing to defend their rights. She said that in this context, she applied the principle "start with yourself, then with your dependents." Thus, when she felt that she did her best for her own gender, she started to consider the other gender: males. She regretted her delayed awareness of the horrible nature of MGM. She explained that awareness develops gradually and not all of a sudden. She developed a new awareness of men, not because of any reconciliation with them, but because she grew beyond the age of experiencing harassment in the public space because of her femininity. That is why it was impossible for her to defend males when she was younger. However, the most relevant experience that helped to create her awareness of male’s sufferings from circumcision was her own son’s circumcision. He suffered for two weeks after circumcision, and she suffered too. She said: "I was very furious, I even wished if I could kill the doctors of the hospital." Then, the issue faded out with her busy life responsibilities, till it surfaced on her consciousness when the issue of FGM was raised in 1994. She developed more awareness of the issue of MGM because in the 1990s she found abundant resources about the function of the prepuce and the hazards of MGM, while such information was scarce in the 1960s when her son was circumcised. Nevertheless, she raised the issue in the doctors’ syndicate in the 1960s, but she could not defend her argument exclusively. She said:
"I used to keep silent about MGM, which is wrong.
Now, with my acquisition of information I can talk loudly."
"My real awareness emerged when my son was circumcised in the USA. When American doctors circumcised him I felt that what they did is faulty, and got very angry. However, I did not know then what to do… I had no information. I always thought that we should stop male circumcision; I even raised the issue in the doctors’ syndicate. However, when I asked the doctors who pioneered the fight against FGM about their opinion on male circumcision they used to say that it is very useful… None of them said it is harmful. Moreover, when I spoke against MGM they used to attack me. Thus, I used to keep silent about MGM, which is wrong. Now, with my acquisition of information I can talk loudly."
Dr. Fahmi thought that from the perspective of the human right to bodily integrity, FGM and MGM are one integral issue. However, he sympathized with females more than males because FGM is an indicator of male dominance over females and women’s submission. He agreed that infant male circumcision implies submission and control as well. However, he thought that circumcision is not likely to cause psychological injury to a boy, because after all, society values masculinity, and circumcision is a rite of passage to manhood. Thus, when circumcised boys reach adolescence, they feel proud in having similar genitalia as their peers when they see each other, and consider this similarity as a sign of belonging to the group. This is not the case in adolescent girls’ communities because girls are socialized differently. They are not allowed to expose their bodies to each other because they learn that their bodies are taboo. Dr. Fahmi acknowledged that FGM is equally considered a rite of passage to womanhood in social groups that observe it. In such communities, women used to state that they are reluctant to abandon female circumcision lest their daughters may grow with a different appearance from other women, which may discourage men to take them as wives. However, given the taboos that surround female sexuality and women’s low social status, he thought that male circumcision has a milder impact on a boy than female circumcision on a girl. Girls are socialized to believe that they are social and sexual objects. That is why Dr. Fahmi perceived FGM as a starting point of a series of severe psychological oppressive procedures that compromise women’s self image. He thought that this is not the case with MGM. That is why he did not equate FGM and MGM. From this perspective, FGM is a priority for him.
Dr. Yara thought that FGM and MGM are not the same issue because she was not aware that the male prepuce has a sexual function. On the other hand, she knew that FGM results into a permanent infirmity to the female by removing sensitive tissues.
According to Dr. Salma, the difference between FGM and MGM is grounded on the different social strategies that underlie them. She said:
"I see that in both cases there is some sort of mutilation. But not all types of mutilation are equal. FGM results in a whole system of oppression. I do not think that this is the case with MGM. Male circumcision does not result in social restrictions to boys. Another difference is the severity of the social punishment that is expected in case of neglecting circumcision. Non-circumcised girls face moral accusations. In case of non-circumcised boys, they face nothing but some comments on their different appearance, but no one confronts them with expectations of future immorality."
Dr. Salma added that consequently, confrontation of FGM is more difficult than confrontation of MGM:
"It is much more difficult to eradicate FGM, because you cannot offer a fair alternative for the expected social punishment. Instead, you try to make pioneers from people, which is very difficult. On the other hand, MGM needs pioneers who can take the challenge of deviation from the dominant norms, however, they will not be subjected to value judgment of their morality."
...she would not take an initiative to combat MGM.
However, if men take the initiative to move against MGM
she will support them absolutely.
Thus, Dr. Salma stated that she would not take an initiative to combat MGM as she already did with FGM. However, if men take the initiative to move against MGM she will support them absolutely. She justified her attitude by the fact that she is not a male. In combating FGM she can raise the issue from a personal perspective and tell her experience as a non-circumcised woman, exactly as circumcised women tell their experiences. From this perspective, she considered women activists more privileged than men activists against FGM. Moreover, she thought that men are not courageous enough to talk about their sexual problems. It is difficult for a man to say in public that he has a problem because of his circumcision. Hence, comes the difficulty of establishing an organized movement against MGM, because men presuppose that their sexuality should never be questioned. Moreover, Dr. Salma argued that a movement against FGM would bring about change in women’s lives, ensure more women’s rights, and dilute social restrictions on women. She added that women would not get the same gains if they combat MGM. However, she was not against combating MGM, and she did not think that it would compromise the issue of FGM, because the idea of opposition to any alteration of the natural human body is the core of the movement against FGM, and MGM depends on the same idea. Thus, movement against MGM will augment this idea.
Hureya refused to mix FGM with MGM. According to her perspective, FGM is more harmful and it is not equal to MGM. Thus, she thought that fighting for both issues would compromise the issue of FGM. Hureya justified her attitude by that MGM is supported by religious and historical convictions. Thus, she expected that struggle against MGM will be much more difficult than against FGM. The tools that are used by FGM opponents will be weak tools against MGM because the information about the function and structure of the male prepuce are recently discovered, and are not known to many people. Moreover, she never heard any of her male family members complaining from hazards of circumcision, while many circumcised women complained from such hazards. She guessed that men do not complain because they ignore the difference of practicing sex with and without a prepuce. However, she refused to adopt the issue of MGM because she should have priorities when she selects social issues to adopt.
Dr. Khadiga thought that the prepuce has a function. However, its function is not as important as the function of the clitoris. She said that removal or retention of male prepuce would not make a big difference. Moreover, updated information about the prepuce is known to all European doctors, but not to Egyptian doctors, for example, the well-known information that the prepuce has nothing to do with cancer. Another difference between FGM and MGM is that Egyptians believe that MGM is a religious requirement, which is not the case in Europe. Even European Jews acknowledge the existence of a Biblical text about male circumcision, but they interpret that it does not mean that male circumcision is globally obligatory to all men all over history. She believed also that there are similarly different and conflicting Islamic religious texts and opinions about FGM. She can use this disagreement to encourage people to question FGM. However, she thought that all theologians agree that MGM is a religious obligation.
Samia was still undetermined, even about the appropriate terminology. She said that the phrase "male genital mutilation" implies an attitude against male circumcision. The term "tahara," which means purification has a positive connotation that supports male circumcision on basis of cleanliness. Samia stated that MGM is not a priority. In an idealistic world, she could have said that MGM is bad, however, it is not so bad as FGM. Prioritization from Samia’s perspective depends on two differences between FGM and MGM. The first is that the two procedures have absolutely different reasons. FGM helps to establish unbalanced gender power relations and discrimination against women. On the other hand, male circumcision is not meant to impose chastity and monogamy on men. It is rather done for hygienic or religious reasons, not to curb male sexuality. The second is a practical consideration. Samia aimed to attract people to listen to her arguments against FGM. She imagined that if she addressed MGM as well, people may hit her, or just would not listen to her. Samia’s expectations are based on that MGM is a socially accepted tradition and an integral part of people’s everyday life. It was never challenged before as FGM. Even before the International Conference of Population and Development (1994) there were efforts against FGM that she can build on them, while this is not the case with MGM. Thus, Samia thought that activists against FGM would lose their credibility if they combine FGM with MGM, because the latter challenges convictions that were never challenged before. Moreover, combining FGM and MGM will suggest that they are the same, while she considered them anatomically different. She also never heard men complaining from their circumcision. She thought that no man finds it difficult to reach orgasm because of circumcision. She guessed that men might keep silent because they do not remember their circumcision, which is usually done at an early age. She concluded that she felt shocked about FGM, but not about MGM.
F) Attitudes towards the idea of preventive surgery
Some medical texts promote circumcision as a preventive surgery for protection against urinary tract infection, some types of cancer, or sexually transmitted diseases. However, medical ethicists consider preventive surgery controversial. Thus, I interviewed respondents with medical profession about their attitude towards preventive surgery. All of them stated that apart from circumcision, they never operated upon healthy persons who have no pathological signs or symptoms. These doctors already knew that there are other body parts that may get infected or develop a malignant tumor, e.g. the breast and the prostate, and that a human can live without such parts. I asked them if they – theoretically and apart from their actual practical experience – agree to remove such parts surgically for prevention? Some of them agreed to perform preventive surgeries in some cases, and some refused the idea exclusively.
Dr. Fahmi said that he refuses the idea of preventive surgery, and he would never do it to any one, even at their request. He explained that when he was a medical student, he read the following words of a thinker called Sir Ausper: "Medicine is a noble profession because it aims to eradicate the reason of its own existence. Moreover, it is a great profession because we, doctors, are guardians of life." He always remembered these words, which played a major role in guiding him to commit himself to appropriate medical ethics. However, he did not use to perceive male circumcision as contradictory to such ethical guidelines because he did not perceive it as a surgery at all. He rather perceived it as non-surgical procedure, exactly like cutting nails. Thus, he used to circumcise healthy babies who have no pathological signs at their parents’ request. He added that his past behavior reflected the degree of his awareness when he was a junior doctor. However, he developed better understanding for Ausper’s words over time, and by now he thinks that the prepuce is not analogous to the projecting part of the nails. Unlike the prepuce, the nail has no nerve or blood supply. He added that he used to believe that circumcision was a safe operation, because he knew that house officers, who usually perform it, are not allowed to perform surgeries that may have fatal consequences.
Dr. Hazem accepted the idea of protective surgery for some cases. He added that he is not the only doctor who accepts to do surgeries for intact healthy persons. He gave an example by a minor surgery such as implantation of contraceptive capsules under the skin of healthy women. Although he acknowledged that contraceptive implantation is not as a complicated surgery as male circumcision, he found similarity between the two procedures. In both cases, a person pays the price of being subjected to surgery in exchange of gaining a greater benefit, either according to the person’s or the community’s accounts. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that there is a difference between the two examples. He would never do contraceptive implantation except to an adult consenting woman, at her own request. On the other hand, circumcision is done to a minor non-consenting baby at his parents’ request. However, such a difference did not mean a lot to Dr. Hazem. He thought that the prepuce is unique in that it is the only healthy body part that should be removed surgically. From Dr. Hazem’s perspective, a good analogous example is removal of the non-inflamed appendix in case of any other abdominal surgery, to prevent the possibility of any future need to remove it if it happened to be inflamed.
Dr. Nader refused the idea of protective removal of the breasts or the prostate to eliminate the possibility of any future cancers, because he thought that their removal would interfere with proper physiological functions. However, he considered male circumcision different, because he thought that there is no evidence that it has hazards if it is done properly.
Dr. Nazmi performed male circumcision because he thought that it is Sunna of the prophet. He thought also that it ensures genital cleanliness, and parents’ insist to ask for it. Nonetheless, he refused to perform female circumcision in spite of the fact that parents’ insist to ask for it and think that it is Sunna of the prophet. He justified his different attitudes in spite of the common beliefs that surround FGM and MGM by that he shares the parents’ beliefs in case of male circumcision, but this is not the case with FGM. Otherwise, he refused the idea of belief-based or preventive surgeries. For example, he emphasized that the surgical scalpel should never touch a healthy breast or prostate because they are valuable body parts. He added that the prepuce could not be compared to the prostate, because the prostate is important to male sexuality while the prepuce is not. In spite of Dr. Nazmi ’s strong belief that male circumcision is an affirmed Sunna of the prophet, he ignored the many centuries’ long controversy among theologians about the religious relevance of male circumcision.
Dr. Yara had never performed preventive surgeries. However, she knew that there are controversial arguments about preventive hysterectomy, with or without removal of the ovaries, after menopause. One opinion argues that surgeons have not the right to unnecessarily remove an intact healthy body part. The other opinion argues that surgeons have the right to remove the uterus after menopause, even without any pathological signs, in order to prevent the possibility of getting cancer uterus. Dr. Yara agreed to the first arguments. She thought that women would need to retain their uteri, even after menopause, just to feel that their body is intact. She remembered a patient who was a post-menopausal woman with uterine fibroids and prolapse. Gynecologists advised hysterectomy. The woman wept and begged them to let her retain her uterus. They had to comply, remove the fibroids and correct the prolapse without hysterectomy. Although Dr. Yara refused "preventive" surgeries to post-menopausal women because of their right to enjoy bodily integrity, she agreed to, and already performed, male circumcision. Her motivation is her belief that by circumcising male infants she protects their future sexual partners from cancer cervix. Thus, she did not find a problem in the idea of the absolute necessity of male circumcision. She did not even think to pause and listen sympathetically to the children’s screams. According to her, she is accustomed to hear human screams because of her profession. For example, as an obstetrician, she had to perform episiotomies without anesthesia in many instances because of lack of anesthetics in governmental health facilities. Although she sympathized with the patients’ pains, she had no other choice except to operate without anesthesia. She stated that she feels comfortable because, unlike many other obstetricians, she never performed routine episiotomies. For her, there should be a critical indication for the surgery. Dr. Yara equated routine male circumcision to routine episiotomies. In both cases, a human being experiences a forced infliction of an unnecessary body injury.
Dr. Khadiga thought that removal of any healthy body part is against medical ethics. However, she thought that male circumcision is exempted from such ethical principle because it is not a medical practice. She considered male circumcision as a social or religious procedure. Medical doctors are involved in such procedure because they are part of the big society, but not on their professional capacity. She exclaimed: "If it is a socially and religiously accepted procedure, why should not a doctor cut this part from a boy’s body? Why not?" She added that she is personally convinced that according to medical ethics a medical doctor should not cut any body part except if it is proved that its retention will cause a problem, nonetheless, she accepted to perform male circumcision as part of her medical training, because when she graduated in the 1970s male circumcision was absolutely accepted by the medical community.
II) Attitudes of respondents after getting new information about MGM
I briefed respondents about the most updated medical information about the structure and function of the male prepuce (see appendix 3). Then, I tested the probability of changing their public and personal attitudes towards MGM. On the personal level, I interviewed them about their probable behavior towards any future son of theirs or their relatives or friends after having this information. On the public level, I discussed their probable behavior in a public session if they hear someone defending MGM or assuming that it is beneficial and not hazardous as FGM.
A) Probabilities of changing personal attitudes towards MGM
Her conscience cannot bear the burden of keeping silent
after getting such knowledge, thus, she preferred not to get it at all.
To explore the probable behavior of respondents towards their own or others’ sons after getting updated information about MGM I discussed with them their intentions towards any future sons of theirs, or their behavior if they happen to hear that some relative is intending to circumcise his/her son. One respondent only (Hureya) absolutely refused to know any updated information, because if she knew she would be obliged to move. She said that she is already overloaded, and she is ready neither to get new information nor to embark on a new movement. Her conscience cannot bear the burden of keeping silent after getting such knowledge, thus, she preferred not to get it at all. Thus, 22 out of the 23 respondents got updated information, which was new to them in different degrees. Some of them, Nousa; Dr. Khadiga; Dr. Laila; Dr. Nazmi, Dr. Hussam; and Dr. Yara, had already known some of these information. However, none of them had complete or detailed knowledge of the structure and function of the male prepuce, hazards of MGM, or MGM world prevalence.
Eight respondents with a majority of men (6 men) said that they are theoretically convinced of the information, however, they were still hesitant to implement them in practice. Twelve respondents with a majority of women (8 women) said that after getting this information they will neither circumcise their future children nor advise others to do it to their children. Two men stated that in spite of the updated information, they insist to circumcise their own and other children. Following is a description of the different arguments.
...the social image of masculinity is so exaggerated that it makes it
difficult to challenge the established conceptualization of the male body.
Some respondents stated that they are not quite sure about what to do, should they advise others against MGM or not. They stated that they are hesitant because it is a difficult issue. In the Egyptian, like all Arab, society the social image of masculinity is so exaggerated that it makes it difficult to challenge the established conceptualization of the male body.
Dr. Nader was hesitant because he thought that the information he got about the relevance of the male prepuce was not sufficient to convince him that what he learnt as a medical student about the hygienic significance of male circumcision is not valid. He said that he needs more information and more courage to take the responsibility of conveying such information to others. Thus, for the time being he may be able to talk only with some near relatives who are able to understand him.
Dr. Hussam interpreted his current hesitation to advise others against male circumcision by his insufficient knowledge about the matter. He stated that in order to be convinced he needed to read and evaluate updated texts himself, then conclude the pros and cons about the necessity or hazards of male circumcision. On the other hand, he said that he couldn’t neglect the information he got from me. Thus, he would be unable to keep silent if he heard that someone intends to circumcise his son. However, he would not give him a settled and final opinion. He would rather tell such a parent that circumcision is a very difficult and violent experience for a child. Dr. Hussam was not settled about his own behavior towards any future son. He said that having an already circumcised elder son complicates the matter. This fact is a sort of pressure that pushes him to make the two brothers similar to each other.
Seif said that he must revise his previous neutral attitude towards MGM in terms of the new information, and that he should take a determined attitude like his exclusive opposition to FGM. As for his behavior towards any new son, he expressed his need to think it over and consult enlightened doctors about it.
Mostafa stated that he needs more careful reading so as to reach a conviction that lack of circumcision will not result into problems for the boy, as a child because of his difference from his peers or as an adult through interference with his marriage plans. Mostafa said that he tends to revise his attitude after he got the updated information about the functions of the prepuce. However, the fact that there are 30 million circumcised Egyptian males makes it difficult to advise not to circumcise newly born male infants.
Moreover, he considered the idea of difference as a positive and nice idea.
Difference could be a sign of being special, instead of being a source of embarrassment.
Abu el Fotuh was hesitant because he needed some time in order to assimilate the updated information that I briefed him about. He thought that he has now some strong points that may motivate him to oppose male circumcision, along with some weak points that instigate him to keep silent for a time. The strong points were his newly upgraded awareness of human and environmental rights, which stimulate him to take a general attitude against any violation of the human body and mind, or any environmental destruction. The weak points that made him hesitant were fear from difference, and the public belief - which he did not share - that circumcision is a religious requirement. He added that after viewing illustrations of natural intact male genitalia, he no more sees them ugly, and contrary to the public imagination, he found no great difference between the appearances of circumcised and non-circumcised males. Moreover, he considered the idea of difference as a positive and nice idea. Difference could be a sign of being special, instead of being a source of embarrassment.
Dr. Salma stated that the information that she got during the interview made her skeptical about her acceptance of male circumcision, because she never imagined it as such a hazardous and unnecessary procedure. However, this information is not sufficient for her to determine a settled practical attitude. Nevertheless, our discussion stimulated her to think seriously that parents have no right to take the circumcision decision on behalf of the male child.
Dr. Afkar was theoretically convinced with the new information, but she was not convinced that male circumcision should stop. She added that in case of getting a future son she would circumcise him in conformity to the social tradition, but that time, it would not be without some hesitance.
Some of the respondents said that they will not circumcise any future son, and will advise others against male circumcision. Fathy stated that he would not hesitate to tell any person who intends to circumcise his/her son that circumcision is an unfounded procedure, and that parents are not obliged to do it to their sons.
"Now I can resist traditions. Knowledge supports me to explain
to the boy how to deal with other people’s reactions."
Sa‘eed explicitly stated that after getting such information he would never circumcise any future son. Moreover, he may seek prepuce restoration for his already circumcised son. I met Sa‘eed in his office. As soon as he got the updated information he called one of his colleagues who was expecting to have a new baby within few months, told him the information, and advised him not circumcise the baby if it is a boy. I asked him if he is not worried lest this baby would look different? He replied:
"No. Now I can resist traditions. Knowledge supports me to explain to the boy how to deal with other people’s reactions. Before getting the updated information I was not aware of the issue. Awareness of the non-necessity of FGM helped me to support girls to defend their rights. Similarly, scientific and logic based awareness of the hazards of MGM will help me to defend boys and support my son to defend his rights."
Dr. Fahmi said that he is ready now to discourage any parent who intends to circumcise his son. He will ask such a parent to revise his intention in terms of the updated information. Dr. Fahmi thought that it is his duty to disseminate knowledge to others. Because circumcision is an old tradition that had been transmitted to us throughout time since antiquity, people perform it without knowing its significance and ignore the reason of their clinging to it as a tradition.
Nehal not only expressed her intention to disseminate updated information to parents who intend to circumcise their sons, but also thought of disseminating this information to the public through a press article.
Dr. Yara stated that she plans to collect more data from relevant web sites and disseminate them to other people, because there is a lot of valuable information to be taken into consideration before rushing to circumcise boys.
Dr. Mona’s eyes brimmed over with tears when she got
the updated information. She commented with astonishment:
"Could that be possible!!! ‘ma‘oula !!!’ "
Dr. Mona’s eyes brimmed over with tears when she got the updated information. She commented with astonishment: "Could that be possible!!! ‘ma‘oula !!!’ " She added that she would react as follows with any parent who intends to circumcise a son: "I will tell him/her these information. It is horrible that we intentionally sever a sensitive part from our sons’ bodies."
Nousa said that she would start immediately to advise friends not to circumcise their sons. She added that the updated information made her more insistent to give such advice.
Dina expected ridicule on dissemination of the new information;
nevertheless, she intended to tell her friends and relatives.
Dina expected ridicule on dissemination of the new information; nevertheless, she intended to tell her friends and relatives. She added that she needed first to read more about the issue and simplify the data before disseminating them to others, exactly as I did with her. She said:
"Your explanation was very important for me to understand. Of course I expect a lot of ridicule, however, I believe that I should honestly disseminate this information to others."
Dr. Khadiga thought that medical doctors are obliged by virtue of medical ethics to release their updated knowledge to the public. However, before doing that, she personally needed to get armed with more information.
The information...encouraged her to confront the idea
of fear from difference.
Aisha thought that after getting the updated information she can find an adequate explanation of her sons’ agony and distress on circumcision. The information was sufficient to let her revise her convictions, and encouraged her to confront the idea of fear from difference. Consequently, she expressed her willingness to ask any parent who intends to circumcise his/her son to think the matter twice. She would also provide such parents with any resources about the functions of the prepuce and the hazards of MGM.
Samia said that she would provide and discuss new information to and with any parent who tells that he/she intends to circumcise a son. As for her own future son, she became more hesitant to circumcise him.
Dr. Laila was knowledgeable about a lot of the updated information before meeting me. She started already to disseminate her information to the public by all possible means.
Dr. Hazem saw that the updated medical information has nothing to do
with the notion of conformity, which is his essential justification
for male circumcision.
Two male respondent medical doctors (DR. Hazem and Dr. Nazmi ) said that in spite of the updated information they would circumcise any future son or grandson of theirs, and advise others to circumcise their sons too. Dr. Hazem saw that the updated medical information has nothing to do with the notion of conformity, which is his essential justification for male circumcision. He said insistently: "I do not consider my self as an absolute conformist, however, I do not like to let my son confront such a conflict." Dr. Nazmi also considered the updated medical information irrelevant because he established his conviction about the necessity of male circumcision on his belief that it is an affirmed Sunna of the prophet.
B) Probabilities of raising MGM as a public issue
...if science has evidence to prove that the prepuce has a function
that enhances pleasure, he was sure to do his best
to stop the massacre of circumcision.
Salah stated that he became ready to argue against MGM as he already did with FGM, because he considered them as one issue. He would do that because he believed that scientific findings should be respected. Humans aim to upgrade their enjoyment of life and economize their efforts in order to get the best achievements. Salah told me that if science has evidence to prove that the prepuce has a function that enhances pleasure, he was sure to do his best to stop the massacre of circumcision. He did not think that raising the issue of MGM would compromise the efforts against FGM, because he considered them one issue. Both of them are about human freedom, democracy, and the right to one’s body ownership.
Children’s rights involve boys and girls.
Thus, it is not appropriate for children’s rights activists
to take an attitude against FGM and promote MGM.
Fathy said that he already raised the issue once in a public meeting with a group interested in children’s rights. He told the group that the two types of genital mutilation are the same from the human right’s perspective. Children’s rights involve boys and girls. Thus, it is not appropriate for children’s rights activists to take an attitude against FGM and promote MGM at the same time. However, the group argued that they should focus on FGM only for pragmatic reasons, because it is difficult to try to solve two problems instead of one. Fathy agreed to this opinion, however, he was aware of its pros and cons. The pros were that this idea is correct from the pragmatic perspective, because it is easier and more productive to focus on one issue. The cons were that if we take the issue from the ethical and human rights perspective, we find no difference between FGM and MGM. Although Fathy considered FGM and MGM as one issue from a human rights’ perspective, he rationalized the pragmatic argument of the group. They considered FGM as a gender issue. Their rationale was that comparison of the two procedures shows that FGM is more harmful than MGM. It makes injustice to women because it is performed in late childhood where girls can remember the experience and develop more psychological problems, in addition to the oppression that is implied in the justifications of FGM. Thus, they considered it pragmatically and strategically better to focus on FGM till it is fully eradicated, then start to take an action against MGM. Fathy compared this pragmatic attitude towards MGM to the strategy of termination of childhood labor. It is planned to end childhood labor gradually, because it is impossible to end it abruptly. I argued back that there is no gender discrimination in this strategy, it happens gradually to boys and girls. He agreed, and justified that the issue of childhood labor has nothing to do with gender. But in the issue of circumcision, he thought that gender is a key element because of the age difference at circumcision. Girls are circumcised in a later age than boys, and he thought that that causes more negative psychological impact. However, he stated that in case of the existence of documented data about the hazards of MGM, such as pain; hemorrhage; death; shock; or psychic trauma, he and his group should revise their pragmatic attitude. He thought also that it is important to get sufficient quantitative data about male circumcision in Egypt before starting to act against it. The problem will deserve action only if it is big. Fathy thought that approaching the issue of MGM from the perspective of the right to bodily integrity would compromise the efforts against FGM. However, he equally thought that sacrifice of men’s bodily integrity is not a term for realizing female bodily integrity. Fathy reached a self-defeating conclusion by stating that the correct approach to combat circumcision is equal rights for men and women.
...he would speak in public and tell people
that retention of the prepuce does not diminish masculinity.
Sa‘eed said that he would speak in public and tell people that retention of the prepuce does not diminish masculinity. He considered MGM and FGM as one issue, because intervention with pleasure would produce confused persons, a matter that will have a negative social impact, hence, the importance of bodily integrity. Sa‘eed thought that it is the intellectuals’ duty to disseminate their knowledge to the public.
She did not find that we should tolerate MGM
in order to succeed in our efforts against FGM.
Dr. Yara also stated that she would make it clear to the public that old information about the necessity of circumcision is outdated. She did not find that we should tolerate MGM in order to succeed in our efforts against FGM.
Nehal intended to speak about the issue from a moral perspective. She thought that denying information to people is an unacceptable and selfish behavior.
Dr. Mona had some updated knowledge before the interview. She already challenged a man who was repeating the outdated information in a seminar. Dr. Mona thought that the current situation of MGM as an issue is similar to the situation of FGM few years ago. People used to resist any advocacy against FGM because they believed that it is a moral and religious necessity, and activists insisted to challenge this belief. The same applies to MGM, she said:
"What I knew now is very horrible. People promote MGM because they lack this information. It is our task as intellectuals to disseminate our information to people, even if they resist, because people usually resist new knowledge and change. It is easier for them to stick to what they already knew because change creates confusion and shakes their beliefs. Thus, people resist change because they tend to conform to the customary attitude."
...the person who will raise the issue has to be patient
and understanding and tolerant to people’s resistance.
I asked Dr. Mona to tell me more about her experience of speaking in public about MGM. She said that the person who started spoke in an intentional provocative manner about persons who are calling for action to prevent male circumcision. The audiences were irritated. Dr. Mona told them that male circumcision is a very hazardous procedure, and that there is research embarking on serious studies about the issue, and that it is worthwhile to know the conclusions of these researchers, listen to them with open minds, and revise our beliefs in terms of updated knowledge that we ignored. Dr. Mona did not feel afraid lest her words about MGM may have a negative impact on her efforts against FGM. She thought that what is on stake is not the issue itself, but the manner of raising it. People have every right to know facts about their bodies, lives, and children, even if they will feel an initial shock. However, the person who will raise the issue has to be patient and understanding and tolerant to people’s resistance. Moreover, such person should not ridicule people because they stick to their old convictions, show hesitation or reactionary attitudes, or refuse to listen to the new information. After all, our task is to tell them full information, but they are free to take it or leave it, without any clash. She was not afraid from the severe resistance of the audiences because her speech was scientifically substantiated. She told the audiences that we all have minds, and can rationally assess any idea. So, why do we feel afraid and put barriers between ideas and ourselves? She reminded the audiences that in the past, people resisted new ideas that proved later to be valid.
Dina said that she will not hesitate to disseminate the new information about male circumcision, but she needed more reading and training to talk to people because she is not a medical doctor. She thought that people accept information about genitalia from doctors better than they accept them from persons from other disciplines. She thought that the issue of MGM is equally important as FGM. Working on them simultaneously will not have a negative impact on efforts against FGM. However, the issue should be raised through an appropriate approach to ensure effective movement, not just declaration of an attitude. However, she still considered FGM as a priority because women’s rights are still far from being fulfilled. That is why she suggested the formation of a specific pressure group for the issue of MGM as a matter of division of labor between FGM and MGM activists.
Dr. Hazem said that he is hesitant to talk about the un-necessity of MGM in public because he does not encourage absolute ideas; he rather preferred to say that there are different options. He also thought that raising the issue of MGM would compromise efforts against FGM.
Seif considered MGM as a serious public issue
because it affects a broad sector of population.
Seif considered MGM as a serious public issue because it affects a broad sector of population. He said that he is willing to talk in public and ask people to revise their attitudes. He will tell them also that they should not take sharp reactions towards any new information, because we discovered that a lot of our taken for granted beliefs did not stand for critical revision. However, according to Seif, it is easier to make people doubt the credibility of FGM for two reasons: 1) FGM was raised since a long time, and some people started to think that it is really invalid. 2) Most people think that FGM deprives girls from a functioning organ, whereas MGM involves only removal of a functionless piece of skin. That is why it will take a lot of effort to convince people that MGM is hazardous because this is the first time to disseminate information about the function of the prepuce. That is why he suggested that it is better to wait until we do more work on eradication of FGM before we raise the issue of MGM. Till then, we have to prepare our argument and to empower ourselves by scientific data. Nevertheless, he thought that we might make pilot attempts to raise the issue at times. He personally does that in some issues. When he perceives that audiences are reluctant to accept his point of view, he usually raises the question and leaves it to them to think it over.
Mostafa thought that FGM and MGM are important issues. However, he was not willing to explicitly reveal his point of view about MGM except in an encouraging environment to avoid problems.
...because the public consider(s) male circumcision as a taken for granted
social tradition(,) (a)ny challenge of their beliefs would be considered
as a Jewish conspiracy...
Abu el Fotuh thought that raising the issue of MGM will compromise the efforts against FGM because the public consider male circumcision as a taken for granted social tradition. Any challenge of their beliefs would be considered as a Jewish conspiracy – although Jews observe male circumcision. Moreover, it is difficult to discuss issues related to the genitalia because Egyptians, or people of the orient generally feel embarrassed to view such illustrations. Even sex education in schools is still difficult to realize. Thus, if we neglect all of these considerations and rush to raise the issue of MGM we may fail. However, because he is accustomed to tell the truth, if he heard someone promoting MGM in public he will try to correct their information without giving them a shock. But he will not adopt MGM as a cause because it is not a priority for him. He thought that there are much more important social issues. Moreover, he was still convinced that MGM is not so horrible as FGM where a whole female genital organ is severed.
Dr. Nader did a lot of fieldwork. He noticed that MGM is never raised as an issue per se. It is usually raised within the context of addressing FGM. He said that if that happens in his presence, he is not sure if he is going to speak or neglect it. His reaction depends on the environment. If people are ready to listen to this subsidiary issue without losing the main issue of FGM he may talk, but otherwise he would not. His measure will be the type of arguments used by the audiences. If they were the sorts of audiences who attack FGM eradication efforts on the assumption that it is a western conspiracy to spread immorality and that activists against FGM are corrupted clients of the west, he will not find courage to raise the issue of MGM in such an environment, even if an audience promotes MGM. On the other hand, with a group of audiences who focus on the motivations and hazards of FGM, he may insinuate a comment on MGM. However, he will not carry out strong advocacy against MGM because he has not sufficient data, and because he is not personally so convinced of MGM as FGM hazards.
Dr. Fahmi said that if he hears someone repeating fallacies about MGM he would tell them that although MGM is widespread, it is not beneficial. He will confront such audiences by telling them that they are not ready to change their customs because change is a challenge to behavioral stereotypes. Anyhow, they are free to do what they want, but they should know that MGM is neither a Sunna of the prophet nor a hygienic practice. Dr. Fahmi did not think that efforts against MGM and FGM are contradictory. He imagined that attitudinal and behavioral changes are mainly associated with the level of objective thought in the society, in contrast to superstitious thinking; the questioning mentality in contrast to the imitative one; and the independent behavior that is based on personal conviction in contrast to conformity. That is why he thought that the issue of MGM might participate to a certain degree to enhance socio-cultural change. He thought that it is definitely an issue. However, his political experience tells him that although some issues are interesting to intellectuals, they are not a social priority. He argued that such issues should be postponed till the big society could perceive their problematic aspect and stop to consider those who raise them as odd persons who make an issue out of trivialities. I argued back that he is involved in action against FGM while it is not a social priority according to his terms. He said that he agrees, but he had to get involved in FGM because it is a human rights issue, and in spite of its wide prevalence in Egypt (97%), it is still less prevalent than MGM. In this sense, he thought that a struggle against MGM would be in vain. He cited this rhyme as representing of his point if view:
As an ibex who butted a rock to break it,
The rock remained intact,
And the ibex broke his horns.
"kanateh sakhratan Yawman leyowhinaha,
Fama darraha wa awha qurnaho elwa‘lo"
Dr. Fahmi added that FGM is part of oppression that is performed against women as a gender category. He considered MGM as an equal violation of weak children’s right of bodily integrity. However, males are eventually compensated for their loss when power holders are selected from them, such as Saddam Houssein, so and so president, and so and so king. That is why he did not consider MGM as a priority for the time being. I argued that male children are equally entitled to bodily integrity and freedom from undue pains, which justifies struggle against MGM. He argued back that it is easy to defeat my argument by using anesthesia to solve the problem of pain. I asked if he would accept a similar solution for FGM, and he said no. He thought that FGM is meant for women’s subjugation and defeat in their conflict with men. He thought also that men are very afraid from the idea of gender equality, even at the existential level if women get the ability to enjoy life or take equal human rights.
Dr. Salma was ready to correct any wrong information about MGM in a seminar, but she refused to take the initiative to form a task force against MGM. Her reasons were related to her age and her general level of optimism about the world. She said: "If I were 20 years younger I may have taken such an initiative."
Aisha said that if she felt that the audiences in a public meeting are severely attacking the idea of combating MGM, she might keep silent. But if she felt that they are less aggressive, she may tell them what she knows about the updated data, and advise them to read more about the issue.
Nousa said:
"Even if someone promotes MGM in a public seminar, my priority will still be FGM. I think that arguing for male bodily integrity in public will have a negative impact on the movement against FGM. In spite of the fact that both are gender issues, I will be accused of being a western agent, a loose woman, … etc. In this case, FGM proponents will gather forces against us, and we cannot face that. Even those whom we could attract to our side will leave us. I think it will be like beating our heads against a wall, because more people agree to MGM than FGM. I know that there is contradiction in my argument, because so many people agree also to FGM, exactly as they agree to veiling. When you challenge them they will mention thousands of prophetic sayings and Qur'anic verses, although my field experience tells me that religion is not the first factor in MGM, but it is so well established tradition that there is no need to refer to religion to justify it."
She added that she felt enthusiasm to struggle against FGM in spite of its being a well established tradition and that people refer to religion to justify it because she is a woman, and FGM compromises women’s rights. She was not ready to do the same for the issue of MGM. She acknowledged that both are gender issues, but she did not think of MGM from the perspective of gender power politics as she did with FGM. She thought of MGM from a personal perspective, as a woman who may mother a male child and feels confused about the decision of his circumcision, or a friend who sympathizes with men friends’ pains. But she was indulged in the issue of FGM from a public perspective as a woman interested in women’s rights. The personal factor was excluded in the issue of FGM because she was raised in a family that does not circumcise girls. Thus, there was no probability for her to think about her own daughter’s circumcision or to sympathize with any circumcised female relative or friend. She even had not heard of FGM before 1994 when she fainted on viewing the CNN video about the circumcision of a female child. Apart from her strong bias for women at the practical level, she thought differently at the theoretical level. Theoretically, she believed that intellectuals have obligation to disseminate their information to the public. This applies to MGM as well. She thought also that eradication of FGM, as a tradition of social significance, requires discussion of male sexuality, MGM, and the whole notion of carving femininity and masculinity. Nousa was aware of her contradictions. She argued that in terms of gender issues it would be logical to raise MGM as an issue that needs study and discussion. However, she had a subjective feeling that she should not raise the issue of MGM in public.
Dr. Khadiga was reluctant to argue much about MGM in public because it is a deep-rooted tradition, however, she may mention some updated studies if someone promotes false information in a seminar. Although FGM is equally deep-rooted as a tradition, she thought that there is still a wider area for maneuvering about it. She added that she could easily argue against the religious justifications of FGM because of the evident conflicting theological opinions about it, which is not the case with MGM as far as she believed. That is why she thought that raising the issue of MGM will have a negative impact on the efforts against FGM.
Samia stated that the updated information raised her interest in MGM. She said that she is ready to correct any false information in public. She did not believe that raising MGM as an issue per se would interfere with the efforts against FGM. The decisive factor in this respect is the manner of raising the issue.
Above was a detailed description of the respondents attitudes towards MGM, which developed from the summation of their past knowledge, beliefs, and experiences. I also explored the possibilities of change of respondents’ past attitudes in terms of the updated information about the structure and function of the male prepuce and the history of MGM. The following chapter is an analysis of the described respondents’ knowledge, beliefs, experiences and attitudes.

[Hasbinbad]

Chapter V: Revealing the nudity of the emperor: The final analysis
I) Analysis of the respondents beliefs and knowledge
A) The respondents’ biases
The beliefs of some respondents about male and female genitalia are based on inherent traditional biases of the patriarchal society. For example, some respondents share the common belief that males are circumcised in an earlier age than females because male genitalia are fully developed at birth while female genitalia need some years to reach full development. This signifies that intellectual respondents - including some medical doctors - do not build their ideas about sexual organs on accurate knowledge of the structural and functional development of these organs. This signifies also that both intellectuals and commoners share the belief that males are sexually and developmentally superior to females, even in infancy. This belief extends to other physical and moral aspects. Thus, men are thought to be generally superior to women all over their life span (Abd el Salam 1998).
The respondents’ belief that infants can tolerate pain more than adults reveals their bias against children. Pain is a subjective feeling that ranges from slight discomfort to severe agony. The only one who can assess the degree of pain is the person who experiences it, or the disinterested observer who detects the objective signs of pain as they appear on the sufferer (Chamberlain 1991). However, those who believe that children tolerate pain are subjectively judging juniors, who are under their custody and who occupy a less social rank in comparison to adults. Some objective studies on infants’ perception of pain invalidate the traditional beliefs about children’s tolerance of pain. Cortisol - which is the hormone that is released by the suprarenal glands in response to pain, shock, and stress - was measured in the blood of infants after circumcision and other less stressful situations, such as binding the children’s limbs or pricking their heels. It was found that the blood cortisol level after circumcision exceeds its level after other stressful experiences (Gunnar 1985; Gunnar 1988; Goldman 1997). This means that circumcision is a sort of severe, painful stress, and that denial of this fact represents a social bias and discrimination against children. It was found also that male children remember the experience of their circumcision after many months from the operation. Circumcised male children’s reaction to the vaccination injections was more intense than their non-circumcised male or female peers.
...psychiatrists found that the widespread belief
that children forget pain is not realistic
On the other hand, psychiatrists found that the widespread belief that children forget pain is not realistic. Adult men who were circumcised as infants cannot remember this experience because they were circumcised before they acquire the spoken language. That is why such adult men cannot express their memories about circumcision verbally under regular circumstances. Nonetheless, some of them could when this remote memory floated to the surface of consciousness under hypnosis or when they were subjected to a similar experience, like having a surgery (Goldman 1997). In my fieldwork, I observed similar responses. I arranged a video projection about infant male circumcision as part of my activity for children’s right of bodily integrity. Some men in the audience could not tolerate the scene. One of them stated that he felt physical pain when he watched the video. This means that memory of the circumcision pain is not deleted, even after many years. So, my observations match the results of the forementioned psychological studies.
...circumcision was used as a social tool
to control male sexuality throughout history.
Some feminist men and women respondents thought that MGM is not so significant as FGM because it does not imply curbing and controlling of male sexuality. Nevertheless, according to literature, circumcision was used as a social tool to control male sexuality throughout history. MGM proponent doctors were aware that it curbs male sexuality. Moses Maimonides (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/), a Jewish physician who lived in the thirteenth century, recommended male circumcision to weaken men’s sexual power and pleasure in order to improve their morals and guarantee their chastity (Atay, non-dated, in Abu Sahlieh 1999). Similarly, Victorian British doctors introduced male and female circumcision to the medical practice in the nineteenth century to "prevent" and "treat" masturbation (http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm) (Wallerstein 1980; Gollahar 1994).
This view mixes God with father, and tries to give social control
a sacred and philosophical nature.
Other respondents expressed implied perception of the element of social control in MGM, and even insisted that such control should persist on the assumption that it is sacred. An outstanding example of this attitude is Dr. Hazem, who said that circumcision is God’s will at the philosophical level, and the father’s will at the operational level. This view mixes God with father, and tries to give social control a sacred and philosophical nature. Dr. Hazem described circumcision as "tahzeeb," a term that means discipline, trimming and taming of the wild nature. He added that the objective of religion is to realize submission to social customs "inseia‘ lil ‘urf." Of course, taming and submission apply to the weak party. In this example, circumcision is done by the father to the son. Dr. Hazem’s view identifies the father, who is the lord of the family, with the Lord of heaven, and makes the father the Lord’s delegate to implement circumcision/control.
Some respondents thought that the male prepuce hinders erection, and makes the penis look feeble. This view reveals an implicit belief that the prepuce is symbolic of femininity, and hence explains the belief that its retention compromises a man’s masculinity. The language they used to describe the prepuce supports this analysis "the prepuce is nothing but a soft and dangling piece of skin" "hitta medaldela mortakheya." Other respondents stated that they heard some magic beliefs about the prepuce. For example, some of them heard that if a man is not circumcised in childhood he will be impotent as an adult. Such beliefs are similar to the magic beliefs about the clitoris. FGM proponents believe that if the clitoris is not removed in childhood it will grow to enormous size in adulthood, or it may harm the non-circumcised woman’s husband during sexual intercourse. The everyday life experience proved that these magic attributes of the parts that are usually removed in circumcision are not realistic. However, these beliefs that had a mythic basis served the symbolic conceptualization of femininity and masculinity in ancient cultures. It seems that they still serve the same function for people who adopt inherited cultural beliefs without subjecting them to critical revision (Turner 1985; Montagu 1991).
Some feminists also adopt this patriarchal belief...
Most of the respondents, whether they thought that retention of the prepuce has an impact on masculinity or not, equated masculinity to virility and reduced it to erection. Those who thought that the existence of the prepuce affects masculinity explained their belief that it hinders erection, so, its removal is a prerequisite to fulfill complete masculinity. While those who thought that retention of the prepuce does not affect masculinity explained that they believe so because it does not prevent erection, hence, circumcision is not necessary for full masculinity. Using such beliefs to explain the sexual advantages of circumcision is based on patriarchal thought that privileges erection as a symbol of sexual potency, and hence of political power (Paige 1978 (http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm)). I think also that this is the basis of the belief that FGM is more severe than MGM because FGM implies removal of an erectable organ. Some feminists also adopt this patriarchal belief that acknowledges erection while it neglects the fact that both FGM and MGM imply loss of extremely sensitive tissues, and that both procedures violate bodily integrity, and the human right to determine what is to be done with one’s own body.
A minority of the respondents perceived that sex is not all about erection. Salah is one of them. He said that a European woman told him that it is more pleasurable to have sex with an intact man. This statement is supported by a recent research that studied women who married more than once. Some of their husbands were circumcised and some were not. The study concluded that male circumcision has a negative effect on the female partner’s sexual satisfaction (O’Hara 1999 (http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/)).
This belief signifies ethno-national chauvinism...
Moreover, there is evidence that the attitude towards circumcision is affected by personal cultural biases. For example, Nehal thought that Egyptian men are more potent than foreigners because they are circumcised. This belief signifies ethno-national chauvinism, because sexual potency has nothing to do with neither national identity nor geographical residence. On the other hand, Salah, who lived abroad for some years, thought that the sexual potency of Egyptian men decreases after the forties, while European men retain their potency till over age sixty. Both impressions are wrong. Sexual potency has nothing to do with nationality, nor circumcision. It depends on other factors such as general physical and psychological health and social and emotional maturity. While circumcision may interfere with both partners’ feeling of pleasure, it has no effect on potency or fertility. Thus, Salah’s and Nehal’s beliefs reveal cultural stereotyping rather than a real fact.
B) Two ways of dealing with texts: sanctification and critical thinking
Most respondents who thought that circumcision is a religious order
could not cite any holy text to substantiate their belief.
Egyptians do not usually form their religious beliefs through reflective reading of the holy texts by themselves. They are rather accustomed to build their beliefs through listening to the Islamic theologians’ "fuqaha" interpretations of the holy texts. According to Hisham Sharabi (1988) official clergy monopolized the interpretation of holy texts. They themselves do not analyze the texts through a process of critical thinking, but through the traditional comments on it. Intellectuals share the same way of dealing with the holy texts with the public. Most respondents who thought that circumcision is a religious order could not cite any holy text to substantiate their belief. Even some of them stated that they built their opinion on oral information that they heard from some clergy "sheikhs," or even from laypersons. Such respondents include persons with master degrees, or even Ph.D, i.e. they cannot take citation of references lightly when they write a paper. However, they accepted such negligence in their oral discourse, even if it implied serious attitudes or social decisions. Thus, they accepted amputation of part from their own children’s bodies, or tolerated such an amputation to other children, with the assumption that they "heard" that it is mentioned in the Qur'an or Sunna without critical revision of these texts by themselves. Some respondents even established their opinion on an erroneous analogy. For example, Dr. Nazmi argued that the detailed steps of prayers are mentioned in prophetic tradition "ahadeeth" not in the Qur'an. Thus, by analogy, circumcision should be an affirmed tradition of the prophet "Sunna" because it is mentioned in some prophetic tradition "ahadeeth," even if it is not mentioned in Qur'an. This argument neglected that Qur'an mentioned prayers, if not in details, while this is not the case with circumcision.
Circumcision conflicts with the Qur'anic verse...
Islamic scholars "Ulama" who studied ahadeeth concluded that one of the criteria of the non-validity of a prophetic saying is its conflict with reason or with Qur'an. Circumcision conflicts with the Qur'anic verse "Our God, not for naught Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire" (Al Umran 3: 191). Other scholars, like Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltout, hold the opinion that "it is not permissible to inflict pain upon a living creature except if he/she may gain a personal benefit which is greater than the pain" (Afifi 1971; Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh 2000). Moreover, medical, psychological, and social studies participated in defeating the beliefs about any benefits for circumcision (Denniston 1994, Goldman 1997, Zwang 1997, Goldman 1999, Cold and Taylor 1999, Boyd 1998). Thus, we are left only with the painful aspect of circumcision, and according to the Islamic principle "do no harm and accept no harm" "la darara wala dirar," unnecessary infliction of pain on others is not permissible.
This is evidence that medicine is mixed with the sacred.
The respondents not only sanctified holy texts, but also medical texts. This medical text sanctification appeared in the doctors’ belief that male circumcision is beneficial, just because it is mentioned in some medical textbooks. Thus, they dealt with the medical text as a holy text, i.e. it is difficult to subject it to critical thinking. This is evidence that medicine is mixed with the sacred. It also denotes that education (including medical education) implies learning information by heart. In such system, "reading" does not imply criticism of the text by the reader, and the lecturer is treated as a priest, who should not be challenged by the student. Thus, a learner gets the information once and forever, and considers it an absolute fact beyond doubt rather than a relative knowledge that may be trespassed by more updated research. These characteristics of the educational system explain the attitudes of the doctor respondents who refused to accept the results of the new research that described the function of the male prepuce, and insisted to defend MGM because they "read" about its benefits as undergraduate medical students some decades ago. This model of thinking signifies an inability to abandon the old and hesitancy to accept the new. Both are characteristics of conservatism.
Non-critical handling of old medical texts by social activists
established the idea that male and female circumcision are
essentially different issues, so, it is forbidden to mix them.
Non-critical handling of old medical texts by social activists established the idea that male and female circumcision are essentially different issues, so, it is forbidden to mix them. Nonetheless, this is a non-substantiated idea. On the contrary, there are some documented field studies that suggest the opposite. Although respondents did not express their awareness of any similarities, and listed many differences between MGM and FGM; some anthropological researches described inter- and intra-cultural similarities between them. For example, John Kennedy described circumcision as a rite of passage for both boys and girls in Egyptian Nubia (Kennedy 1970). Hanny Lightfoot-Klein described the similarities between cultural justifications of male and female circumcision. She concluded that American justifications of MGM are similar to African justifications of FGM (http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html) (Lightfoot-Klein 1997). The French sexologist Dr. Gerard Zwang concluded that FGM and MGM have a common objective: alteration of the natural anatomical structure of the sexual organs. He carried out a comparative study between the physical and sexual consequences of MGM and FGM and found them the same. Thus, Dr. Zwang concluded that in societies that perform both types of genital mutilation, it is impossible to eradicate FGM without eradication of MGM as well (Zwang 1997).
C) The effect of information on bias
The respondents’ belief that their own impressions and ideas are valid information beyond any doubt suggests the existence of a relationship between lack of sufficient and adequate information, and the creation of bias. For example, Nehal thought that historically prophet Ibrahim predated ancient Egyptians; hence, circumcision has begun as sacred divine order since its very beginning. However, contrary to Nehal’s belief, some historians estimated that prophet Ibrahim and his tribe have lived in a period about the time of the middle Pharonic dynasty (Al Khashaba 1999: 105). Thus, Ancient Egyptians predated Ibrahim, and hence, circumcision predated all monotheistic religions.
Accurate information about male genital integrity
is neither distributed by the mass media,
nor studied in the faculties of medicine.
Another example of the role of lack of appropriate information in creating bias is the belief that most men all over the world are circumcised. Respondents who thought so willingly accepted circumcision in terms of their belief that it is a globally accepted norm by most or all people. However, this is hardly the case. A study about the groups that perform MGM (Jewish, Muslims, North Americans, and some African tribes) found that they comprise only 23% of the world population (NOHARMM (http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceworld.htm) n.d.), i.e., more than 75% of human males are intact, and they lead a successful sexual and reproductive life without any alteration of their natural genital anatomy. These responses show that respondents lack accurate knowledge of the world prevalence of MGM. This suggests that a barrier of silence surrounds MGM. Accurate information about male genital integrity is neither distributed by the mass media, nor studied in the faculties of medicine.
Another example is the respondents’ belief that the male prepuce has no function, or that it is a rigid non-retractable structure, hence, dirt accumulates under it in a way that makes it difficult to maintain male genital hygiene by ordinary washing. This belief explains why its holders accept MGM while they refuse FGM. People do not perceive the value of a part that they ignore its function, so, they will not be keen to keep it. The belief that such a part has a harmful function makes the situation worse. These beliefs result from a combination of lack of appropriate information and sanctification of old medical texts. For example, Dr. Nazmi denied any sexual function of the prepuce. He mentioned Masters and Johnson’s 1966 study about human sexuality as a reference. In this study, Masters and Johnson found that there is no difference between the perception of touch to the head of the penis between circumcised and intact men. Unlike MGM proponent doctors, Masters and Johnson’s study did not aim to promote MGM. On the contrary, they aimed to disprove the myth that was disseminated in the 1960s by the pro-circumcision doctors who said that circumcision enhances sexual sensitivity. Nevertheless, Masters and Johnson tested light touch on the penile head and shaft, and they did not test it on the different zones of the prepuce in intact men. Taylor’s study (1996) (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/) proved that the areas that were tested by Masters and Johnson have almost no specific receptors of light touch. Such receptors are abundant in the inner layer of the prepuce, which is cut in circumcision. Thus, it is logic for Masters and Johnson to miss a difference in feeling light touch between circumcised and intact men. Consequently, Masters and Johnson study is not accurate because it did not use an appropriate measure for this variable (Hammond 1998 (http://www.noharmm.org/masters.htm)). On the other hand, an American field research found that men who were circumcised as adults complained from decreased sexual sensation after circumcision (Hammond 1997 (http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm)). As for respondents who imagined the prepuce as a rigid structure that is difficult to clean, they did not read the studies that described the mobility of the prepuce and its role in ensuring sexual pleasure for both partners (Bigelow 1992; Taylor 1996 (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/); Cold 1999 (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/)) "see also appendix 3".
Patriarchal society teaches men and women
to guard themselves from the other gender.
The justification of MGM by its capability to prevent cancer cervix in women was defeated (Wallerstein 1980; Paige 1978 (http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm); Gollahar 1994). [see also: "Penile cancer, cervical cancer, and circumcision" at http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/] However, it attracted some female medical doctors to agree to MGM. I think that this justification is a patriarchal game. Patriarchal society teaches men and women to guard themselves from the other gender. Thus, each gender considers the other dangerous. Hence, it is easy for women to extend their inherited biases to imagine that the male prepuce is among the masculine dangers.
D) Ideological contradictions
Some respondents expressed their belief that the prepuce has no nerves. Nevertheless, they stated that children suffer pain on circumcision. There is apparent contradiction in this argument. No structure can be sensitive, and hence a person feels pain on its injury, without having nerve supply. However, such contradiction would disappear if the respondents’ observations and interpretation originate from two different positions of social action. Concrete evidence (signs of agony) takes place in the individual body, which feels and suffers. Respondents observed them from the position of an individual relationship between them and the children; thus, they acknowledged the children’s sufferings and stated that children feel pain on circumcision. Nonetheless, they interpreted their observation at the level of the symbolic social body, which should be subjected to cultural and social formation. Being symbolic, the social body is too abstract to experience concrete sensations. Thus, the adults who are assigned to circumcise boys in conformity to socio-cultural traditions do not take into consideration the sensitivity of the individual body (Scheper-Houghes 1987). Hence, interpretation of respondents’ observation originated from their position as senior adults in communal relationship with junior children, where both they and the children are representatives of abstract social categories rather than actual concrete individuals.
Some respondents discovered their ideological contradictions on spot during the interview. Nehal is a good example of such discovery of self-contradiction. She got scared when she briefly reflected upon the interpretation that occurred to her in an attempt to give circumcision a religious significance through associating it with crucifixion. Another example is Dr. Salma, who knew that intact European men are healthy; nevertheless, she never matched this fact against her old information about the potential health hazards of the prepuce.
II) Analysis of the respondents’ experiences with MGM
A) The ritualistic nature of MGM in Egypt
Circumcision is a complex ritual.
No single factor or motive can interpret its significance alone.
Circumcision is a complex ritual. No single factor or motive can interpret its significance alone. Anthropologists who studied circumcision in ancient cultures concluded that male circumcision might be a ritual imposed or welcomed by women. However, men also desire it because it gives the penis a more virile appearance by freeing it from its protective foreskin. Hence, a male child acquires symbolic sexual maturity by circumcision. Moreover, circumcision adds to the masculine power by its symbolic representation of the strongest feminine attribute: shedding of genital blood, which signifies fertility. Thus, circumcision acquires its significance as a rite of passage (Bettelheim 1954; Turner 1967; Voskuli 1994). However, Vincent Carapanzano disagrees with this view, and considers it a representation of a Western point of view about pre-modern communities. He interpreted circumcision as he witnessed it in Morocco from the perspective of the circumcised boy. Carapanzano concluded that there is no relation between a male child’s circumcision and his passage to a state of adulthood. Moreover, male circumcision does not cut a male child’s relationship with the world of women. Circumcision separates a child momentarily from women caregivers, just to return him to them in a different symbolic sexual state. So, Carapanzano calls circumcision in Morocco "a rite of return." He also describes it as a rite that is dissociated from its purpose, because it declares a passage to a different stage of life without real passage to such a stage. After circumcision, a boy remains the same as he already was before it, a small child who is sexually and socially immature (Carapanzano 1981).
The essential reason for the intellectuals’ insistence
to circumcise their sons is their fear of difference.
...This fear reveals the new function of circumcision
as a tool to control any tendency towards
rebellion or non-conformity.
From the Egyptian respondents’ views, I conclude that male circumcision as it is performed currently among modernized middle-class Egyptians is completely different from circumcision as it is originally performed in pre-modern cultures. The nearest forms to the traditional ritual of circumcision as described by Bettelheim (1954) and Turner (1967) are the circumcision experiences of Sa‘eed and Dr. Fahmi’s brother. However, the respondents’ description to their children’s circumcision as was done in the modern medical institution is very far from such traditional form. In modern circumcision, parents feel stress and anxiety. In most cases they either do not celebrate circumcision or they make a small limited party. In the traditional ritual celebration, as it is described by Sa‘eed, adult male and female relatives, and even the circumcised children themselves, rejoice because they still see the traditional significance of the ritual as a procedure to introduce the child to manhood. On the other hand, respondents who felt stress for their children’s circumcision – like Sa‘eed himself, his wife Dina, Dr. Afkar, Dr. Mona, Dr. Hussam and Dr. Yara – felt so because they no more believe in the original meaning of circumcision. It is for them a ritual dissociated from its original purpose, as Carapanzano describes it. They perform an old ritual, but they are modern-minded. Their ancestors celebrated without anxiety because they used to act according to a different epistemological paradigm far from science. This ancient paradigm is magic, which is consistent with the practice. This consistency was lost when circumcision was forced into medical sciences. Thus, circumcision in the modern context is nothing more than sticking to a traditional custom that lost its social significance as a rite of passage. Loss of this traditional significance leaves us with the real, concrete, painful essence of circumcision. Moreover, the essential reason for the intellectuals’ insistence to circumcise their sons is their fear of difference. This fear reveals the new function of circumcision as a tool to control any tendency towards rebellion or non-conformity. In other words, it is a tool that protects the despotic aspect of the tribal social organization that persists as vestiges into the modern nation state, especially in the family institution. Durkheim described the social relations in tribal communities as "mechanical solidarity," because they presume absolute similarity between all individual members of the community. Any disobedience, tendency towards individuality, or transgression of the similarity is considered destructive chaos that deserves severe punishment (Durkheim 1984). Egyptian Society lives a combination of modern and traditional norms. A multiplicity of time periods co-exist in the Egyptian social structure. In other words, modernization and traditionalism are in constant interaction in Egypt (Armbrust 1996). This modern-traditional construct is known as the combination of the ancient in its original form with the contemporary "Al Asala Wal Mo‘asara." This explains the specific form of MGM among the Egyptian middle-class intellectuals. Although it is performed in the modern medical institution, it retains some traditional features. It bears some similarity to the Moroccan ritual. Both include the tradition of returning the child to his mother in a new state.
...obeying her personal feelings alone is considered an
impermissible individualistic chaos against the dominant traditions.
A recurrent model in the Egyptian ritual as respondents express it is calling the mother to hold the child just after his circumcision. Aisha’s case is peculiar in that it clearly represents the mother’s confusion between conformity to her expected role in an old traditional ritual, that requires her to welcome her child’s circumcision happily and hold him while he feels agonizing pain; and her modern mentality that tells her that she is expected to sympathize with the individual child’s pain. The conflict that was experienced by Aisha with her two sons’ circumcision reflects her awareness of the powerful social opposition to individuality. She said that she was distressed for her first son’s agony after circumcision. Nonetheless, distress alone was not enough to encourage her to revise her attitude towards circumcision of her second son. She said that it was necessary for her to have information about the function of the prepuce and the hazards of MGM in order to change her attitude. This statement shows that Aisha was aware that obeying her personal feelings alone is considered an impermissible individualistic chaos against the dominant traditions. Thus, MGM has a significance in terms of the politics of social control, which maintains the inherited tools of control through embellishing them with terms such as "Al Asala", that means "genuine traditions"; and transferring them to an accepted modern context, which is the modern medical institution. One condition that ensures the modern medical institution’s capability for guarding the continuity of MGM is that medical doctors – most like all Egyptian men – are circumcised. Circumcision of male infants assures circumcised doctors and fathers about their own psychological and sexual health (Goldman 1997).
B) The role of the medical institution
...the medical institution increasingly interferes
to encourage parents to circumcise their sons.
Although one respondent (Dr. Mona) said that no doctor would circumcise an infant without his parents’ decision, testimonies of other respondents show that parents tend to postpone their infant son’s circumcision when doctors or nurses do not take the initiative to suggest circumcision of the baby. Medical personnel took such initiative with Dr. Mona’s and Dr. Nader’s younger sons, and with Dina and Sa‘eed’s son. Moreover, Dr. Nader’s testimony shows that the medical institution increasingly interferes to encourage parents to circumcise their sons. For example, when Dr. Nader’s first son was born, the doctors did not have the custom of suggesting circumcision to the parents. When his second son was born in the same hospital few years later, the doctor offered them a combined suggestion to vaccinate the child against tuberculosis and to circumcise him. Suggesting circumcision along with vaccination gives it the form of protective surgery.
(T)he surgeon, ...is delegated by the community
to impose and implement conformity on the child
to turn him into an accepted community member.
In the first place, circumcision is not surgery. It is a socio-cultural ritual. The accompanying celebrations prove its cultural background. There is no surgery – whether necessary or not – where visitors congratulate the operated upon patient by saying: "hi… congratulations… you turned into a man" "Mabrouk… Ba’et Ragil," or where the parents celebrate after seven days "Sobou," like what Dr. Fahmi’s parents did after his brother’s circumcision. Significantly enough, all of these ritual performances and congratulations took place after medically performed circumcisions. In spite of all the medical myths about circumcision, and although they use modern surgical instruments to circumcise boys, medical doctors themselves do not deal with circumcision as a modern surgery. An example that supports this analysis is the professional malpractice of the doctor who circumcised Dr. Hussam and Dr. Yara’s son; and the behavior of Dr. Hussam towards them. The circumcising doctor neglected sterilization, which is a critical requirement for any modern surgery. Dr. Hussam, the father of the child who is also a physician, surrendered to the inappropriate behavior of the surgeon, and entered the surgery theater without sterilization. At that moment, these two doctors were performing a social and not a professional surgical behavior. They were acting as representatives of the traditional society: Dr. Hussam, the father who is sacrificing part of his son’s body in conformity to traditions; and the surgeon, who is delegated by the community to impose and implement conformity on the child to turn him into an accepted community member. Both objectives (sacrifice and imposing conformity) are not indications of modern professional surgery. Thus, it is not odd for these two doctors to neglect the obligatory medical professional criteria when they perform circumcision. Moreover, the surgeon in this case is a counterpart of the ancient traditional priest who observes and ensures obedience of traditions and offering sacrifices in ancient communities. Dr. Hussam, who felt the circumciser/surgeon’s authority in this context, could not express his opposition to the surgeon’s malpractices; moreover, he followed him in his professionally wrong practices. It is observed also that most doctors who circumcise boys are gynecologists and obstetricians, i.e. they studied female, not male, genitalia. This is also the situation in USA (Bigelow 1992). This may signify an archeological motive to alter male genitalia to give them fertility like females through shedding of genital blood (Bettelheim 1954).
Moreover, the medical institution promotes circumcision through its writings to the public readers. An evidence of the effect of such writings is Dr. Yara’s statement about Dr. Spock’s book. What she read in the translated Arabic version encouraged her to circumcise her son. In Egypt, new editions of translated books are not matched against the most updated edition of the same book in its original language. Authors may revise their points of view over time in terms of the most recent research findings. This is the case with Dr. Spock who changed his attitude from male circumcision in the 1976 edition of his book Baby and Child Care. He even wrote an article in 1989 about the reason of changing his attitude. He said that he used to advise parents to circumcise their infant sons in the previous editions of his manual since 1940, because the prevalence of the ideas that male circumcision protects wives against cancer cervix, and to avoid the psychological trauma if it is done later in life. However, he got convinced of the invalidity of this information, and if it happens that he may get a new baby son he will not circumcise him because he knows now that circumcision is not the wisest choice (Spock 1989). Nonetheless, the publisher of the Arabic version reprinted a translation of an old edition of Spock’s manual, and parents, who have no access to more updated English versions, think that the great pediatrician still recommends circumcision.
C) The backgrounds of doctors’ acceptance or refusal to circumcise males
Some respondent doctors refused to circumcise children as part of their professional practice. They mentioned different reasons for this attitude. Some of them (Dr. Hussam and Dr. Salma) had pure professional reasons, because they do not like surgery. Others (Dr. Laila and Dr. Mona) combined their dislike of surgery with a subjective humane emotion that refuses circumcision because it is a non-justified violation of the child’s body.
...when they circumcise a child they deal with him,
not as human individual, but as a page on which the society
can inscribe its symbols.
This attitude of medical doctors is based on the general attitude
of the patriarchal society towards children.
Other respondent doctors accepted to circumcise children. Their attitude is based on their negligence of the individual body. They dealt with children at the level of the social body, which is symbolic and does not feel pain. In other words, when they circumcise a child they deal with him, not as human individual, but as a page on which the society can inscribe its symbols. In order to treat the children’s bodies at that social level, doctors should have a strong belief that a child is not a fully qualified human. Doctors’ negligence of the feeling of the child during circumcision suggests that they hold such belief. For example, Dr. Nader said that he couldn’t describe the feelings of the children whom he circumcised because they were not big children. They were infants who are too young to have any feelings. Dr. Yara expressed a similar belief. She said that she could hear the children whom she circumcised scream, however, she used to concentrate on what her hands do, and she never stopped to consider the feelings of the children. This attitude of medical doctors is based on the general attitude of the patriarchal society towards children. Male children, like women of all ages, are considered as a social category of a lower status than adult men. They are not accounted as independent individual subjects, but they are rather clients of the social group. Moreover, doctors are encouraged to accept such traditional social bias against children by their adoption of the medical myths about the benefits of circumcision and the hazards of the prepuce. They fall under the hegemony of these myths because they learnt them when they were in a weak position, as medical students under control of the authority of the medical education institution, which is one of the powerful conservative social institutions. In conclusion, respondent doctors who refused to do male circumcision at all, like Dr. Laila; or who did a few circumcisions and then decided to stop, like Dr. Khadiga were motivated to take this attitude because they sympathized with children as individuals. On the other hand, those who did a lot of circumcisions, like Dr. Yara and Dr. Nazmi, neglected the individuality of the child, while they took all other social and mythical considerations into their accounts.
D) Mechanisms that promote acceptance of MGM
Analysis of the experiences of all respondents – from medical or other professions – reveals the mechanisms that encouraged them to circumcise their own or other children. Following is a description of these mechanisms:
a) Dissociation of experiences
The main feature of this mechanism is that the person separates her/his concrete life experiences from their traditional beliefs, even if they are contradictory. One example is Sa‘eed who lived without circumcision for 11 years, and he never suffered from urinary tract problems except after circumcision. Nonetheless, Sa‘eed was worried and afraid that dirt may accumulate under his son’s prepuce and harm him, so, he circumcised him at one year of age. On the other hand, a person’s skepticism about the validity of circumcision may start with observation of the contradiction between the widespread traditional beliefs about circumcision and his/her concrete experience of circumcision. One example is Abu el Fotuh, who expressed his shock and astonishment from the prevalent belief that circumcision is painless and harmless, just like cutting nails, while he observed that his son’s face flushed with distress during his circumcision. Then, he started to doubt his previous beliefs about male circumcision. Even an absolute MGM opponent like Dr. Laila said that if a senior surgeon performs the procedure of circumcision it would be less cruel, in spite of the fact that she compares a child who is being circumcised to a rabbit that is being slaughtered. This means that she dissociates the bloody scene that she observed from her belief that medical practice makes perfect.
b) Naturalization of the pathological signs
This mechanism implies the interpretation of a pathological sign as natural. Doctor respondents alone used this mechanism for the justification of their own and other children’s circumcisions. For example, Dr. Afkar interpreted her son’s and nephew’s bleeding after circumcision as natural. She used the same mechanism to justify children’s pain after circumcision. She said:
"They screamed and were in pain, but I had a feeling that this is natural, a natural experience they have to go through, one of the natural painful obligatory experiences in order to belong to the social group, just like piercing girls’ ears."
This justification is also based on the idea that similarity between the tribe members is necessary, and that younger individuals should tolerate painful experiences to please their seniors. Both are characteristics of pre-modern social organization (Durkheim 1984).
Dr. Yara also used this mechanism to explain her son’s anxiety after circumcision. Her interpretation of his behavioral change attempted to free circumcision from any doubt. She explained the baby’s anxiety as a natural sign of development that has nothing to do with circumcision. She used quantitative methods to validate her analysis of her son’s qualitative behavioral changes. She stated that according to quantitative methods, it is impossible to find a link between two variables when there are other variables that may affect the constant one. Thus, she hypothesizes that naturalization of the signs of anxiety that appear after circumcision is a scientific argument.
c) Pathologization of physiological body structures and functions
...a result of flawed studies, done by doctors who included a majority
of Jewish and circumcised men.
The belief that the prepuce is dirty and is a cause of various types of infections and cancers makes it easy to take the decision of its removal at any price, even in exchange of pain and suffering for the child and his parents. This belief is based on the medical writings that accumulated since the nineteenth century, as a result of flawed studies, done by doctors who included a majority of Jewish and circumcised men. (Wallerstein 1980; Hodges 1995). However, this mechanism is also based on the belief that anything which is out of its traditional place or category is polluted, and hence, dangerous (Douglas 1965). Thus, the male prepuce is considered polluted because it has feminine features (soft, passive, and protective). Cutting it from the masculine body could only counteract its polluting effect. The same applies to FGM. The female body is purified by cutting the clitoris, which has masculine characteristics (rigid, active and invasive). Both male and female circumcision are called "tahara" i. e. purification. Circumcisers surround circumcised male and female children with all anti-pollution symbols for the purpose of purification. They dress them in white (as what happened with respondents), feed them ritually pure food, or fumigate them (Boddy 1989). The white gown is a visual analogue of the verbal expression of circumcision as "tahara."
d) Privileging culture over nature
This attitude of disrespect of nature and privileging culture
is a typical well-established patriarchal attitude.
One of the most stressful conditions that pushed Dr. Yara to circumcise her son against her critical thinking about circumcision is people’s argument that he will grow as the only "abnormal" man in the society. The dominant cultural norms consider the natural masculine body structure abnormal. According to these norms, normalization is achieved by cultural interference to alter nature by cutting the prepuce. This attitude of disrespect of nature and privileging culture is a typical well-established patriarchal attitude. It is the basis of discrimination against women because they are nearer to nature and more far from culture than men (Moore 1988). In the case of male circumcision, the discrimination is against symbolic instead of actual femininity.
e) Generalization of rare cases
The prepuce is prone to rare accidental injuries, e.g. if it is trapped in the trousers’ zipper. In such case, some doctors cut the injured prepuce, while others prefer to break the zipper and give medical treatment to the injured part. However, Dr. Khadiga justified the necessity of infant male circumcision by that during her work in a hospital in England, a man came with a zipper injury, and the British doctors elected to circumcise him. From this incidence, Dr. Khadiga inferred that the male prepuce has no important function; hence, it could be safely sacrificed, even without its being injured, in order to avoid future injury. Thus, she inappropriately generalized this rare case to promote mass infant circumcision.
E) Circumcision and gender power politics
(C)ircumcision prepares a male to be the power holder
in his relationship to women.
Dr. Mona expressed her awareness of the gender power political aspect of the greeting phrase that was said to her son after his circumcision: "This time you are injured, but you will injure in the future." This means that circumcision prepares a male to be the power holder in his relationship to women. The American psychologist Ronald Goldman has a similar interpretation of circumcision as a cultural practice. He argues that one of the reasons of persistence of MGM in USA after it faded away in Europe is that the American men are socialized to be aggressive and violent. Circumcision is an accepted part of such socialization. Goldman concludes that adults will do to the society what was done to them in their infancy and childhood (Goldman 1997).
Women willingly offer male children to the patriarchal society
as a sign of their acceptance of submission
to patriarchal gender power politics.
There is also a common aspect of some respondents’ experiences. Whether circumcision was done in a modern medical context, like Dr. Mona’s sons, or in a traditional context, like Sa‘eed’s own circumcision; women played an active role in the implementation of circumcision. Female nurses suggested circumcision of the baby to Dr. Mona when she showed some tendency to postpone it, and the female members of Sa‘eed’s family used to hold boys tightly in order to fix them for circumcision. Such female collaboration in circumcision signifies that male circumcision as it is performed now in Egypt carries a very ancient cultural feature as a tool to separate male children from women’s world and introducing them to the world of men (Turner 1967, Turner 1985; Hastings 1980). Women willingly offer male children to the patriarchal society as a sign of their acceptance of submission to patriarchal gender power politics.
Analysis of the respondents’ experiences reveals a difference between the reaction of men and women; and the old and the young towards MGM. This is evidence of the relationship between MGM, gender politics, and social control. Analysis of the responses of the four couples towards their sons’ circumcision shows that mothers are more expressive of their perception of the sons’ sufferings from circumcision than fathers. Mothers are also less careful or more hesitant to let circumcision be done than fathers. However, after a period from the actual implementation of circumcision, mothers equally try to justify circumcision and interpret its consequences as harmless. The respondents’ testimonies show a relation between age and rank and denial of circumcision hazards. The more senior respondents – in terms of age, or social, or professional ranks – expressed more denial to the fact that male circumcision is painful and unnecessary. This attitude is an additional sign of the relationship between circumcision and patriarchal gender power politics. In patriarchal social organization, aging and possession of leadership offices or ranks imply possession of power. Such powerful individuals usually sympathize with the weak within limits that do not threaten their status as responsible for social control (Janeway 1980).
F) Respondents’ experiences and circumcision myths
The respondents’ experiences reveal the mythic nature of the widespread beliefs about circumcision. One of these beliefs is that circumcision prevents urinary tract infection. However, Sa‘eed who lived with an intact body till age eleven never suffered from urinary tract infections except after his circumcision. Another belief is that children do not feel pain as sharply as adults, and that male circumcision is a safe procedure, and the boy later on in life does not remember it. However, the experiences of both Dr. Yara’s son and Aisha’s two sons’ prove the opposite. Respondent mothers stated that these children suffered from shock and pain. Moreover, Dr. Yara’s son showed signs of anxiety for many months after circumcision. The son of Dr. Salma’s friend, Dr. Mona’s sons, Dina’s son, and Aisha’s sons experienced change of the sleep and feeding patterns after circumcision. The signs that are experienced by those children match the signs that are described by Goldman (1997). The statements of respondent doctors show also that infant circumcision is painful. Dr. Fahmi’s statement shows that local anesthesia is not effective. Dr. Nazmi’s statement shows that doctors are aware of the hazards of general anesthesia. Some respondent doctors observed different degrees of bleeding after circumcision. Bleeding was mild in some cases, like with Dr. Afkar’s son and nephew, and severe in other cases, to the extent that Dr. Khadiga’s senior residents recommended blood analysis before male circumcision to avoid the recurrence of such severe dangerous bleeding.
Moreover, the actual practical experience of medical doctors defeats their theoretical justifications for circumcision as a sort of surgery. All children who were circumcised by respondent doctors presented with no pathological signs or symptoms that may justify administration of any medical treatment, let alone surgery. All children showed signs of distress during and after circumcision, even some doctors observed complications. Moreover, circumcising doctors did not make any pre-operative analyses, nor did they give anesthesia as they do with other surgeries. With negligence of all surgical prerequisites, we are left only with cut. Cut without all other terms of surgery is a ritualistic and not a surgical cut.
(C)ircumcision does not serve the main objective
mentioned by respondents: to make all males look the same.
One of the modern ways to promote circumcision is the myth of the necessity of similarity between the child and other male members of the community, especially his father. However, according to the respondents’ description of their children’s circumcision, there is no standard degree of circumcision as it is performed in Egypt to make all circumcised men look similar. In some cases the cut is less radical than others. In other cases, the circumcision scar has a ragged or scalloped shaped edge. Thus, circumcision does not serve the main objective mentioned by respondents: to make all males look the same. The only common aspect among circumcised men is that they experienced genital cut. This is additional evidence that circumcision is not a surgery with standardized degrees based on systematic scientific knowledge. It is done randomly according to each circumciser’s belief or taste.
(T)he surgeon who circumcises boys is playing the role
of the ancient priest/magician who implements the bloody ritual.
Another evidence of the ritualistic nature of circumcision is Abu el Fotouh’s statement that it is better to impose circumcision on the individual because if it is left for him to decide according to his free will, he will feel embarrassed to ask a doctor to circumcise him. Of course, no one feels embarrassed to ask for any surgery. The statement that asking for circumcision is embarrassing suggests that it is a bloody secret ritual not a preventive or therapeutic procedure. Consequently, I suggest that the surgeon who circumcises boys is playing the role of the ancient priest/magician who implements the bloody ritual.
III) Analysis of the respondents’ attitudes towards circumcision
The respondents’ attitudes towards MGM could be categorized into two main groups. One category includes respondents who either promoted absolute continuity of MGM, or thought it is wise to keep silent about it. The other category includes respondents who thought that it is necessary to raise MGM as an important issue worthy of being revised, and that it is possible to discuss with people the value of respecting their sons’ bodily integrity. Each group mentioned justifications that revealed some biases. Such biases are deeply rooted in gender power politics, which are the basis of the different attitudes.
The group who promoted the continuity of MGM show characteristics of the professional intellectual (Gramsci 1971; Said 1996). Their attitude is based on three main ideologies. Conformity with the dominant and well-established social traditions is their key ideology. Second is the traditional feminist ideology (female chauvinism), which considers gender issues as women’s issues in the first place. Third is the pragmatic policy. The ideologies of conformity and female chauvinism have a common characteristic. Both deal with the body at the symbolic social level, not at the concrete individual level (Scheper-Hughess 1987). The pragmatic ideology implies reticence to handle difficult issues. The pragmatic measure of prioritization of adopting issues is not how fair the issue is, but how much the social arena is prepared for struggle.
On the other hand, respondents who agreed to raise the issue of MGM show the features of the free thinker (the amateur thinker according to Edward Said (1996)). They do not fear the idea of opposition to the dominant traditions, and criticism of the well-established value system. They are ready to venture with a new, vague experience in order to defend a fair cause.
A) The traditional feminist attitude (female chauvinism)
Dr. Afkar is one representative of this attitude. She justified her reticence to raise the issue of MGM by that unlike FGM; men do not complain about MGM. She imagined that men are freer to express their sexual problems than women. She did not deny the existence of sexual problems among men, particularly among educated middle-class men, however, she negated any relation between MGM and such problems. She explained that the fire of knowledge curbs biological functions. She added that it is not women’s role to adopt men’s issues. Accordingly, even if men have complaints, they have to raise their issues by themselves. She justified this attitude by that men are more capable of achievement than women. I argue that Dr. Afkar’s justifications signify that the traditional feminist attitude that favors women’s reticence to raise men’s issues is based on an acquired feeling of helplessness that makes women think that they are less capable of achievement than men. Such feeling is dominant in traditional patriarchal society, and it seems that even feminists retain some of its traces. Moreover, feminists retain the feeling that they are delegated by the society to implement the muted gender issues (Janeway 1980; Abd el Salam 1998). This sense of delegation appears in Dr. Afkar’s idea that when a father leaves the decision of MGM to the mother, it means that he leaves it to society’s opinion. Thus, a mother is not free to select to leave her son without circumcision, because she is not representing herself in this situation, and she has actually no personal say in the matter, even if it appears on the surface that she is the decision maker as regards her son’s circumcision.
Dr. Khadiga is another respondent with a traditional feminist attitude. She thought that MGM should not be raised except after all FGM proponents stop to attack strugglers against FGM. She added that because she is a feminist, she is not ready to bear confrontation of MGM proponents as she did with FGM. She stated that she is ready to stand against any harmful practice for women because women as a category do not find sufficient social care, but she is not ready to do the same for men.
These traditional feminist ideas that express reticence to raise the issue of MGM because it is a men’s issue and they are not men signify that they adopt gender segregation at the political level. They think that they are responsible for defending women only, and that men have to defend themselves. Thus, when one of such feminists agrees to let her son be circumcised, she does not deal with his body at the individual level, as the body of her baby son who needs her protection and kind care. She rather treats him at the level of the symbolic social body, the body of the threatening male, with whom she is in conflict (Scheper-Hughes 1987). This attitude is similar to the attitude of fathers who accept to let their daughters be circumcised. Traditional feminists take also the pragmatic considerations into their accounts. They see advocacy against FGM as a call that will bring a change in the social politics for the interest of women. On the other hand, they think that MGM eradication will not bring such a change. Women’s adoption of such accounts will be impossible without negligence of their children’s sufferings, and dealing with a male child as a symbolic of men who control women, hence they do not sympathize with him. This logic is similar to male legislators’ logic. When they manage personal status legislation they consider the wife, who should be controlled by the husband, not the daughters and sisters who should be protected by fathers and brothers.
(F)eminist respondents used to underestimate the sexual hazards
of FGM in order to avoid hurting the feelings of circumcised women,
and because there are not enough studies about FGM sexual consequences.
Traditional feminist attitude implies also indirect pressure on men. Some traditional feminist respondents stated that they would back the issue of men’s genital integrity when men express explicitly that they experience sexual problems because of circumcision. As long as men keep silent, women should not raise this issue. Nonetheless, these respondents are well aware that women kept silent for a long period about FGM. They did not talk except when they were encouraged to do so. Moreover, these feminist respondents used to underestimate the sexual hazards of FGM in order to avoid hurting the feelings of circumcised women, and because there is not enough studies about FGM sexual consequences. However, when men were concerned, these feminists required them to say openly that they had sexual problems because of circumcision. The whole attitude signifies that traditional feminists consider gender issues in general, and the issue of genital mutilation in particular, as issues of conflict between men and women in the first place, and not as issues of men’s and women’s equal rights. The young boys and girls suffer the results of such a conflict, because they are the ones who suffer injury and pain.
This part of the traditional feminist respondents’ argument is true,
but the problem is that it represents half the truth...
I conclude also that feminists fight FGM at a general ideological rather than a specific humane level. This explains their reticence to attack MGM, because such a struggle will not serve their ideological ends. They do not deny that MGM, like FGM, implies a degree of genital mutilation. However, in spite of this similar aspect, they see a specific ideological difference between MGM and FGM. They consider FGM as an essential part of a whole system of female subjugation, while this is not the case with MGM. For example, FGM is linked to the female body taboos, deprivation of young girls from play, and limiting women’s mobility in the public space. Thus, the adoption of the ideological approach in dealing with the issue of genital integrity explains feminists’ reticence to address MGM. This part of the traditional feminist respondents’ argument is true, but the problem is that it represents half the truth, because the ideological approach means also that feminists do not see a link between the patriarchal society’s control of the weak children’s bodies in order to create the patriarchal style of the feminine/masculine images; and the socio-political control of women. That is why such ideological approach has no space for the individual body that suffers, irrelevant from the gender of its owner, because the ideological approach reduces the body to its symbolic level, with no consideration to its concrete human reality (Scheper –Hughes 1987).
a) Development of a different feminist awareness
There are evidences of an emerging different feminist awareness, which considers that feminism is not all about realization of pragmatic interests of women as a gender category and negligence of all other means of political control of other weak parties. The well known feminist phrase "The private is political" applies also to all weak social categories, whose priorities are usually pushed to the end of the list within patriarchal power politics (Smith 1987). Male and female children are among such weak groups. New feminist awareness is acquired gradually in the context of fieldwork and ongoing revision and criticism of one’s attitudes. When I analyze my own attitude towards MGM I find that I acquired awareness of the issue gradually, just like respondents who showed a tendency towards revision of their attitude. For example, Dr. Laila is a respondent who worked against FGM for a long time, without thinking of carrying out a similar struggle against MGM, till she developed awareness of the issue, and started to change her attitude. I remember a similar self-experience. I was working to prepare a manual on reproductive health with a male colleague. He suggested describing the male prepuce as "the piece of skin which is cut on circumcision." I objected to this definition. After discussion, he got convinced and canceled it. However, when the manual was published, I noticed that the accompanying illustration was of a circumcised male. My initial lack of attention to this illustration indicates that I had an incomplete awareness of the issue, because I objected to the symbolic written words, but I overlooked the more concrete drawn illustration.
Access to more updated information is a factor that helps the development
of new feminist awareness of male bodily integrity.
Access to more updated information is a factor that helps the development of new feminist awareness of male bodily integrity. Such information may support feminists to change the basis of their attitude, from the traditional belief to the modern knowledge system. My analysis is that without updated information, feminist intellectuals will remain prone to the effect of the hegemonic gender power politics. An indicator of this effect is Dr. Laila’s old attitude. She used to face other doctors’ attack of her objection to MGM with silence, because she was not yet armed with information in order to challenge their hegemony. Her objective observation of the severity of MGM was not sufficient to make her insist to bring an end to a well-established tradition of the medical institution, which is entitled to enjoy hegemony over the human body.
...it would not work if feminists defended women’s bodily integrity
while they accept violation of men’s bodies...
Dr. Salma’s responses also show signs of emerging new feminist awareness. When she knew the updated information about the function of the prepuce she had to choose one of two options. The first option is to disseminate these information on principle of justice and fairness. The other is that feminists should not carry out this task alone. The first option is based on Dr. Salma’s belief that she should not keep silent towards torture and physical violation of any human group. She said that it would not work if feminists defended women’s bodily integrity while they accept violation of men’s bodies, because defense of bodily integrity is part from a wider comprehensive worldview that adopts the perspective of the weaker party in any bilateral relationship. She argued that the basis of this worldview is that if the world is organized according to terms that fulfill the needs and protect the rights of the weakest social categories, most probably, those who rank higher on the social hierarchy will be sure to get their rights as well. Thus, social security will extend to cover all people. Dr. Salma’s second option was an expression of her anger. She was angry because in any issue that needs the adoption of a radical attitude; only feminists and political Islamists take effective action. All other social groups, including men, do not actively share any radical attitude. That is why she thought that it is necessary for men to move and take the initiative in the issue of MGM
The hesitation of feminist activists to fight MGM "because they are not men" is not an unjustified attitude. Men and women in the Egyptian society do not know each other well so as women can safely take the initiative to fight for an issue related to male sexuality, in spite of the fact that the opposite already happened. The first advocates against FGM in Egypt since the 1920s were male doctors. Women’s fear to take the initiative against MGM could be explained by that women imagine that men are more sensitive than women to their sexuality. Thus, women imagine that raising the issue of MGM will cause sexual panic among men at the national level. They did not imagine the possibility of a similar situation among women when they raised the issue of FGM. Feminist activists warned me a lot against dissemination of my information on the assumption that knowing it will hurt men. Giving my feminist friends reasoning the benefit of doubt, I hesitated for a long time to disseminate my information about the functions of the prepuce to my male friends and acquaintances. My hesitance is based on that I am a non-circumcised woman. My experience with circumcision is not a concrete personal one. I got my information through reading and fieldwork. Surface observation tells me that women suffer and complain from circumcision, while men do not. However, deeper analysis of field observations suggests that this is not the full truth. For example, in one workshop about FGM a group of girls from a non-governmental organization sang a song about a girl begging her mother to spare her the suffering of circumcision:
Why do you circumcise me and hurt my feelings,
This injury will leave a big scar in my soul.
"Leih titahrini we ti’zi masha‘ri,
Yefdal garh kebeer gowaya"
Males are socialized to submit to the non-written social instructions
that men should deny any hurting experience in general,
and the painful memory of circumcision in particular.
The words were written by one of their male colleagues. Before writing the song, he listened to the memories of his wife and female colleagues about their circumcision experience, and represented them in the song. The author of the song was sitting beside me while the girls were singing. At this part of the song, he sighed and said: "We also experience circumcision and are injured." Then he paused for a moment and continued: "But our circumcision does not result into hurting our feelings." I have an interpretation of his instantaneous retreat to denial. The whole situation indicates that males are socialized to submit to the non-written social instructions that men should deny any hurting experience in general, and the painful memory of circumcision in particular. The young man was encouraged by the moment of open emotional expression to express his discomfort about MGM, only to retreat soon to denial. Denial restores to him his image as a man who should accept his circumcision. Moreover, the fact that he is the writer of the song indicates his hegemony over his women folk by giving them voice, and bringing their expression of their private intimate feelings to the public space. If he publicly confessed his equality with women in being hurt, he will lose this symbolic hegemony.
B) Attitude of conformity
a) Conformity to the dominant socio-cultural traditions
Holders of this attitude, like Dr. Hussam and Dr. Hazem, accepted the continuity of MGM because it conforms to the average social norms, i.e. it goes with the behaviors of average people. According to these norms, the measure of acceptance or refusal of any bodily practice is the extent of its prevalence among average persons, irrespective of the quality of the practice in question. Thus, such respondents refused to let any son of theirs to have a tattooing while they accept their circumcision, in spite of the fact that circumcision is usually forced on the individual, whereas he chooses tattooing by his free will. This means that conformity as they adopt it is of a quantitative and not of a qualitative nature.
b) Conformity and the emergence of a new intellectual awareness
Conformity is not limited to the observation of the dominant middle class socio-cultural traditions. It implies as well following the traditional cultural paradigm of the educated middle class intellectuals, which is based on modernity and enlightenment. Modernity in general does not value adaptation of humans to nature. It rather values submission of nature to theory and technology. Thus, it takes a lot of time and effort for modernists to revise old theories and techniques in terms of new discoveries of the natural structures and functions. For example, Dr. Hazem, who is a conformist, said: "Humans have always changed nature to impose its conformity with theory." Nevertheless, Dr. Hazem is aware of the limitations of the modernist paradigm, for example, the destructive impact of its environmental applications. He stated that such awareness got intellectuals to take a stance, and re-think their modernist attitudes towards the natural environment. He added that he can consider my research a post-modernist study because its essential argument is about why we change nature, and is based on a new belief system that refuses forced violation of nature. Analysis of Dr. Hazem’s statements reveals that valuing conformity is elective. Although Dr. Hazem was well aware of the limitations of modernity, he elected to accept interference with the natural children’s bodies, while he disagreed with the interference with the surrounding nature. My interpretation is that the attitude that agrees with cultural interference with nature combines modern and traditional reasoning. It is based on the traditional patriarchal conceptualization of the ego/alter relationship as a relationship of submission/conformity, in contrast to the opposite attitude that implies interaction with nature and acceptance of the other.
Electivity shows that conformists, unlike traditional feminists, are not likely to change attitude towards MGM through getting updated information. Information that implies a call to accept the other takes time to settle before they can help to develop a new world view different from the paradigm of submitting nature to preset cultural theories. This interpretation is particularly relevant when the new information may compromise the self-image of the conformist intellectuals. For example, if a circumcised man happens to know that the prepuce is important to sexual pleasure, he may insist to defend circumcision. One reason of this predicted behavior is that it expresses refusal of the different other, and that it is part of the denial, which is a psychological defense mechanism of one’s self image. Some respondents started as conformists who agree to MGM as a well-established tradition, then they changed their attitude after deep reflective thinking. Information was not the factor that encouraged them to change attitude. For example, Abu el Fotouh is still unable to believe in the validity of the new information about the sexual function of the male prepuce, however, he changed his attitude, taking into consideration that all humans are entitled to the right to genital integrity, irrespective of age or gender. I suggest that this ex-conformist respondent changed his attitude "in spite of" the information, not "because of" the information.
(F)eminists are more probable to change attitude
on the basis of updated information.
The story of the child Simsim (see chapter 3) is a strong evidence of the inclination of intellectuals to conformity. It indicates also that feminists are more probable to change attitude on the basis of updated information. Before getting updated information, feminist respondents who knew Simsim attributed his problems to one reason only: lack of circumcision, without consideration of any other possible interpretations. For example, shy children of both genders can refuse to undress in front of others. However, because these respondents already knew that Simsim is intact, they interpreted his probable shyness by his feeling different from other boys. Another example is Dr. Salma’s interpretation of Simsim’s regression to nocturnal enuresis when his mother traveled and left him. Dr. Salma suggested that such regressive behavior is a result of Semsem’s reluctance to let other family members help him with using the bathroom, and she did not consider the probability that wetting his bed is a sign of Simsim’s anxiety because of his mother’s absence. However, after Dr. Salma knew the updated information she changed attitude. Although she still thinks that Simsim’s behaviors are due to his lack of circumcision, she started to think about other solutions to his problems. Instead of recommending circumcision, she suggested giving him psychological support and raising his self-awareness of the advantage of his intact status.
c) Conformity to medical myths
Medical justifications that push people to seek circumcision
for baby sons are an example of modern medical myths.
Science is the current epistemological paradigm of our time. Theories are now the scientific meta-narratives, compared to myths, which have been the ancient meta-narratives when magic was the dominant epistemological paradigm. However, each time period produces its own myths, since a myth is "a tool by which a society organizes its world, manages its problems, keeps a self image, and ensures that all of its members adopt this image" (Crip 1999: 208). In this sense, myths not only exist in ancient writings only, but they exist also in medical texts, feminist writings, and other modern discourses. My view is that myth is any oral or written ideological discourse that does not enjoy scientific methodological reliability and validity. Accordingly, the modern medical institution has its own myths. Medical justifications that push people to seek circumcision for baby sons are an example of modern medical myths. Some nineteenth century doctors concluded these justifications from the results of flawed studies. The methodologies of these studies were criticized (Wallerstein 1980; Gollaher 1994; Paige 1978), however, MGM proponent doctors still promote and generalize them. Critical revision of these studies suggests that they are myths in the ancient sense, not scientific theories. The statements of medical doctor respondents are practical evidences of the invalidity of such studies. All respondents who circumcised male children stated that the children presented as healthy boys with no pathological signs. These testimonies indicate the mythical nature of the "medical indications" for MGM.
This justification is part of the social politics that serve to define
each gender as dangerous to the other, and hence help
to perpetuate tension between men and women.
One "medical indication" for MGM deserves more analysis from the perspective of patriarchal gender power politics. It is recommending male circumcision to prevent cancer of the uterine cervix. In the final analysis, this justification for MGM means that a natural male body is dangerous to women. To make it safe, society must interfere to alter it. This justification is part of the social politics that serve to define each gender as dangerous to the other, and hence help to perpetuate tension between men and women. When women present their male children to the surgeon’s scalpel to eliminate this "danger," they implicitly collaborate in the replication of this type of gender power politics. Following is an elaborate analysis of the mechanism by which MGM serves the ends of patriarchal gender power politics. In a previous study (Abd el Salam 1998) I concluded that men are the main power holders in patriarchal societies. They are keen to keep their dominant position, which will be impossible within a context of healthy and loving relationship with women. Thus, to keep such a non-egalitarian relationship, men should perceive women as a dangerous gender. I add here that the continuation of this situation requires that women perceive men as a dangerous gender as well. Body and sexuality are good tools to establish this perception of the other gender. Hence, MGM and FGM with their promoting myths could be effective tools to carve, not only the feminine and masculine bodies, but also images in a way that establishes the type of gender relationships that serve the ends of the patriarchal social system. When the nineteenth century doctors started to promote MGM as a preventive surgery, it was difficult for the intact adult men of the time to accept the application of such surgical rituals to their own bodies. However, it was easy for them to accept it for the bodies of their sons. According to traditional patriarchal family relationships, sons are part of the property of the patriarch who heads the family. Moreover, a boy is both male and young; hence, he is an appropriate and pliable object to fulfill the gender political objective of this symbolic wound. I consider that MGM still plays this role in our modern time, as effectively as it did in previous times, the role of continuous perception of each gender that the other is a threat.
Medicine is a social institution that is concerned with
the preservation of the traditional patriarchal gender politics.
In earlier social organization, where magic was the predominant epistemological paradigm, the traditional priest/healer played a double role of theorization and implementation of circumcision. When religion became the dominant epistemological paradigm, this role was split. Theorizers became the religious clergy (Jewish rabbi, Christian priests, and Muslim sheikhs), while implementation was left to traditional healers, such as health barbers and Jewish mohels. In modern societies, with science as the dominant epistemological paradigm, the role of controlling bodies to preserve the gender power balance moved from the religious to the medical institution. Medical institution gradually possessed the double role of theorization and implementation of circumcision. No matter the type of the epistemological paradigm, MGM always served perpetuation of patriarchal gender power politics through stressing women’s belief in the traditional dangerous image of the masculine body. This is achieved at the symbolic level by defining the male prepuce as dirty, infectious, or even lethal to women, and at the social level by turning the issue of MGM into a muted taboo, which is forbidden to be questioned or problematized. In a previous study of female sexuality (Abd el Salam 1998), I found that body symbolism is interlaced with social politics that affect women’s everyday life, particularly in issues related to sexuality. It seems that the same is true with all rituals with relation to the male body and sexuality as well. Thus, every one accepts amputation of male babies’ prepuces in obedience to the theories which were created by the medical institution. Medicine is a social institution that is concerned with the preservation of the traditional patriarchal gender politics (Foucault 1975). Medicine uses its theories to defeat and intimidate any one who cares about children’s suffering and dares to question the medical myths about the validity of circumcision and the numbed sensitivity of children to pain. Conformists are overwhelmed by medical theorization. They mute the voice of their conscience, neglect their good common sense, and surrender to conformity to the hegemony of the dominant epistemological paradigm: "science."
Medical doctors will not give up this privilege easily.
Modern western society gave medical doctors the privilege of getting children to pay the price of conformity in flesh and blood. Medical doctors will not give up this privilege easily. In Egypt, Ancient Egyptian priests had this privilege. Over time, it moved to their successors; traditional circumcisers and health barbers. Modernization of medicine in contemporary Egypt followed Western medicine. Thus, medical doctors took over the implementation of circumcision. In ancient communities, MGM was a rite of initiation of boys into adult manhood. It had no medical or surgical significance. In modern/postmodern societies, circumcision retained its function as a tool to carve males’ bodies to conform to the patriarchal conceptualization of masculinity. However, this function moved to the background, giving way to the medical justifications, which surfaced and viewed circumcision as a surgery with no ritualistic or initiation significance. Introduction of MGM to medicine made it possible for such an ancient procedure that had developed in ancient, simply organized, pre-modern communities to continue in more sophisticated modern community.
Medical students and young graduates get such training in a context
of power relations where they are the weak party.
Medicalized circumcision reveals also the power relations within the institution of medical education. These power relations enhance turning medical students into tools to implement circumcision, which is a painful and a medically unnecessary procedure, though it has traditional social significance. Medical students and young doctors are trained to mechanically perform aggressive therapeutic techniques against what they consider as pathological phenomena according to their education. Mechanical performance here means that they should dissociate themselves emotionally from the person on whose body they apply their techniques, since emotional dullness is considered a feature of scientists (Chamberlain 1991). Medical students and young graduates get such training in a context of power relations where they are the weak party. It is not easy for them to challenge their professors and senior specialists. Thus, they identify with their senior professionals rather than with the sick or healthy individuals who come under their medical care. For example, young doctors are trained to perform some "minor" surgeries without anesthesia, with stable hands and without emotional sympathy with the suffering individual. Sometimes, such situation is imposed on a young doctor because of lack of facilities, such as local anesthetics, for emergency sutures. In other times, senior surgeons order junior doctors to do so because they believe that some categories of people are less sensitive to pain than others, so they can be operated upon without anesthesia. This belief has a background in the nineteenth century medicine, when anesthesia was a new discovery. In these early years, anesthesia was given only to whom doctors considered as members of sensitive social classes or categories and was denied to the less acculturated or civilized groups, who were believed to be more tolerant to pain (Chamberlain 1991). I have a significant personal experience in this context. When I was a newly graduate medical doctor, a senior surgeon convinced me to remove an infected nail of a soldier without anesthesia, on the assumption that he will tolerate pain. However, the soldier fainted from pain. After this accident, I insisted not to perform any minor surgery except if the hospital administration provided sufficient and adequate anesthesia for the patients. This example shows the extent of the hegemony of the institution of medical education. It makes junior doctors neglect their theoretical knowledge and human emotions. This is also a good example of the context of power relations, which are the basis of doctors’ adoption to the circumcision myths.
"Study these dirty parts and their surgical management carefully,
because half of your income will be gained
through performing such surgeries."
Moreover, the institution of medical education provides medical students with biases and interests along with theoretical information and practical techniques. Medical students learn that excretory organs are dirty by definition, and that operating upon them serves their financial interests. For example, one of my surgery professors used to advise us: "Study these dirty parts and their surgical management carefully, because half of your income will be gained through performing such surgeries." The situation is complicated by the fact that doctors do not usually read about the most updated medical discoveries. Their only reference is almost what they learnt as undergraduate medical students.
When the medical justifications fade out, the hidden aspects
of circumcision will be revealed, as a tool to control
male children’s sexuality, and a symbolic instrument
to perpetuate the traditional gender power politics.
This was a description of the power relations that control the development of doctors’ attitudes towards MGM. However, different power relations within the society and the medical institution could be created by doctors who had the chance to know the updated information about the function and structure of the male prepuce; and the hazards of MGM. They can challenge the justification of MGM as a protective surgery, which is the essential basis of people’s acceptance of their sons’ circumcision. When the medical justifications fade out, the hidden aspects of circumcision will be revealed, as a tool to control male children’s sexuality, and a symbolic instrument to perpetuate the traditional gender power politics (Boyd 1998; Goldman 1997). Then, the assumed "differences between FGM and MGM" will disappear, and the real ugly face of MGM will be unveiled, exactly as FGM.
C) The pragmatic attitude
Some pragmatist respondents are convinced that MGM is a violation of male children’s bodily integrity, and that it is fair to spare male children such violation. However, they accept keeping silent about this issue on the assumption that it is not practical to raise it as they do with FGM. The basis of this justification is that such respondents consider gender issues as women’s issues in the first place. Accordingly, FGM is a gender issue and a violation of women’s rights. That is why they consider raising the issue of MGM as an impractical effort, because it is a minor gender issue, if it is at all; since it does not concern women. Pragmatists find a compromising solution. They show intention to advise their relatives and near friends not to circumcise their sons. However, if they hear someone promoting MGM in a public session, as it usually happens in seminars about FGM, they will keep silent. They justify their attitude by that arguing with MGM promoters is hopeless. It may even have a negative impact on the campaign against FGM. More in depth interviewing of these respondents about their pessimistic predictions of public argument about MGM disclosed that they are concerned in the first place about their self and public image. Men and women pragmatic respondents are equally afraid of being accused by the public as indecent persons or agents of the West. They also fear any consequent backlash of conservative forces, and think that they cannot face them. Nevertheless, the same forces that promote MGM in the name of religion always attack activists against FGM, whether they talk about MGM or not. Pragmatist respondents always endure and confront such attacks because they are personally convinced that FGM is a gender issue and a violation of women’s rights.
Some pragmatist respondents refuse to raise the issue of MGM because according to their personal accounts, such an issue will need more time and effort than they are ready to spend. Some factors make FGM an easier issue. The information about structure and functions of the female genitalia was discovered a long time ago and is widespread among the public, while such information about the prepuce is newly discovered and is ignored by the majority of people. History is another factor. Efforts against FGM in Egypt started since the 1920s, at the political level, these previous efforts make it easier to work against FGM. They state that past history is even more helpful than valid information about female genitalia and hazards of FGM. Thus, they think that the updated information about male genitalia is useless because it is new. Moreover, they think that the easier political instrument to use in issues of genital integrity is the conflicting theological interpretations. The concerned theologians here are the outstanding clergymen of the contemporary religious institution, because ancient Muslim theologians had a lot of conflicting ideas about MGM, just as they have about FGM (Abu Sahlieh 1999). However, pragmatists do not consider this old theological conflict as a pliable tool for instant use.
Pragmatists state that they are reluctant to raise the issue of MGM because it is not a priority. Their agenda gives great consideration to the dominant power balance. I argue that priorities vary with the different interest groups. Groups that have a voice can impose their priorities on the agenda of social activity. In the issue of MGM, the main interest group is the male infants, who have no voice. Hence, their issues are not considered a priority.
...men are socialized in a way that makes them reluctant
to loudly express anxiety about male sexuality.
Moreover, pragmatists build their attitude on men’s silence about their circumcision. Women’s complaint from FGM is a tool that helps activists who work against FGM. This factor is lacking in the case of MGM and will make it more difficult to raise it as a social issue. This justification neglects that men are socialized in a way that makes them reluctant to loudly express anxiety about male sexuality. Moreover, unlike females, most males are circumcised as infants, before they acquire the capacity to express themselves verbally (Goldman 1997). Nonetheless, practical experience tells that when men are encouraged to express their emotions about MGM in an understanding and relaxed environment, they can reflect upon their experience and express their dissatisfaction with violation of their bodies. This happened with my preliminary field experience with some Egyptian men, as it happened in USA after raising the issue of MGM (Bigelow 1992; NOHARMM 1994; Boyd 1998; Hammond 1999 (http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm)). Such dissatisfaction is a sufficient reason to give men the right to be encouraged to speak loudly against MGM, and to demand that the society listens to their voice, and to highlight women’s duty to claim protection of their sons from MGM.
a) Pragmatic attitude as a political bargain
...raising MGM as an issue may break the terms of
their unwritten political bargain with the conservative forces.
The above-mentioned pragmatic considerations reveal that pragmatists deal with the issues of weak social groups as a political bargain. Accordingly, I argue that the pragmatic intellectuals who are proponents of the right to bodily integrity make an unwritten deal with the conservative social forces. The terms of this unspoken deal imply that pro-bodily integrity activists accept some conservative practices, such as MGM that provides symbolic carving of traditional masculinity, in exchange of letting the activists oppose FGM, which is a traditional way of symbolic carving of femininity. This bargain explains the panic of pragmatists from raising the issue of MGM. It explains also their attack of any one who dares to raise it. Pragmatists take this attitude because raising MGM as an issue may break the terms of their unwritten political bargain with the conservative forces. They imagine that respecting these terms is required in order to achieve a partial success in gender issues. In this way, gender politics activists implicitly tolerate discrimination against male children through their reluctance to address MGM. I argue that such pragmatic bargain takes the stability of the patriarchal social system into consideration. This attitude of the pragmatist intellectuals who work for equal gender rights contradicts their declared endeavors for social change. Because patriarchal system implies gender and age discrimination, it is not sufficient to raise women’s issues alone in order to bring about an effective social change. Tolerance of MGM, as a type of age discrimination, socializes people into submission to hurting their own children. Such submission curbs the development of critical thinking, which is a threat to despotic ruling system at the family and state levels. Moreover, given that male children are particularly valued by patriarchal family system, MGM is significant to replicate the terms of the patriarchal hierarchy, which requires submission of lower to higher rank groups. Because of the particular value of male children, getting people to tolerate mutilation of their sons’ bodies as a price for conditioned social acceptance is a stronger tool to ensure their submission to authorities than getting them to tolerate FGM. Thus, pragmatists are right in that holders of hegemonic social authorities at all levels are likely to stand against any efforts to liberate people from the suffering of hurting their own sons. Nonetheless, they are not right in neglecting the potential impact of such efforts on bringing about a social change for the benefit of the more vulnerable social groups.
D) Accepting positive deviance: the social value of fighting MGM
They are aware that raising the issue of MGM
will lead to long term social debate...
Respondents who showed a tendency to take out active steps to raise the issue of MGM explained that all humans have the right to get access to the most updated knowledge about their own and sons’ bodies and lives. Such respondents do not feel afraid from the expected initial shock and reaction when MGM is raised to the first time. They are ready to absorb and deal with people’s shock. They are aware that raising the issue of MGM will lead to long term social debate, which needs patience, calmness, and understanding of people’s resistance to change. They consider change of gender social politics as an integral issue. Consequently, the idea that raising MGM will compromise efforts of FGM eradication is invalid. The role of the intellectuals who seek social change is to problematize every small aspect of the everyday life, even those aspects that turned into a regular custom, so that people no more feel them as problematic. This analysis is based on phenomenological feminist thought that encourages in depth critical exploration of any "regular" social phenomenon to disclose the problematic areas of the social power politics behind it (Smith 1987).
"THE EMPEROR IS NUDE"
The fable of the child who revealed the nudity of the emperor is an appropriate metaphor of the current Egyptian intellectuals’ attitudes towards MGM. The fable is about an emperor who was deceived by some of his court men. They mislead him by telling him that they will dress him in very elegant magic clothes. Only smart and intelligent people can see these clothes. They will be invisible to stupid or foolish persons. They acted as if they are dressing the emperor, while in fact they did not put any clothes on him. The emperor doubted the situation, but he did not dare to declare his doubt, lest he should be called stupid or foolish. The Imperial procession paraded the streets, with the emperor nude. All people felt afraid to say that they see the emperor nude, except one child. The child cried loudly: "THE EMPEROR IS NUDE". The "wise" adults tried to mute the child’s voice, but in vain. After a moment, adults increasingly whispered, then uttered, and then cried loudly "THE EMPEROR IS NUDE".
I find this fable a significant metaphor that represents the different attitudes of Egyptians towards MGM. The "wise" men of the empire who refused to declare the evident nudity of the emperor are analogous to the conformists. The courageous child who declared the emperor’s nudity equals respondents who refuse conformity and are ready to take the challenge to disseminate information against the long established social convictions about MGM. The first mistake of the emperor was that he did not believe the concrete fact of his nudity. Instead, he selected to believe the "experts" who alluded to him that their empty hands are dressing him in elegant magic clothes. His second mistake is that he went too far in believing them and went out nude to meet the public. The analogues of the emperor are the pragmatist and traditional feminist (female chauvinist) intellectuals who participate by their silence in the continuity of MGM, and the medical doctors who perform circumcision. The experts who deceived the emperor equal intellectuals who theorize and justify MGM, especially members of the medical and religious institutions. The silent mass who do not dare to declare the emperor’s nudity equal the public majority who circumcise their sons in conformity to traditions, and the intellectuals who do not dare to express their doubts about MGM for fear of being accused as rebels against the well established social traditions. However, it is impossible to hide or neglect concrete realities forever.
Using the same policy of silence towards MGM
will not help to encourage people to stop FGM.
Uncritical thinking has negative impact on all issues.
Like the masses of the story that were encouraged by the child’s insistence to shout out that the emperor is nude, Egyptians will start at a point to revise their beliefs about MGM in terms of the updated information about the structure and function of the male prepuce, gender rights and children’s human rights as they already did with FGM. I think that the attitude of the pragmatic intellectuals delay the development of critical thinking. This delay has negative social implications, because people can only voluntarily let go of old painful traditions as FGM and MGM through critical reassessment of their beliefs and behaviors. FGM continued by inertia because people uncritically conformed to the instructions of the representatives of patriarchal society for long periods of time. Using the same policy of silence towards MGM will not help to encourage people to stop FGM as some intellectuals imagine. Uncritical thinking has negative impact on all issues. Denial of information and interaction about MGM will extend the reluctance to critically revise social traditions for a period, but not forever.
Slaves only can participate in bargains to get some gains for themselves
at the expense of the rights of other oppressed groups.
The first step towards social change is to liberate us from fear of explicit confrontation of realities of life. Women were long subjugated in the name of patriarchal social values. Feminist activists are sure to care for a real change to correct gender power balance. Success in this endeavor will not be realized by feminists’ tolerance of MGM, which is a painful discrimination against male children in order to establish male image according to patriarchal conceptualization. Slaves only can participate in bargains to get some gains for themselves at the expense of the rights of other oppressed groups. It is true that slaves’ ways of bargaining may bring them some temporary and limited gains, however, it is impossible for them to achieve absolute conclusive liberation through such ways.

[Hasbinbad]

Conclusion I) Circumcision: a general overview
Male circumcision has various socio-cultural significances and it had been practiced by different human communities before the appearance of monotheistic religions (Hastings, 1980; Abu Sahlieh, 1999). It is a tradition based on Animist rites. However, many Muslim and Jewish clergy consider circumcision as a rite of their religions as well. At the level of social interpretation, infant male Jewish circumcision could be an alternative for human sacrifice of the first born son; while Arab, African, and Australian adolescent male circumcision could be a rite of passage from childhood to manhood.
...male circumcision is mentioned in neither Qur'an nor Gospels.
Unlike the Bible, male circumcision is mentioned in neither Qur'an nor Gospels. The obligatory requirement of male circumcision by Judaism could be explained by the fact that Judaism represents a closed tribal community with primary social organization that depends on mechanical solidarity. In such social organization similarity is mandatory, and any deviation from similarity is severely punished (Durkheim, 1893). This explains the Biblical threat to cut the soul of any uncircumcised male from his people On the other hand, Christianity and Islam represent more open social organizations, which are nearer to the Durkheiman model of organic solidarity, where differences are more tolerated. Moreover, the Deity in Islam and Christianity takes a more sublime image that does not require human blood sacrifice.
In modern times, some Jewish doctors could introduce male circumcision to the modern medical practice in Victorian England on the assumption that it can prevent masturbation. The practice spread from there to the medical institutions in other English-speaking countries and colonies (Wallerstein, 1980, Hodges 1995). Hence, male circumcision became part of the modern Egyptian medical study and practice. Moreover, modern medical sciences and some medieval medical practices coexist in Egypt. Some barbers are officially licensed to perform male circumcision, bloodletting, leeching, and other minor surgeries, which are known historically as Prophetic medicine (Al Tib Al Nabawy). Peter Gran argues that such practices originated initially in Jewish medicine (Gran 1979). Thus, both old traditional, and modern western beliefs cooperated to establish male circumcision as a surgery that is willingly demanded by people and supplied by surgeons.
This gliding movement is the natural mechanism
of sexual pleasure in human males.
Otherwise, sex is performed by a frictional movement,
which is less satisfactory to both partners.
The exact anatomy, histology, and physiological sexual function of the male prepuce were ignored till the 1990s, when they were studied and described by the Canadian doctor John Taylor (Taylor 1996 (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/)). Unlike the widely prevalent belief among circumcision proponents that the prepuce is just a piece of skin, which is not as significant as the head of the penis, it was proved that it is a highly specialized tissue. It contains sensory receptors of light touch, which are lacking in the head of the penis. It was thought that the only function of the prepuce is its being a protective cover to the head of the penis. But more recent research argue that protection is a mutual function between the prepuce and the head of the penis, where the latter provides shape to the former, and facilitates its gliding movement during coitus (see appendix 3). This gliding movement is the natural mechanism of sexual pleasure in human males. It stimulates the specific sense receptors of the inner layer of the prepuce to generate a pleasurable sensation. Otherwise, sex is performed by a frictional movement, which is less satisfactory to both partners. The situation is made more difficult by the lack of the natural male lubricant, which is normally produced by specific glands in the prepuce (Taylor 1996, Bigelow 1992). There were also some earlier studies on the prepuce (Deibert, 1933; Wright, 1970 (http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright2/)). Such studies proved that the prepuce is an integral part of the normal male genitalia. Nevertheless, Egyptian medical texts do not mention any of its useful functions. Given the above-mentioned information, circumcision is a deliberate amputation of a healthy part of another non-consenting person’s body. It is an amputation that is performed on helpless children according to cultural pressures (Zoske 1998 (http://www.noharmm.org/zoske.htm)). According to Denniston (1997), mutilation is any injury that results in removal or alteration of the appearance or function of a body part. Thus, male circumcision, which has similar cultural, social, and biological bases as female circumcision, could be considered genital mutilation.
II) Circumcision: for whose interest?
...they circumcised them because they were afraid to obey reason
and challenge a conservative tradition.
Respondents who are parents of male children did not think that they gain any personal benefit by circumcising their sons. They suffered because of their children’s sufferings. However, they circumcised them because they were afraid to obey reason and challenge a conservative tradition. Acting like this, these intellectual respondents who used to lecture against FGM on "rational basis" behaved exactly like grassroots people who circumcise their daughters. Analysis of the respondents’ experience with their own and sons’ circumcision revealed that it is not in the child’s best interest. They reported memories of bleeding, stress, pain, urinary tract infection, and behavioral changes after male circumcision. Even the only respondent who could trespass the shock of his circumcision because he got a lot of psychological support and social compensation during and after his ritual circumcision ceremony said that other boys who were circumcised along with him were really shocked in spite of the supporting ceremony. Some of his peers resisted, tried to escape, and expressed verbal and non-verbal protest against circumcision.
Male and female circumcision do not serve men, women, or children
as social categories. It rather serves the persistence of
patriarchal gender power balance...
So, male and female circumcision do not serve men, women, or children as social categories. It rather serves the persistence of patriarchal gender power balance that presupposes a peculiar symbolic formation of the body to establish a clear gender differentiation. Accordingly, circumcision removes the delicate, protective, and sensitive (all feminine characteristics) part from the male genitalia; and the strong, hard, active (all masculine characteristics) part from the female genitalia. Because circumcision results into useless unnecessary pain and harm for the individual, it is not a health procedure. It is a practice with symbolic and political nature. Its hygienic justifications are nothing but a tool to put such social body politics into action.
In addition to its role in gender power politics, circumcision establishes hierarchical power relationships at different levels of social organization. It encourages conformity to old traditions for no other reason apart from their antiquity, discourages taking any initiative towards change, and requires repression of any sympathy with individual sufferings if such sympathy challenges a tradition. Thus, continuation of circumcision establishes a model of behavior characterized by absolute submission to the orders of seniors and an inclination to keep the status quo. This model is publicly known as "abd el ma’mour", i.e. the slave of the major. This model conflicts with some key social roles of the intellectuals. Intellectuals have to use updated knowledge for ongoing revision and development of theories and practice in order to develop a better future for their communities. The intellectual respondents whom I interviewed stated that they act against FGM because modern medical and social sciences told them that it hinders women’s development, and consequently social development. This attitude is correct. However, to be consistent, the same approach should be adopted in all social issues. Nevertheless, intellectuals are not a homogeneous entity, neither are they separate from all other social groups.
The same approach is needed to break the silence
around male circumcision.
So, as part of the community, intellectuals are aware of the predominant social biases. I think that they need wide discussion of their own biases before they can really assimilate new knowledge instead of their older beliefs. This process took place in the issue of FGM in Egypt. The barrier of silence was broken by persistent social interaction about the issue. Men and women were encouraged to exchange experiences and points of views on FGM. Researchers contributed in the process by their field studies and situation analyses. The same approach is needed to break the silence around male circumcision. Men need to be encouraged to express their experiences, biases and feelings, with all due respect to whatever they express. The data given by men need to be analyzed, so that they can be provided by different interpretations for their biases. When this happens, it will enhance the adoption of a consistent intellectual and humane attitude towards MGM, exactly as it happened with FGM. Moreover, it will enhance the settlement of a comprehensive vision for gender issues. Social construction of femininity and masculinity is the focus of gender politics. Moving towards more egalitarian gender power politics will improve the social conditions of men and women. This will be impossible with addressing social construction of femininity alone.
III) Medical doctors and male circumcision
Physicians consider the sexual and excretory organs as dirty body parts. Such medical bias plays a role in the continuation of MGM. Society considers medical doctors as knowledgeable people who give health care. Moreover, getting doctors’ services requires a sort of financial ability. Wealth and education are positive social attributes. Thus, community members who seek medical doctors’ services and obey their instructions (or rather their biases) are considered well-to-do and educated persons. On the other hand, retention of the prepuce is considered as a mark of ignorance, negligence, and poverty; because medical doctors disdain it. Nevertheless, other body parts, like the mouth, are known to be dirty according to objective bacteriological criteria. Even one of my medical professors used to tell us that the mouth is dirtier than the anus. However, no doctor will rush to cut parts of the mouth or extract teeth as a "preventive" measure. In these two examples (the mouth and the male genitalia) medical doctors behave according to their social biases not to their scientific knowledge. Analysis of the body parts that are either excised by doctors for "prevention" of diseases, or are thought by some of them as "useless" (like Dr. Afkar’s beliefs towards the toes) reveal a relationship between the doctors’ and the traditional cultural biases towards the same body parts. For example, a social researcher in North Africa found bias against the uvula (the projecting tissue between the tonsils), and that barbers used to excise it from children’s throats as a traditional ritual surgery (Prual 1994). The modern medical analogue to this practice is "preventive tonsillectomy" that prevailed in medical practice for a long time, till studies proved the relevance of the tonsils as part of the immune system. Dr. Afkar’s thoughts about the toes could be a theoretical analogue to the tradition of foot binding which was practiced in China on girl children. The practice ended when the Chinese people broke the silence around it. There is even a study that found a link between Chinese foot binding and African infibulation (Mackie 1996).
The fact that medical doctors still perform male circumcision indicates the need for more elaborate social studies about the relationship between the traditional cultural biases and the professional medical practices. In the chapter that describes the respondents’ experience with male circumcision, we find many indicators that signify that medical doctors handle circumcision as a traditional ritual wounding rather than as a scientific surgery. Contemporary society assumes that doctors should provide people with healing and preventive services that are based on the most updated medical science. In this respect, taking science as a reference serves the community’s best interests. That is why doctors should not take traditions as their point of reference when they conflict with physical integrity and psychological welfare. Hence, they should stop performing circumcision. When circumcision is tested according to the criteria of modern science, we find that it is a surgery in search of a justification. For the last one and half centuries, medical doctors changed their justification for male and female circumcision from treatment to prevention. Similarly, they always changed its indication to fit the most feared disease of the time. So, they first recommended circumcision to treat and prevent masturbation, then venereal diseases, then cancer, to end with AIDS.
Prevention and treatment of masturbation was the first justification to be invalidated by research. Accordingly, medical doctors stopped performing FGM. Although venereal diseases, cancer, and AIDS were equally invalidated by medical research as justifications for male circumcision, doctors continued to perform MGM, and justify it by the need to conform to the dominant social traditions.
Medical practice in the third millennium should follow
more updated scientific and ethical models.
It is time for the medical profession to trespass the last centuries’ models of handling the human body, which are described by Foucault in his book The Birth of the Clinic (Foucault 1975). Medical practice in the third millennium should follow more updated scientific and ethical models. I think that breaking the barrier of silence around MGM will raise a wide debate among medical doctors about this issue, exactly as it happened with FGM. Such a debate would attract the most enlightened and scientific minded doctors to the new model, which would encourage them to stick to the first principle of the medical ethics "first, do no harm." Surgery should be the last resort in any medical plan for treatment of sick persons, and it should never be performed on healthy persons. Ethically and scientifically speaking, there is nothing called "preventive surgery." Doctors will change their attitude towards MGM when they start to recognize that it is not appropriate to repeat the ideas of a minority of Victorian doctors, who ignored that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis, and interferes with the natural mechanism of sexual satisfaction (see appendix 3). The Victorian doctors’ ideas pre-dated the British occupation of Egypt. Now, with Egypt’s liberation, is it not high time for the minds of Egyptian doctors to be liberated too?
Revision of the medical institution’s attitude should include medical education as well as medical practice; because it is important to disseminate the most updated information to medical students and young doctors, as well as to the public. Moreover, criticism of the traditional cultural biases, bearing in mind the modern information should be encouraged, with the health interests of the children in focus. This criticism should take place through ongoing medical education. With the great evolution of scientific discoveries in our time, education is no more a close-ended process "khatm el ilm." Doctors should not consider what they studied to fulfill the requirements of their degrees as a perpetual given. All of the medical tools, whether they are pills or scalpels, are double-edged weapons. Various users use weapons differently. Criminals use weapons to serve their personal interests; executors use weapons to serve legal sentences; and medical doctors use weapons to heal people’s sicknesses. Thus, it is doctors’ duty to use their tools according to the most updated medical knowledge, not to their own cultural biases.
The medical institution is also responsible for translation of medical knowledge and making it available to the public. Scientific writings are not similar to artistic ones. For example, novels, paintings, or symphonies will always have the same significance to the audience. This is not the case with theories of science, because unlike products of art, they develop and change with time. That is why scientific writings should not be translated once and for all. The latest edition of any medical text should be consulted before publishing a new edition of its translated version. Without this necessary precaution, re-printing of old medical theories will turn into a tool for deceiving the public instead of enlightening and upgrading their awareness.
IV) Feminist intellectuals and MGM
Feminism...is for building new and fairer social politics
for both genders, especially children.
After she knew the new information about anatomy and physiology of the male prepuce, Dr. Salma stated that she felt like bursting into tears, and that such information should not be concealed from men, who have every right to know it. This is a consistent feminist attitude. Women suffered for a long time from patriarchal social obstacles that hindered their acquisition of knowledge, which may help them to improve their status (Smith 1987). Women will not gain more benefits or empowerment by playing the same unfair role with the assumption that men are the primary beneficiaries from the new information about their bodies’ anatomy and physiology. Feminism is not for women only. It is for building new and fairer social politics for both genders, especially children. Now, with the defeat of the false hygienic justifications for male circumcision, its ugly and unfair face is revealed: a blood and flesh sacrifice presented to the patriarchal society.
Women will also benefit from defending male children’s rights.
The results of the study show that women intellectuals are currently more ready than men intellectuals to launch the issue of MGM. They are more ready to accept change and stop circumcising their own sons, or advising others against male circumcision. Women will also benefit from defending male children’s rights. When women acknowledge that gender issues include men’s rights as well, more open-minded men will support women’s rights.
(W)omen are recommended to take the initiative to encourage men
to break the barrier of silence about MGM, to support them,
and be understandable when some of them show resistance or denial.
Of course, that does not mean that women should dominate the advocacy against MGM. It rather means that women are recommended to take the initiative to encourage men to break the barrier of silence about MGM, to support them, and be understandable when some of them show resistance or denial. Bringing an end to the silence that surrounded such a taboo issue for thousands of years needs patience and persistent efforts to move MGM from the arena of political and ideological conflict to that of the right of bodily integrity for all as a basic human right.
Women’s defense of men’s right to bodily integrity and their work against MGM will not have a negative impact on their struggle against FGM. On the contrary, work against MGM will defeat the argument that is used by some doctors that they can perform a sort of FGM analogous to male circumcision, on the assumption that the later is a simple "beautification" and non-harmful procedure.
When women revise their attitude from the issues of other weak social categories they will win a lot. First, they will win the direct personal benefit of protecting their own children from a useless, hazardous, and maybe fatal injury. Second, they will get a general benefit, because their new attitude will prove that the women’s rights movement is useful to women, men, and the society as a whole.

[Ihealyou]

My eyes have been opened, Hasbinbad.

[Yak]

I laughed sooooooooooooooooooo hard man! +1

[korrowan]

tl:dr

[Hasbinbad]

tl:dr
It's "Tl;dr." guy, and of course you didn't.

[SlankyLanky]

ever had a un cut cock presented to you? its pretty beastly bro. get that shit snipped if you have a boy people, nobody wants to pull back your foreskin and see your pale dick head.

[SlankyLanky]

to eleborate, i dont find it physically attractice, if you want to argue that im lulz poisoned by the christian tradition maybe your right. but plenty of other countries have started cutting the flaps off the jacks. if ide never seen a uncut dick (or regular as we are taught to think) that i think looked good, maybe i wouldnt see uncut cocks as pretty frightening beasts. long story short uncut dicks just skeeze me out.

[Hasbinbad]

ever had a un cut cock presented to you?
No.
its pretty beastly bro.
That's only because you've been indoctrinated into a society where it is the social norm to be mutilated.
get that shit snipped if you have a boy people
You're sick.
nobody wants to pull back your foreskin and see your pale dick head.
If it's pale, you have other issues.

[Hasbinbad]

to eleborate, i dont find it physically attractice, if you want to argue that im lulz poisoned by the christian tradition maybe your right. but plenty of other countries have started cutting the flaps off the jacks. if ide never seen a uncut dick (or regular as we are taught to think) that i think looked good, maybe i wouldnt see uncut cocks as pretty frightening beasts. long story short uncut dicks just skeeze me out.
At least you're honest.

Other countries tend to follow the Americans as far as medicine goes, but interestingly, all the science behind the rationale for male genetic mutilation is actually pseudoscience. If you actually read the article, you will see that.

[SlankyLanky]

im not arguing science man, im arguing what i want to put in my mouth as somebody who happens to suck dicks.

[Hasbinbad]

im not arguing science man, im arguing what i want to put in my mouth as somebody who happens to suck dicks.
If it's in your mouth then why do you care what it looks like?

[SlankyLanky]

so your wife/partner has beastly beef curtains and you love to lap up the "excess" (again, maybe im poisoned by mainstream erotica and the thought of what a dick of in your case im assuming, what a ladies muff should look like) skin? sex is important and physical attraction is whats up. people like to fuck what gets them hot, for me a uncut dick doesnt do it. i guess we can never fuck now :(

[Hasbinbad]

so your wife/partner has beastly beef curtains and you love to lap up the "excess" (again, maybe im poisoned by mainstream erotica and the thought of what a dick of in your case im assuming, what a ladies muff should look like) skin?
Every woman's genitalia is unique and beautiful in its own way. When I am with a woman, I do whatever she needs to give her pleasure, including your vulgar description of lapping up the extra skin.
sex is important and physical attraction is whats up. people like to fuck what gets them hot, for me a uncut dick doesnt do it.
This is a very pubescent attitude towards sex. I can only assume you're in your early twenties. Good luck with that.
i guess we can never fuck now :(
Correct.

[SlankyLanky]

now its gone from "i dont like uncut dicks yo" to you accusing me of being a lousey bang because im under 30. shit man i realy didnt mean to bum you out so much because apparently i dont find your dick attractive. i get it its mutalition and saggin baggings are natural, your EXTREMLY defensive about how your dick looks. if your ok with it then great, its not my thing.

[Hasbinbad]

now its gone from "i dont like uncut dicks yo" to you accusing me of being a lousey bang because im under 30. shit man i realy didnt mean to bum you out so much because apparently i dont find your dick attractive. i get it its mutalition and saggin baggings are natural, your EXTREMLY defensive about how your dick looks. if your ok with it then great, its not my thing.
I didn't say you were a lousy bang, I said you had a pubescent attitude towards sex. Reading comprehension FTW.

Also, I don't really understand why you think I'm being defensive, that was not my intention, nor after re-reading what I said do I understand that as the import behind my words. Please elaborate.

Also, I'm not bummed that you don't find my dick attractive.

[azeth]

you scope that tiny ole weeny?

[Peatree]

...wow...this thread took a hard (excuse the pun)...left turn now didn't it...

[SlankyLanky]

you win has.

[azeth]

Chapter I: Introduction
My awareness of male genital mutilation (MGM), which is known as male circumcision, took many stages to develop. At the beginning, I did not have a definite attitude towards MGM. I did not agree or disagree to it. The issue did not have an impact on me for many years. I overheard my mother and father talking with neighbors on the negative effects of female genital mutilation (FGM), which is known as female circumcision. They always said that it was not healthy, like male circumcision. My parents considered male circumcision a snip that removes a useless and insensitive piece of skin. They also thought that it was a simple procedure done to males similar to cutting off the nails. When I went to medical school, male circumcision was part of my study of surgery. It was advised in all the text books I have studied then as a preventive procedure against cancer of the penis and cervix uteri. It was also a procedure done without anesthesia because it was claimed that the infant does not feel pain like an older child or an adult.
I took the theoretical information that I learned at home and university for granted, until one day I saw it practically done. I was shocked, and started doubting all the theories that supported MGM. At the time, I was a newly graduated medical doctor in 1972, and was appointed in El Demerdash University Hospital as a surgery trainee house officer. One day, the residence of surgery asked the junior house officers to stay in the outpatient clinic after their rounds. That day he was going to train us to perform male circumcision. The infant that was to be circumcised was a healthy baby of about one month old. The resident did not give him any anesthesia, so naturally, the child screamed loudly. I could see signs of shock; like pale face and profound sweat. From this first experience, I doubted all what I had learned about male circumcision. Although I did not know much before about the structure and function of the prepuce, the signs of shock that I saw on the child’s face convinced me deeply that male circumcision was nothing but savage butchery. There were no reason to perform an operation on a healthy child, especially that it involved a shock experience. Since then, I started comparing between male and female circumcision, to me there was no difference. I decided from that day never to perform MGM. FGM was essentially out of question because it was not mentioned in the medical texts. In my experience, as a junior doctor in the emergency unit, I admitted many male children with symptoms like severe bleeding and surgical shock after having been circumcised, and that added to my convictions. I started speaking with people I knew who had male children, and I succeeded in some rare times, to be counted on one hand, and I failed in most cases to convince them that this procedure should not be done. The intellectuals who did not believe in FGM, on one hand, were deeply convinced with male circumcision on the other hand.
When the anti-FGM movement started in Egypt in 1994, I was surprised that the same doctors and theologians who were against FGM and were telling people to refrain from the procedure believed that male circumcision was a necessity. Moreover, distinguished figures who were calling against FGM, were careful not to deal with male circumcision. They always retorted saying that that was not to the point of discussion. In spite of everything, after the silence that had been broken on the subject of FGM in 1994, the press issued articles on victims who had experienced complications made by circumcision in both sexes. Wherever I went to discuss FGM, I was asked many questions on male circumcision as well. Some male intellectuals even who were advocating the movement against FGM felt that male circumcision had to be dealt with too, although they did not express their opinions in detail. For example, we attended a seminar on FGM in the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, and one of the men who was a young doctor, came up and said that he could remember his own experience with circumcision when he was a child of six years old. He said that it was a shock, it included all that was said about FGM hazards. The doctor was surprised that people who were calling for human rights ignored this fact. On another occasion, I was designing a logo for the campaign against FGM, it was an Egyptian peasant woman, the heroin of "Nahdit Masr." She was hugging a girl instead of putting her hand on the head of the Sphinx. A male colleague saw it and said: "She ought to be hugging a little boy as well." Accordingly, I started to take an overt attitude against all violations of human bodies, irrespective of their gender and to support it by reading in medicine, Islamic studies "Fiqh," and social sciences.
I learned, through reading in legal English at AMIDEAST and in the Department of Sociology-Anthropology in the American University in Cairo, more about the common cultural background of FGM and MGM. I learned, as well, from the modern medical sciences, that the benefits of MGM were proved to be false. (This will be discussed in detail later). I tried to spread the information I had learned to my friends, who were mainly against FGM. A large number of them were from the medical profession. They did not pay any attention to what I had to say, or heard me and then expressed doubt. They did not even try to read about the issue. Worse than that, the men and women intellectuals who were leading advocacy against FGM on the basis of reason and the human right of bodily integrity, justified MGM using the same irrational justifications that were being used to justify FGM. Others whom I talked to were more flexible on the subject of FGM but were hesitant as to the movement against MGM. Very few accepted the new ideas and they were sorry because they did not know otherwise before. Fewer people were ready to spread these new ideas to others.
I) Presentation of the study
A) The importance of the study
MGM is more common than FGM, whether in Egypt or on the international level. The number of circumcised males is estimated as 13.3 millions yearly, whereas 2 million females are circumcised every year. Most of the circumcised persons of both sexes are children (Denniston, 1997; DeMeo, 1997). In the procedure of circumcision in both sexes, a sensitive healthy part of the body is amputated of a child who does not have a chance to say no, defend itself nor express consent. In both cases, it is the society that is imposing its control over the children’s sexual drives. Moreover, the study is significant because some medical doctors spread rumors saying that female circumcision by removing the hood of the clitoris partially or totally is similar to male circumcision. They claim that MGM is a useful procedure and not harmful to the male. Accordingly, they claim that the suggested procedure is not harmful to the female. Moreover, some doctors described types of similar procedures claiming that they are contributing to anti-FGM movement. (Karim, 1996). In spite of all this, the relation of MGM to common social traditions that define femininity and masculinity and determine the power balance between the two sexes in Egypt was not studied. Thus, this research is ground-breaking.
B) Research hypothesis
The patriarchal social system has two biases: one is based on gender and the other is based on age. In both cases, the weakest party of any social relation suffers from discrimination. As for gender, it is the women who suffer most; and as for age, it is the children. Therefore, women and children are gathered in one group, that is, they are the inferior and the weakest. Thus, women are inferior to men even if they are from the same age group, and children from both sexes are inferior to adults. (Janeway, 1980).
Even in MGM, men have the upper hand because the procedure is considered a symbolic separation of the male child from the female world and a passage to the world of men (Turner, 1967). Some researchers have noticed similarities between MGM and FGM (Kennedy, 1970; Lightfoot Klein, 1997). Men and women working in the field of human rights, reproductive health and social development have been interested in the subject of FGM. They usually introduce themselves and are considered by others as intellectuals. They include people from the medical profession who advocate female genital integrity. Using modern science, they spread their ideas on new concepts of femininity, women’s self images, women’s sexual drives, women’s reproductive rights and female social role; all of which are different from the traditional value system, which is based on beliefs that are unfounded according to the modern scientific evidences. The intellectuals, though, might take a modern attitude towards some modern issues, but are hesitant when it comes to other issues, influenced by their socialization into a traditional value system with deep rooted conventional ideas (Gramsci, 1971). When it comes to issues concerning the human body, intellectuals in general and medical doctors specifically, have a leading role in society because they are considered examples to others in setting the ideological terms of reference concerning the issues in question and also in their behavior. Accordingly, due to their involvement in the intellectual conflict, they become active leaders (Frankenberg, 1988). And yet, they could at times be the cause in fixing stagnant social concepts. The intellectuals may either be leaders of social change or conformists according to their awareness of and attitudes towards the political power game.
Feminism highlighted the link between knowledge and power. This was a great epistomilogical contribution, not to mention that knowledge in itself is power, but also the right to attain it is controlled by a network of decision makers that have the power to provide individuals and communities with information or deprive them from it. The individuals’ and communities’ share from information depends on their position in this power network (Lennon and Whitford, 1994: 1). Presumably, therefore, the number of people adopting the idea of MGM base their concepts on social bias that aims at maintaining the gender and age power heirarchy in present patriarchal society. Also, the analysis of knowledge, beliefs, and experiences that form the background discourse behind the procedures that maintain the patriarchal heirarchy might reveal unknown aspects in power politics that determine the social relationship between women and men.
C) Research questions
With my primary fieldwork observations and readings of relevant literature in mind, these questions are taken into consideration; why do intellectuals and especially the medical doctors object to FGM - on modern scientific and rational basis - yet, refuse to take the same attitude toward MGM? What is the background of MGM proponents and opponents? Would social awareness raising about the hazards of MGM affect the movement against FGM as some intellectuals claim? If women ignore revealing patriarchal bias against male children, would they be able to liberate themselves?
D) Research objective
The research aim is to go beyond the common arguments on health and religion to explore the various background biases, interests, and power politics behind the attitude of Egyptian intellectuals who work against FGM but tolerate MGM. Achievement of this objective is attempted by seeking answers to the fore-mentioned research questions.
II) Literature review
A) The cultural history of circumcision in pre-modern societies
In J. DeMeo’s article The Geography of Male and Female Genital Mutilations (http://www.noharmm.org/geography.htm) (1997) there was a study of several pre-modern societies that depend on subsistence economy. He found that communities that observe traditional circumcision, consider it very highly and can not imagine life without it. Whereas communities that do not have this tradition reject it strongly. DeMeo attempted to find historical and intercultural explanations for some communities’ insistence on circumcision in spite of its being painful and harmful. DeMeo described the various types of male sexual mutilation. The simplest type is carried out in some areas in Asia, where they incise the prepuce without separating it totally from the body. Circumcision is more cruel than that because the prepuce is completely amputated. This is a tradition which is common in Africa, some countries in Asia, and islands in the Pacific Ocean. The next most severe type is the skinning of the penis. Its origin goes back to Arab Peninsula and was practiced till recent times. It was a procedure done to a man immediately before marriage. There is also a type of MGM that involves cutting the urethra all the length of the penis. This was a custom among Australian aborigines. The mutilation of male genitalia in puberty or young adulthood is done to test their endurance. On walls of Ancient Egyptian monument, there are pictures of male circumcision in 2300 B.C. But DeMeo said that he does not believe that the Ancient Egyptians invented this procedure but got it through the Bedouin invasions in 3100 B.C. These tribes were heirarchical patriarchal communities who practiced male kings idolatry, ranked warriors and priests high and built elaborate temples and tombs. According to DeMeo, present day communities that practice circumcision have the same patriarchal features and tendencies. The lack of circumcision in some male dominated communities does not make it any better, for they control children by some other rough practices.
DeMeo expressed his belief that the disturbance in the relationship between mother and child and child abuse all contribute to the continuation of the aggressive patriarchal society. He finds historical evidence that changing the economic structure alone, without challenging the tradition of male and female sexual mutilations, does not bring about social change towards more humane conditions for all community members. DeMeo elaborated that since there is a relation between MGM and FGM, as seen in the geographic distribution of this tradition, their cultural background, and their psychological and social motives, where males are predominant to females and adults to children, therefore, the subject of MGM and FGM must be dealt with as one integral issue.
Some studies dealt with circumcision as a procedure practiced in ancient times. They tried to find a relationship between this tradition and the prevalent social system in many ancient societies. One of the most important works of research on circumcision is Symbolic Wounds: Puberty Rites and the Envious Male by B. Bettelheim (1954). Bettelheim analyzed that male circumcision is based on male jealousy of female fertility that appears when women experience menstruation; and that male circumcision is a symbolic identification with this female attribute. Bettelheim had another theory that states that circumcision of males is considered a symbol of superiority of the father over other males that threaten his relationship to the mother, thus making him feel less anxious. Circumcision originally came from different areas of the world among various tribes and nations, although, it served the same social role. He also stated that such relationships between adults and children are still prevalent in present societies, where adults fulfill their instincts and prevent children from enjoying theirs by setting strict behavioral rules that are not followed by the adults themselves.
Bettelheim described the symbolic sexual role of male circumcision that is held in patriarchal societies where erection is considered a significant sign of male adulthood. Exposure of the head of the penis by circumcision gives it a perpetual appearance of erection. Accordingly, the procedure transfers the child who is not yet sexually mature, making him a symbolically mature male, separating him from the female world. For this transformation to take place, the rituals are significant because they imply a symbolic death of the child and resurrection of a new male figure. This new birth comes from the father not the mother. That is the circumcision of male children plays a dual symbolic role reinforcing male authority: the first of which is by giving the child a mature male appearance, and the second by giving the male the feminine privilege of shedding genital blood. This symbolic is reinforced in Jewish communities where the procedure takes place at a very early age - when the infant is only seven days old - instead of the age of puberty. At that age, the child is helpless and is completely under the control of his parents, that is also reinforced by religious force. Bettelheim concluded that whether circumcision is invented by males or females, and whether it fulfills their needs, it can not act as a symbol of maturity except in a society which socializes its individuals to expect severe punishment for transgression of the appropriate sexual behavior. This is the case in societies where patriarchal figures are dominant over and threatening to the young.
Any reason for circumcision nowadays has hidden motives behind it, which are different from its ancient motives, since these motives are hidden behind heavy curtains of mythical, religious and mundane ritualistic justifications.
More recent studies associated circumcision with the patriarchal society. For example, A. Montagu stated in his article Mutilated Humanity (1991) that circumcision in both sexes is a tradition that appeared with the rise of patriarchy. He explained that circumcision continues in our modern time because of the persistence of old patriarchal values, in spite of the different motives behind it in antiquity and present day societies. Montagu stated that the human being is the only creature that mutilates the bodies of its individuals in the name of reason, religion, customs and traditions, morality and law. Any reason for circumcision nowadays has hidden motives behind it, which are different from its ancient motives, since these motives are hidden behind heavy curtains of mythical, religious and mundane ritualistic justifications. Over time, old justifications give way to new ones based on new biases. That is why it is difficult to find a a precise explanation of the origin of circumcision. The researcher who wishes to find the origin of why circumcision takes place, must get rid of all kinds of personal biases. By defeating the various justifications of circumcision, we will be confronted with the reality of social organization. Reality is not an abstract concept. It is socially conditioned. Montagu observed that circumcision did not take place in pre-patriarchal societies that were based on sexual equality. For example, in communities of fruit gatherers. Therefore, it can be concluded that circumcision is a patriarchal invention. Montagu continued, saying that circumcision could have various cultural significances. Among Australian aborigines, it is a symbolic identification of the male to the female because it causes a flow of blood from the male genital organ. In African tribes, circumcision could be explained by its being a symbol of sexual duality of creation. According to this belief, a human individual is born with both feminine and masculine attributes since the femininity is inherent in the male prepuce whereas masculinity exists in the clitoris. Accordingly, circumcision is considered a purification of the male from the female characteristics. The female spirit is considered something that prevents the male from the ability of rational thinking, and so, a non-circumcised male is considered socially inept. By circumcision, the male loses his individuality and becomes a social being. Moreover, circumcision is considered a severing of the unity of the human being when the feminine part of the body is cut off; therefore, the male searches for a reunion that can only take place through marriage. Therefore, it is an essential motive for marriage. Also, the female who has been robbed of the male characteristics by circumcision accepts it when she searches for a husband. Accordingly, this makes the procedure of circumcision a procedure that turns the individual into a social being, seeking continuation through marriage and child birth. Finally, Montagu said that no matter what the cultural origin of circumcision, humans inflicted it on children as a tradition with the same motive: the predominance of males and their superior social status over females and children. Therefore, circumcision sets the rule that states that it is naturally the powerful who has the upper hand, and makes it an established part of social reality.
Another article that implied the same idea is A Biocultural Analysis of Circumcision by R. Immerman and W. Mackey (1998). [see similar article: A Proposed Relationship Between Circumcision and Neural Reorganization (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/immerman1/), R. Immerman and W. Mackey, Journal of Genetic Psychology, Volume 159, Number 3, Pages 367-378, September 1, 1998] They tried to link the biological impact of circumcision on the brain to the reasons of its adoption by several cultures. They observed that male genital integrity provides both sexual partners with great sexual satisfaction. Therefore, circumcision might provide the community with an interest that surpasses the deprivation of individual men and women from such sexual satisfaction. The two authors stated that circumcision diminishes the ability of the brain center of sexual pleasure to respond to stimuli. Moreover, it eliminates the secretion of smegma, which is a male genital lubricant with a gentle odor that is attractive to females. They believed that the changes that are the result of male circumcision decrease their attractiveness to females and make males of the tribe less irritable and more tolerant to one another. Therefore, tribal leaders find it easier to control circumcised males and direct them.
Other scholars said that circumcision originated in matriarchal societies. One of these studies is From Genetic Cosmology to Genital Cosmetics: Origin Theory of the Righting Rite of Male Circumcision by D. Voskuil (1994). Voskuil said that in ancient pre-patriarchal communities, people found a relationship between the universe and the female body because of its ability to reproduce. It produces blood and milk and its vital functions are consistent with the lunar cycle; therefore, the female body became a sacred figure. Thus, males attempted to "correct" their bodies, making it similar to that of the female; that is how male circumcision began since it caused a flow of blood from their bodies even though this was a symbolic similarity to the female. Voskuil explained that this could be the motive behind the opinion saying that circumcision is an esthetic operation.
Voskuil added that with the rise of patriarchal society, circumcision lost its significance as a symbolic matriarchal fertility ritual, but continued to be practiced although the motive differed in the sense that it no longer aimed to make the male similar to the female, it rather meant to make him different from women. In addition, it became a symbol of submission to the dominant patriarch and separation from the female community instead of its old significance as a symbol of identification with the sacred female deity. As time passed, it became widely spread in patriarchal societies. In matriarchal societies, though, circumcision was not imposed except on the male who had intercourse with the priestess/queen. Like smoking that was practiced by priests, then by the elite and finally by the common people, circumcision turned from a specific religious ritual for elite clergy to a general mundane tradition for the common public.
Victor Turner studied the ritual of circumcision in the "Ndembu" tribe in Zambia, that is composed of several villages. In each village, lives a group of inhabitants that have a kinship relation from the maternal side. Turner analyzed this ritual in his book On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experience (1985). He explained that the motive behind circumcision is a modification and reorganization of the male child’s relationship with his parents. In this tribe, children are linked to one village by their mothers, whereas, their relationship with others is made broader by the father who acquaints them with other groups from several villages in which their cousins live. Naturally, male children are attached to their mothers before being circumcised, helping them in their daily chores, but after circumcision, they become more attached to their fathers, brothers and other male members of the tribe having similar activities. Because of the attachment to the mother, male children are considered polluted and immature. And accordingly, they do not deserve to be guided by their fathers and other male figures. In these tribes, when leaders find that children are increasing and that there is a lack of laborers, consequently disturbing the tribes’ male/female power balance, there are immediate preparations for male circumcision:. It separates the male child from his mother before they develop a stronger mother/son attachment that is difficult to separate. Moreover, the father/son relationship becomes stronger after circumcision, as the child before circumcision was considered polluted and immature and not worthy of taking instructions from the father because he is still under the mother’s control. An evidence that Ndembu male circumcision separates the child from the mother, is that they believe that the male prepuce is analogous to the female labia majora. Circumcision is a ritual that takes place to which all relatives - not only males but female cousins too from the villages close by - are invited. Therefore, the child’s relationship with the world becomes broader because it is not only attached to the mother but becomes involved in the world of the fathers kinship network which involves interaction with the males in the surrounding villages.
Various researchers studied the concepts and beliefs behind the social rituals. Since circumcision is a purification ritual, studies of purity and pollution in various cultures are of particular significance. One of these studies is M. Douglas’ article Symbolic Pollution (1966). Although this study did not deal directly with circumcision, it can be applied to it. It can explain why people insist on this tradition, especially since the Egyptian colloquial word for circumcision "tahara" means purification. Douglas said that the ancient religious rituals are characterized by their material link to medicine and their hygienic relevance, even if hygiene is not their primary interest. I consider Douglas’ study relevant to my topic because we still define dirt and cleanliness in the same old way. Dirt means to us the presence of a thing or the performance of a behavior out of their appropriate location or context. The things or behaviors might not necessarily be considered filthy in themselves. For example, a drink is considered dirt when it drops on a dress, and people feel disgusted from a person who laughs in a funeral, even though drinks and laughter are not dirty in principle. Douglas suggested that the more deep rooted the beliefs about the pollutedness of something are, the more difficult it is to change. Thus, over time, people develop a stronger bias against what they consider polluted. When new ideas threaten to bring about a change in such bias, they tend to ignore or object to it so that these new concepts do not disturb their universe. Also, change might upset the distribution of power roles and endanger the established familiar system. In less sophisticated societies, positions of power and danger are defined by the interaction of order and chaos. Not to mention that the concept of pollution as a danger to the social system would be impossible except in a society with clearly defined borders. Thus, an individual who transgresses his/her predefined borders is considered polluted. Beliefs concerning pollution reinforce the well established social moral system, because transgression of the pollution taboo is severely punished. These beliefs define the rules of what is considered socially as the correct individuals’ behavior. If an individual is polluted and yet harmless to others, he/she still is not socially accepted and is punished. Such rituals as bathing, incense … etc. purify the individual from pollution.
Since circumcision is considered a sacred ritual in various religions, Sami Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh’s works have a special significance because he discusses it in terms of religious arguments. One of his most important works is To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah: Legitimization of Male and Female Circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/) (1994); and his book: Male and Female Circumcision among Jews, Christians and Muslims: Religious Debate (khitaan al-zukuur wal-inaath ‘and yahud, wal-masihiyyin wal-muslimin: al gadal al din) (Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, 2000). In this book, the author reviewed the various opinions of theologians in the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam starting from early days of Judaism till the present decade. The author said that the three religions always interacted and impacted each other. The discourse of circumcision progressed from one Holy Book to the other. In the Old Testament, it was obligatory; in Christianity, it was not considered a sacred procedure; and in Islam, it was not mentioned at all in Quran because Islam stressed the concept of divine perfection of creation. Abu-Sahlieh elaborately reviewed the discourse on circumcision in the three sacred books, Prophetic tradition, and the writings of men of wisdom, theologians, and men of Fiqh, all of whom depended on what is stated in Ch. 17 of the Book of Genesis in which Jehovah ordered Abraham to be circumcised and to do the same procedure on his sons. Jehovah promised them the sacred land because they are God’s chosen people. Moreover, they are identified by circumcision. The researcher considered this procedure as a political convention which is carried out by means of surgery, and described it as "Politicization of a Surgical Operation." Sanctification of male circumcision transfers Jehovah from a divine creator to a simple shepherd who needs a physical sign to identify his people out of all the other human beings; like a shepherd identifying his herd. Other scholars explained that the circumcision of the male child on the 8th day is to purify him from birth pollution. Contact between the child and his mother’s body and after-birth are both considered polluting. In fact, there are laws in Judaism that admit the hazards of infant male circumcision. Therefore, some rabbis exempt some Jews from this procedure, on condition that the child has 2 brothers or a maternal male cousin who died during circumcision. Abu-Sahlieh explained that the Old Testament was gathered together and documented in the 9th century B.C., that is approximately after 4 centuries of Moses’ death and 10 centuries of Abraham’s death. Therefore, it included various other traditions from the different cultures over this period,. That is why some scholars of Judaism doubt the historical origin of the events that took place in the Old Testament. Abu-Sahlieh said that circumcision goes back further than the Old Testament because historical documents were found that proved that circumcision was a procedure carried out in Ancient Syria in the 28th century B.C. and in Ancient Egypt in the 23rd century B.C. In the latter, it was not carried out on all Egyptians but only on the priests. This is proved by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, who forbid this procedure on everyone in the 2nd century A.D,, but he exempted the Egyptian priests.
The Jews used circumcision politically over the years. It was a procedure that was carried out on a relative basis and not done on everyone. Historians state that this procedure was not obligatory to Jews except after their return from exile in the 6th century B.C. A group of Jews made an agreement with surrounding nations in the 2nd century B.C. They stopped observing circumcision, and hid the signs of the procedure by pulling down the skin of the penis to cover its head. They could do so because in ancient times circumcision did not include a complete amputation of the prepuce, as is the case now. It was the outer layer that was cut only. The anti-circumcision trend appeared again in the 2nd century A.D. The rabbis, though, created a new way of circumcision by amputating the two layers of the prepuce as a counter reaction to the mentioned trend. Moreover, in 1842, a group of German Jews questioned the obligatory imposition of circumcision; but they retreated under pressure of conservative Jewish clergy. In 1869, Jews who had emigrated to the United States started to discuss the exemption from circumcision of men who converted to Judaism as adults. The exemption was authorized in 1892 because it was said that in the Old Testament, when Abraham was ordered to undergo this procedure, it was not an obligation to all Jews throughout history, and also because of the fact that Jews are identified by their maternal ancestors, regardless of whether they are circumcised or not. Thus, a circumcised Jew cannot be considered a Jew if his mother is from another religion. These modernists also viewed that circumcision did not comply with other Old Testament instructions that forbid harming the body. Modern Jewish feminists noticed the patriarchal political nature of male circumcision. Abu-Sahlieh quotes some of them. One of them is Miriam Pollack (http://www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm), who refutes that circumcision has a religious significance. She says that it has a political background in general and is specially significant to gender.
Circumcision is based on men’s domination of women. By this procedure, the child is separated from his mother who does not have any authority on him any longer. This harms the child, for at this stage he needs his mother most and she cannot defend him, in spite of the fact that they are attached to one another at this early age. The knife that is pointed to the child is in fact pointed to the heart and soul of the mother. Circumcision is actually an injury to the mother; it is humiliating to her since it implies that ‘Your authority over males is limited; moreover, this child belongs to the male community.’ In this manner, the relationship between man and woman is disturbed and similarly the relationship between mother and child. The child’s separation from the mother is a preparation for his separation from her when he is recruited by the army. (Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, 2000)
In spite of these political arguments, the rabbis stress the importance of circumcision considering the non-circumcised a polluted person who should live in isolation. Moreover, he is forbidden the entrance to Eden. Some Jews believe that God will forgive many of their sins because they have been circumcised. Some Jews also admit that the procedure is a means of a cruel way of controlling the child’s sexual drives. The Jewish doctor Moses Maimonides (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/), who lived in the 13th century, was one of them. He said that circumcision diminishes male sexuality but does not affect reproduction. He also said that a female desires to have continuous sexual intercourse with non-circumcised male, and he considers this immoral. He finds it wiser and better to circumcise a male child when he is 8 days old and is helpless. Moreover, his parents are not yet too emotionally attached to him to refrain from circumcising him. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh believed that people of the West do not object to MGM as much as FGM because of the fact that the Jews have power over the mass media and financial resources that are considered the main tools of social action. Thus, people in the West avoid the accusation of being anti-Semitic that may create problems for them.
Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh discussed circumcision in Christianity. Christians who observe circumcision as a tradition justify it by that it was practiced on Christ himself. This anecdote did not appear except in Luke’s Gospel. Some interpreters said that even if Christ had been circumcised when he was a child, it was because he was born a Jew. But when he became a Prophet, he cancelled some of the pre-established rules of the Old Testament, one of these laws was an eye for an eye. He also defined pollution in different terms; a pollutant is what comes out of the mouth not what enters it. Jews who had converted to Christianity tried to impose circumcision on newly converted Christians from polytheistic religions. Paul, the apostle, argued against them by considering circumcision as not having a religious significance. Other priests interpreted circumcision symbolically. They said that circumcision in Christianity (http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/christian.html) means refraining from sexual sins and that it did not imply the amputation of the prepuce. Jews who converted to Christianity, in Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh’s opinion, failed to establish circumcision in Christian thought because they were not a power in the Roman Empire. But Jews who converted to Islam, succeeded in establishing Jewish principles in Islamic thought "isra’iliyyat" because they enjoyed cultural and economic powers in the Arab Peninsula and the surrounding countries in early Islamic period.
Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh proceeded to review the religious controversy concerning circumcision in Islam. He began with the fact that the Qur’an does not mention anything on the subject, though, some men of Fiqh interpreted some verses with controversial connotations "Ayat Mutashabihat" that could be relevant to circumcision. These verses are the ones that order Muslims to follow Ibrahim’s traditions which originated when Allah put him to the test by ordering him to follow His instructions. Certainly, Allah’s imprint on the human body is the best. The author explained in detail the various points of view of men of Fiqh in their interpretation of these verses. Some said that the holy verses implied circumcision; whereas, others considered the contrary. Therefore, it is clear that there is a contradiction between their interpretation and some of the "Sunna." Some theologians said that it is mentioned in the "Sunna" that Adam was the first to have been circumcised and not Ibrahim. Others believe all Prophets were born naturally circumcised, which is another contradiction to what is implied in the verses concerning this matter. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh believed that Ka’ab il Ahbaar – who was a Jew converted to Islam – has a great deal of influence on these interpretations because many of the Islamic concepts were shaped by his Jewish thought "Isra’iliyyat." This theological conflict extends to the 19th and 20th century thinkers such as El Shawkani, Muhamed Abdu, Mahmoud Shaltut, Wahba El Zoheily and Selim El ‘Awwa. Most of these thinkers did not believe in female circumcision, though they insisted on male circumcision because of its assumed hygienic benefits, although it contradicts the Qur’anic verses that mention the perfection of Allah’s creation. Moreover, the Prophet forbid any modification to the human figure, even if this is made by just tattoo or piercing.
Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh explained that those who believe in male circumcision base their ideas on "Sunna" which is considered the secondary source of Islamic law. However, many theologians critically revised the prophetic traditions "Ahadeeth Nabaweyya." According to Abu Haniifa, only 17 of these Prophetic traditions were accepted as authenticated. Al Imam Malik could not approve more than 300 of these Prophetic traditions. Moreover, stories concerning the Prophet Mohammad’s -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- circumcision were varied; some considered that he was born already circumcised. Some said that Gabril did this procedure to him, others said that it was his grandfather who circumcised him. Believers in circumcision depend on a Prophetic tradition relayed by Shi‘ites that states that the Prophet -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- circumcised his grand children, El Hassan and El Hussein, on the 7th day of their birth. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh said that this was neither mentioned in the six books of Sunna nor in Ibn Hanbal’s religious reference. One of the most recent controversies between men of Fiqh appeared when El Sheikh Gad il Haq Ali Gad il Haq said that this story is not an authenticated Prophetic tradition, whereas, El Sheikh Tantawi used it as a reference to stress the importance of male circumcision in contrast to female circumcision, which he did not believe was an Islamic requirement.
Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh went further to review the biographies of the Companions of the Prophet Mohammed and stories about them, some of which suggested that circumcision was a pre-Islamic Arab custom. Other stories suggested that the Arabs were not keen on it nor was the Prophet -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- For example, Osman Ibn Abi il ‘Aas refused to attend a celebration for circumcision because of the fact that neither the Prophet -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- nor his companions did attend or hold such celebrations. Abu El Hassan il Basary said that the Prophet -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- did not care to check whether newly converted Muslim males were circumcised or not, no matter what their color or ethnicity was. The matter was of no importance to him. Whereas, Ibn il Munzir said: "There is no valid reference -neither through stories nor Sunna (Prophetic tradition)- to circumcision" "La yougad fil khitan Khabaron Yourga‘ Ilaeh wala Sunna Tuttaba.‘" However, in the early Islamic period, the policy was that non-Muslim citizens were obliged to pay a certain sum of money as a tax (gizya) to the Muslim government (beit il maal). There is a story referring to Omar Ibn Abd Il Aziz’s disagreement with the ruler of Kharasan, who suggested that those who wished to be converted to Islam should be circumcised, so that their conversion is made more arduous in order to retain the taxing system (gizya) of Islam. Justifying his principle, Omar Ibn Abd Il Aziz said that Allah sent the Prophet Mohamed -May the blessings and peace of God be upon him- to guide people on the right path but not to circumcise them.
Moreover, Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh reviewed some modern literature written by contemporaries who object to circumcision. One of these books is Joseph Lewis’ book In the Name of Humanity translated by Issam el Din Hefny Nassef and published in 1971 with the title of Circumcision is a Harmful Jewish Fallacy with a long introduction by the author (Nassef, 1971). Moreover, Mohamed Afifi wrote an article about this book, which will be dealt with in detail below. The title of this article is The manual for the bewildered on circumcision (murshid il hayraan fi ‘amaliyit il khitaan).
B) Circumcision in modern societies
Circumcision today is a social behavior which is valued as an inherited cultural tradition. That is why studies that deal with social behavior are important to review. One of them is T. Parsons’ and E. Shils’ study Values and Social System (1951). Parsons and Shils analyzed the individuals’ behavior in societies. They said that societies control individual’s behavior through cultural systems in order to preserve the equilibrium in the social system. The attitude of individuals determine their behavior towards any given subject. Therefore, people’s behavior is a result of the components of their personalities, and their reaction to social system that modifies their social behavior; moreover, it is the culture with its symbols that shapes the values and beliefs within this social system. Cultural systems are composed of highly representative symbols that are significant to the social system. It is only those who have creative potentials, and are the leaders of these cultural systems who create cultural values that are relayed to and inherited by the subsequent generations. When these cultural symbols become well established, they become an active power that direct individuals’ and groups’ choices to fit the values and social norms they represent. It is according to these values that the individual shapes his/her reaction to the prevailing social norms. Therefore, it can be observed that the common culture is an important factor in the individual’s reaction to others in creating acceptable social norms. This need of social acceptance is a basis for facilitating social norms without which the social stability will be threatened.
Societies, though, are not culturally homogeneous; moreover, not all established cultural systems suit changing social needs. Therefore, individuals re-evaluate their inherited cultural values, and select what appeals to their practical everyday needs. People hold on to the inherited values in order not to disturb their pre-established social system, but they fail when the value interferes with the new life requirements. Therefore, they are confronted with two alternatives: either they live following the inherited values or they adapt the values to their modern modes of life. Societies in general and multi-cultural societies specifically, tend to submit to social mobility that might be considered foreign and contradictory to the pre-established norms, so as a compromise, they make allowance for the social change to a certain extent but not to the degree that disturbs the prevailing system. With these contradictory concepts in mind, social change might happen. In my opinion, Parsons and Shils’ research interprets the persistence of circumcision in the modern society because of people’s tendency towards conformity and highlights the importance of social change.
Traditional tribal leaders, priests and magicians used to carry out the ritual of circumcision in old cultures, whereas the medical professionals took it up in the modern era. Moreover, the medical institution has certain characteristics that make it fit to get involved in this procedure. Foucault explained in his book The Birth of the Clinic: An Archeology of Medical Perception (1975) the historical development of modern medical knowledge that led to control over the body. Modern empirical medicine began with the beginning of the 19th century, in which the subject/object relationship changed from what it was like in the 17th and 18th centuries, as a result of the change in the physician’s perception of his object: the patient. Diagnosis before the 19th century was reduced to the consideration of the objective signs disregarding the patient and his subjectivity. This reductionist view assumed that the doctor should deal with the disease and ignore the patient’s subjectivity. Therefore, diagnosis in the 17th century depended on the doctor’s theoretical interpretation of objective signs, disregarding the individuality of the patient. In those days, the doctors disregarded nature. Therefore, they did not take the natural course of the disease in every individual into consideration, except when their theoretical judgement failed. In the 19th century, though, observation of the symptoms became of crucial importance. Therefore, the doctors’ observing gaze gave him a distinguished hegemonic status. Accordingly, he could make judgements and claim the right to be absolutely respected and obeyed. No deviation from the natural case escaped his knowledgeable gaze, neither on an organ nor on the individual as a whole. The doctor’s gaze gave him power and hegemony because he was supported by the medical institution that justified his vision. Thus, medicine claimed part of the traditional patriarchal power by virtue of such medical gaze.
Wallerstein described in his book Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy (1980) how MGM and FGM were introduced into modern medical sciences in England in the second half of the 19th century, in the reign of Queen Victoria, then, it spread to other medical institutions in the colonies and other English-speaking countries. In his article From Ritual to Science: The Medical Transformation of Circumcision in America (http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/), David Gollaher (1994) described how MGM spread in the United States after a decade from its introduction to the country, and the development of the arguments that supported MGM. He also said that the procedure spread so broadly in the States to the extent that surgeons and parents did not consider it as a surgery. Circumcision did not begin to be known in the States except in 1870. It was introduced at a time when the modern theories of various diseases had not yet been developed as they are today. The most important of which is the fact that diseases are caused by microbes and cured by antibiotics. Before that, the physicians suggested that a disease results from nervous reflexes. This theory explained that the stimulation of the sexual organs is reflected on higher levels of the nervous system and that was a cause of various diseases, such as paralysis, epilepsy, and insanity. Based on this theory, amputation of various parts of the body became common to cure mental disorders, examples of such surgical procedures was the removal of the ovaries, clitoris and prepuce. Practical experience though proved that such procedures did not cure diseases nor did it prevent masturbation in children that used to be considered one of the causes of harmful nervous reflexes that may destroy brain centers. Therefore, the value of circumcision changed from a cure to a prevention, and remained to be considered as a beneficial "preventive" surgery. As pathological theories changed from the previous theory that stressed the importance of the nervous reflexes to the significance of bacteriology, the amputation of female genitals ceased but MGM remained to be common. It was only medical doctors who could fight diseases both surgically and medically, that is why "preventive" surgeries spread to include circumcision because they could rid the body of any potential septic focus; such as the adenoid, tonsils, gall bladder of typhoid carriers, and the prepuce that was considered a place for accumulation of dirt. However, the prepuce secretes a material which is called in Latin "smegma," which means "detergent." Gollaher said that most of the opinions on the subject of circumcision were mentioned in a book by Remondino in 1881 on the history of circumcision, in which he mixed folklore, his subjective views and incorrect information. For example, Remondino said that the prepuce is nothing more than a developmental rudiment. It has no function in modern men’s bodies. Moreover, he described the prepuce as an extra structure with extremely malignant effects. According to him, such malignant effects are invisibly done, like the acts of evil spirits and djin of Arabian tales, who can remotely harm their prey. Similarly, the prepuce makes a male prey to diseases and other problems all his life long. It makes him good for nothing; neither for work nor marriage. It turns him into a miserable person by making him vulnerable to continuous scolding and punishment. As a child, it causes him to have nocturnal enuresis and indulge in masturbation that weakens his body, mind and moralities. He may even end up in jail or a lunatic asylum. Thus, a male has to get rid of this evil body part to ensure leading a good life. Some Jewish medical doctors expressed theories on the prevention of cancer and sexually transmitted diseases by circumcision. They explained why Jews were more healthy than other people. One of the Jewish doctors said that "Judaism as a religion served science" (Gollaher 1994: 16). With the end of the 19th century, circumcision in the United States ceased to be a ritual and became considered a medical procedure. Some of the factors that lead to the spread of circumcision was the fact that anesthesia, disinfectants and medical care in hospitals were becoming more common in the United States. Childbirth was no longer a family event that took place at home. Obstetricians were technical practitioners rather than scholars. They learned the techniques through observation of their seniors and repeated them without critical thinking. Thus, they believed in routine surgical procedures. Doctors who were convinced about circumcision increased, which is why the procedure became more widely spread and accepted by people. It was found that the most important factor that increases the prevalence of any surgery anywhere was the increase in the number of the medical professionals in the area who were ready to do it. This can be applied to procedures such as Cesarean section and circumcision. Moreover, people tend to believe that the prevalent medical procedures are the best medical care that money can buy. But Gollaher believed that mere technology without scientific basis could be more harmful than beneficial. As a principle, science serves knowledge, whereas mere technology without solid scientific basis serves control over the human body.
By the early time of introduction of MGM to the USA, male adults did not find a reason to ask for circumcision for themselves. Thus, most of those who had this procedure done to them were children of higher and middle class families with diseases that were thought to be a result of retention of the prepuce according to the 19th century theories as stated above. Gradually, doctors convinced people with the principle of male circumcision especially at an early age when they believed that the child could not feel the pain sharply. They thought that circumcision pain was not more than that of the prick of a needle. They preferred to do circumcision at an early age to prevent diseases that could show up as a result of the presence of the prepuce and before the child grows up acquiring bad habits.
Gollaher mentioned that in spite of the doctors’ continuous attempts to convince people of the surgical safety of circumcision, medical research started to discover hazards of MGM as early as 1909, when an American medical journal published an article about circumcision complications, such as infections, tissue edema, excessive bleeding, hematoma, excision of the head of the penis and mutilation. Thus, the ideas of surgical practitioners contradicted the findings of medical researchers. Practitioners assumed that their empirical experience proves that the prepuce is harmful and that circumcision has curative and preventive significance, while these assumptions could not stand the test of experimental medical research, and hence, proved to be invalid. Medical practitioners disseminated their disdain to the prepuce to the public. Thus, its retention turned to be a sign of ignorance, negligence and poverty. These ideas played a role in increasing the demand for male circumcision.
In her article The Ritual of Circumcision (http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm), Karen Erickson Paige (1978) reviewed the development of rationales that are used by the modern American medical institution to justify MGM. These justifications emerged only after the widespread use of medicalized male circumcision in the USA. According to Paige, Western people used to be astonished when they heard about the types of body mutilations that are practiced by other non-Western people or tribes. On the other hand, they used to consider their own Western rituals that include body mutilation, including male circumcision, as medically justified procedures. Although MGM is practiced in some western industrialized, as well as some non-Western traditional societies, it developed differently in both types of societies. MGM started in the West with the masturbation mania that prevailed in the West in the period of transformation from agricultural to industrial economy between 1700-1914. Masturbation used to be considered a sin since as early as the Biblical era. However, it did not start to be considered as a medical problem before the time of modern industrial transformation. This medical theorization appealed to middle class parents because it provided them with an explanation of what they considered bad children’s behaviors, such as rudeness, rebellion, nervousness and interest in the opposite sex. Thus, establishing masturbation as a danger to be feared and controlled by various means served work, family, and parental institutions. British and American doctors suggested various treatments for this "problem," which included types of food and drinks to suppress sexual drives, different forms of chastity belts to prevent children from touching their genitalia, recommendation of intimidation and punishment of accused children, plaster splints or leather and rubber sheaths to entrap the penis, cauterization of genitalia, and in extreme cases doctors castrated the "sick" masturbators. In terms of these circumstances, circumcision was considered a more merciful alternative to some of these types of "treatment." Doctors promoted that circumcision ensures better health for the boy, improves his work capabilities, ensures more longevity, protects the boy from tantrums and diseases, and consequently saves money and time that would have been spent on medical consultation and therapy. In 1890 some American surgeons established the Orificial Surgery Society. Its main task was promotion of genital surgeries for males and females. Such surgeries gave parents a tool to control their children’s sexuality, and gave doctors a chance to emphasize their authority over children and women’s bodies. After masturbation mania in the West had faded, by 1925 writings that recommended horrible means to prevent masturbation decreased. However, male circumcision persisted with the emergence of a theory in 1932 about its preventive significance against cancer. This theory depended on research that was carried out by a medical doctor who concluded that cancer of genitalia is less prevalent among Jews and Muslims because they perform male circumcision. This theory helped to spread infant male circumcision in order to protect adult men from cancer, i.e. the strong controls the body of the weak whom he believes to be polluted. It was proved that this research had flawed methodology, and hence, its results were invalid. In this research, religion was the only variable that was taken into consideration. Other variables such as socio-economic standards and health habits of the sample’s population were neglected. Even the relative representation of Jews in the community, i.e. their percentage, was not taken into account. Another justification for circumcision was beautification. Paige quoted a doctor who said, "the circumcised penis appears as if it were erected even if it is not so. Thus it is a proof of manhood." However, social biases changed, as did the justifications for circumcision throughout the decades. For example, in the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, masturbation and sex in general were not encouraged; and doctors at that time considered circumcision as a tool to control sexual drives. Yet, on the contrary, in the late 20th century, when sex and masturbation were considered good and normal, doctors said that circumcision was done to increase the sexual sensitivity of both males and females. When a procedure is justified by contradictory reasons, that means that it represents mythic ritualistic thought, which is irrational and non-scientific.
Paige mentioned that some psychoanalysts suggested that circumcision represents the child’s willingness to submit to his father’s authority by giving up a part of his penis, or represents the father’s efforts to convey his supreme authority over the child by the procedure. She studied 23 local communities that practiced circumcision, and found that there were many common factors among them. The most important of which is that they came from pastoral or rural origins, also, that they have interest groups composed of males who were considered kin or brothers. Paige considered that it was the males who have the ultimate authority over females, to which they were related or bound to in marriage. In such cultures, the male was not circumcised for his own good but for the sake of the leaders of the family or the tribe. These leaders used to force the father to circumcise his son without hesitating. He should not object to the principle. The father’s submission to the leaders of the tribe was considered a sign of loyalty to the patriarchal society. The ritual that expressed this loyalty was done by amputating part of the penis and not the ear for example, because it was the penis that was responsible for reproduction. Hence its relevance to the group’s interests, because the departure of a senior male with his sons would weaken the power of the group that in turn would create a political and economic threat to the tribe. Paige interpreted the Genesis story in sociological terms saying that it represents conflicts in the tribe that increased in number and needed more males to defend it. That is why Jews identified circumcision in the Old Testament as a political agreement between God and Abraham, without giving it any medical or health explanation, as is the case with the Jewish doctors and those who were convinced by their opinions today.
One of the reasons of the increasing doctors’ acceptance to infant male circumcision is the belief that infants don’t feel pain, and that is why no anesthesia is given. This belief encouraged more research to be done on pain in the newly born children. One of these studies is a research by David Chamberlain Babies Don’t Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in Medicine (1991). [see also: Babies Remember Pain (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/chamberlain/), David Chamberlain, Pre- and Peri-Natal Psychology, Volume 3, Number 4: Pages 297-310, Summer 1989.] In it, Chamberlain explained the relation between doctors and children saying that the doctors considered that children are not mature enough to feel pain. In the first half of the 20th century, doctors considered the child’s reaction to pain as a mere reflex because they believed that the cerebral cortex was not developed enough at birth to perceive pain. But recent studies proved that on the contrary, children do feel pain and express it by crying and facial expressions. In fact, there are objective signs of pain on circumcised children, such as an increase in heart beat and a faster breathing rate, a lack in blood oxygen and an increase in the amount of cortisol in the blood. After circumcision, the child’s sleeping pattern changes, and he tends to become socially remote. His feeding habits change and even his interaction with his mother is disturbed. Chamberlain said that circumcision takes place as a result of social pressures and that the parents are not aware of its impact on the child. He further gave various explanations to the doctors’ denial of pain in children. One of these explanations is that the doctors who perform this surgery have patriarchal biases, hence, they disregard the child’s feelings. This applies also to female doctors who were trained by male doctors. Moreover, some doctors may still hold the old and outdated belief that pain is good, sacred, and a necessary part of regular human life. This denial of pain may be the result of the fact that these doctors wish to appear as scientists, who are usually characterized by dull and blunt emotions. Chamberlain mentioned historical evidence that reveals that doctors’ denial to the efficiency of infant’s perception of pain is rooted in bias against the weak. When anesthesia began to be used in the United States, doctors did not give it to Negroes, Asians, German, Irish, sailors, soldiers, rural and poor people because they considered them tolerant of pain.
In his book Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy (1980), Wallerstein criticized the research that had taken place in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, which stated that circumcision was a health procedure. He stressed the weaknesses in the research methodology that were of an unacceptable level. He explained the reason why the United States was the only Western industrial country that supported male circumcision for non-religious reasons. This was based on fallacies about the health significance of the procedure. Circumcision in the USA was also reinforced by the fact that the severed prepuces were considered a commodity to be sold on the market to pharmaceutical and cosmetics labs.
The assumed "health benefits" of MGM were nothing more than unfounded hypotheses that were not proved to be true by well-controlled scientific research. Moreover, researchers studied why doctors agreed to do this procedure. One of these studies was by Denniston in his article "Iatrogenic Epidemic" (1994). He said that doctors in the United States agreed to circumcise children with the denial theory in mind. Denial is a relief to the individual who experienced psychological shock. It also relieves guilt feelings of those who inflicted pain on others. Accordingly, doctors who were circumcised themselves wanted to do the same to others to relieve themselves of the harm they themselves experienced when they were children; and as a relief of the sense of guilt when circumcising others, considering it a normal health precaution.
In his book Circumcision the Hidden Trauma (http://www.noharmm.org/bookstoreBirth.htm), (1997) and in his article The Psychological Impact of Circumcision (http://circumcision.org/impact.htm) (1999), Goldman made an extensive study of the psychological aspects of male circumcision. He said that doctors ignore circumcised children’s pain because they are helpless and cannot put up a defense. It was proved by studying anatomy, chemical changes in the nervous cells, physiology and the behavior of infants that they are in fact affected by pain more so than adults. Other researchers, from the American Academy of Pediatrics, agreed with Goldman in the fact that they found a variation in the circumcised child’s reaction to his mother and that his sleep pattern has changed and the child became unduly hyper-reactive to painful stimuli. Some mothers said that the day their child was circumcised was the worst day in their lives, it was as if the child had been slaughtered. Trauma, according to the definition of the American Psychological Association, is described as "an event that goes beyond every day life experience of human beings, for example, physical violation, or torture, or anything that threatens the individual’s safety." Physical violation on one hand, is any abuse to the body, whereas, torture, on the other hand, is an infliction of pain or extreme stress. Both cases are traumatic, even if the attack or injury are not done with the intention of violation or torture. The above definitions are descriptions of the act itself and the human reaction to it irrespective of the intentions of the violator. The younger the infant is, the more he is harmed by trauma. Goldman gave some reasons why men do not reveal their feelings towards their own circumcision. He assumed that they do not talk about it because they accept it as a common belief stating the health benefits of the procedure or perhaps because they do not want to remember the pain the experience involved. So, they repress it as a defense mechanism in order not to feel the pain or humiliation. Another reason could be that MGM takes place at a very early age before the child has developed the spoken language. That is why males do not express their painful circumcision memories in words, but they express it in non-verbal ways such as insensitivity towards others or unexplainable rage. Goldman analyzed the psychology of doctors who circumcised children by saying that they subconsciously project their own painful experience on others because it was, at the time, unexplainable trauma to them. That is how people adapt their beliefs to suit customs and traditions. Thus, men from the medical profession support circumcision, which is common among them, with the excuse that the prepuce is not of any good and that children do not feel it anyway. Doctors who strongly believe in circumcision reject any new information that is not in agreement with their own ideas. The more the gap between their theoretical beliefs and the practical results of their deeds grows, the more they avoid new information. They say that they do the procedure according to the parents’ request. Thus, circumcision is the only surgical procedure that is decided by non-professionals. However, doctors play an active role in the parents’ decision to circumcise their baby by hiding information on the hazards of MGM and the functions of the prepuce from the parents, or even by suggesting that it is recommended. On the other hand, parents think that the procedure is good for the child since doctors agree to do it, so they request it. In both cases, circumcision is done because it is a socially accepted procedure.
Myths of social acceptance are not easy to be terminated; for when people fall under social pressures, they cannot easily be critical to the social group and they tend to conform to it. Especially when common norms are challenged by contradictory ideas, they tend to defend them. When Goldman studied circumcision in Judaism, he found that it was spread among the Jewish communities a thousand years before the Old Testament was written down. Therefore, it can be considered that circumcision was included in the written Bible as a divine law to eliminate the parents’ sense of guilt and to provide them with a good excuse that relieves them from personal responsibility of what had been done to their children. Circumcision was not stated in the Qur’an, although there is a lot of theological debate on its religious validity. And because of the skepticism that surrounds the religious justification for circumcision, both Jews and Muslims support their convictions on social tradition. These convictions are hidden behind a barrier of silence, which is why MGM has continued as a social tradition. Goldman explained the role played by medical "sciences" in the continuity of unnecessary social habits that are moreover, harmful and not healthy and gave circumcision as an example. He said that science is not a neutral institution but is affected by cultural values and serves them. One of the ways by which social systems preserve old values is to renew their credibility by inaccurate scientific research. That is how some intellectuals play a crucial role in concealing facts.
The article by Cold and Taylor (1999) entitled The prepuce (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/) refuted the common medical fallacies about the physiological insignificance of the prepuce. This article explained in details the embryological development of the prepuce, its anatomical structure and its various functions. Both male and female embryos develop prepuces. In infancy and early childhood the prepuce is naturally attached to the head of the penis or clitoris to protect them from irritation by excreta. Natural separation takes place gradually till it is completed when a child is between 4-17 years old. This anatomical fact was discovered in 1949, but many doctors are not aware of it, and they diagnose this natural phenomenon as a case of pathological adhesions that needs to be corrected by circumcision. Cold and Taylor explained that the prepuce is formed of five layers of tissues that are full of blood vessels and sensory nerves that are specialized to feel light touch. It is the most sensitive male organ, similar to the sensitivity of the finger tips, eyelids and lips. Taylor discovered the minute structure of the prepuce and its innervation and described it in an article published the British Journal of Urology in 1996 (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/). In the prepuce there are muscle fibers that are similar to the fibers in the scrotum. The role of these fibers in infants and children is to protect the urinary tract from infection. They act as a one-way valve that facilitates the passage of urine and prevents the entrance of any foreign body. As the male approaches puberty, these muscle fibers decrease in number and give way to an increase of elastic fibers, till both types of fibers reach an equilibrium that allows free mobility of the prepuce in sexual intercourse. The prepuce also has immune cells that are considered a primary defense against microbes. It also secretes a lubricant matter to make sexual intercourse more comfortable. Therefore, by circumcision, the male is deprived of all these advantages that nature granted him.
Some doctors, though, revised their attitude towards circumcision because of the knowledge they acquired on the subject; they criticized themselves and raised it as a problematic issue among their colleagues. In his book, Circumcision Exposed: Rethinking a Medical and Cultural Tradition (http://www.noharmm.org/TVS.htm#exposed) (1998), B. Boyd mentioned that some American pediatricians stopped doing the procedure after reconsidering circumcision and the pain it causes to the child. Boyd discussed the medical and cultural aspects of male circumcision in the United States. From the medical point of view, he discussed the function and structure of the prepuce, and the similarity between male and female
circumcision. Boyd criticized the involvement of modern medical institution in performing and justifying circumcision, especially that scientific research refuted any of the vindication put up by medical professionals to prove that circumcision is beneficial and healthy. Respectively, he refuted
all that was said about the significance of circumcision as a curative or preventive measure against masturbation, sexually transmitted diseases, cancer of the penis and cervix uteri, urinary tract infection, and finally AIDS. Circumcision, therefore, is not a valid scientifically justified procedure which cures diseases. In fact, it is “a surgery in search of a disease.” Moreover, Boyd reviewed other doctors’ efforts to criticize MGM. As for the cultural point of view, Boyd explained that circumcision is practiced by religious groups in the societies that strongly believe in it, even if their ideas do not come from religious texts themselves. He also reviewed some statements of Jews who experienced a conflict between their innate feelings of protecting the child from harm and the requirements of their religious institution. They, accordingly, became critical towards circumcision, and were satisfied by saying prayers as a religious ritual for the newly born. It is the spiritual significance that matters and therefore, it is not necessary to shed blood and deprive him of an important part of his body. Evidently, circumcision is a tool used by patriarchal societies to control the weaker and less powerful masses. All the religious explanations behind circumcision are nothing but excuses for making it a prevailing tradition. Boyd gave the opinion of the Jewish physician and philosopher Moses Maimonides (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/) who lived in the 13th century, as an evidence. He explained
that circumcision is done at a very early age because it is easier to control the infant who is unable to refuse to be circumcised, whereas an adolescent could easily totally disagree. Furthermore, as the child grows older, his parents’ emotions towards him become stronger and therefore, prevent them from letting the procedure be done because they do not want to hurt him. Boyd dealt with the social significance of circumcision. He said that it gives the individual a feeling of helplessness, because when he experiences extreme pain as a vulnerable child who is unable to defend himself, he learns that such violence is inevitable throughout his life in order to survive. This feeling increases as society insists on denying the psychological impact of circumcision on the individual and is indifferent to
it. This is a similar situation to societies with racial, gender, or ethnic discriminations. Boyd stressed the fact that it is only the individual who has the right to decide whether he wants to be circumcised or not. American doctors, lawyers, and other intellectual activists against circumcision, share Boyd’s opinion. Boyd further criticized American feminists who, in spite of the fact that they are against FGM, do not take an active role to stop MGM, with the excuse that it is not a practical endeavor. Boyd said that it is not their right to criticize a tradition that is foreign to them - such as FGM - while they keep silent when it comes to one of their own cultural traditions that implies a violation to the bodies of their children. He considered such attitude a political bargain that feminists use to prove
their loyalty to the dominant social culture, so that they can be allowed a wider space to struggle against a less dominant practice such as FGM among immigrants. This is similar to the strategy that was used by some white leaders of the laborers’ movement who refused to address the issue of racial discrimination.
Lightfoot-Klein discovered that the African justifications of FGM
were the same as the American justifications of MGM.
However, as feminists started to reconsider MGM; they revised their old conviction that FGM is a completely different issue. One of the most renown feminist articles is that of the anthropologist Lightfoot-Klein (1994) Erroneous Belief Systems Underlying Female Genital Mutilation in sub-Saharan Africa and Male Neonatal circumcision in the United States: A Brief Report Updated in which she said that she was not very interested in MGM, although she was not very convinced by its validity, because all her studies were on female issues, that is why she was not active in fighting MGM since this is "a male issue" that women cannot understand. It was also irrelevant to her because of the fact that she is a woman. As she continued her studies of FGM in Africa, she did find a similarity between sexual mutilation in both sexes. Lightfoot-Klein discovered that the African justifications of FGM were the same as the American justifications of MGM (http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html). Such similarities are found in the opinions that say that circumcision does not deprive the child from an important part of its body but it only takes off an unnecessary piece of skin; and that it is a beautifying procedure; it also has health benefits such as the prevention of infection, and other diseases; and since doctors agree to do it, it has to be beneficial. In both sexes, men and women do not find any relation between long term complications and circumcision that they experienced at a very early age. It was claimed that neither females nor males would find a partner if they were not circumcised.
Other thinkers realized that it is important for women to advocate the rights of children from both sexes in order to create a better future. One of these thinkers is DeMause, the founder and president of the International Association of Historical Psychology and who was also the editor of the Journal of Psychological History and published an article on the internet Women and Children at the Cutting Edge of Historical Change (http://www.bconnex.net/%7Ecspcc/crime_prevention/cutting.htm) (DeMause n.d ‘1’) in which he said that historical progress evolves when the older generation reconsiders their childhood traumas and therefore, they decide not to do the same to their own children. In another article The Psychogenic Theory of History (http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/10_psychogenic.html) (DeMause n.d. ‘2’), DeMause said that such improvement in child rearing enables new personalities to appear that can play the role of leadership in social, economic and political evolution to shape a better society.
"Why should we be objective about questions like rape, wife battering, and circumcision?
...it is time to be biased by siding with the weak and to declare that the emperor is naked!"
Human rights activist agreed with this trend as expressed in Nobel’s article "Just say No: Issues of Empowerment." (1991). She denied the idea of "objectivity" in dealing with the rights of the weak who are subject to injustice from the more powerful social actors. She wondered, why should we be objective about questions like rape, wife battering, and circumcision? She said that it is time to be biased by siding with the weak and to declare that the emperor is naked!
In the United States, some intellectuals pioneered the movement against MGM. Their efforts resulted in a decrease in MGM prevalence from 90% in the 1980s to 60% in beginning of the 1990s. In a pamphlet published by an active American organization, the National Organization to Halt Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM (http://www.noharmm.org/)), there is a description of the efforts of intellectuals against the mutilation of the human body that is done everyday to males. The pamphlet (http://www.noharmm.org/mensay.htm) includes testimonies of men who have been circumcised and have suffered from this traumatic experience. (NOHARMM, 1994).
No research has been done on male circumcision in Egypt, which is why there is no extensive bibliography on the subject written by Egyptian thinkers. Moreover, the available written materials do not include any academic research. The earliest written material I found is a translation by Essam Eddin Hefny Nassif of Joseph Lewis’ book Circumcision: A Harmful Jewish Fallacy (1971) with an introduction by the translator. The book dealt with the historical background of circumcision especially in ancient cultures. Nassif commented on the influence of some Jewish ideas "Isra’illiyyat" that were transferred to Islamic thought by some Jews who converted to Islam. Isra’illiyyat gave a false impression that circumcision is one of the requirements of Islam. However, it is a harmful fallacy spread by the rabbis. It is also a ritual with political significance as a symbol that encouraged the Israeli to occupy Palestine.
The writer Mohamed Afifi reviewed Nassif’s book in an article Bewildered Guide to Circumcision (1997). Afifi considered that circumcision is a representation of the rabbis’ sadism, it is a new Jewish personification of ancient bloodthirsty gods that were alive in the primitive man’s imagination. Afifi ridiculed the medical myths that hold that circumcision is done as a preventive surgery; describing them as a ridiculous argument. He said, "Why should we assume the existence of such a disgusting man who has rejected personal hygiene and has left his body secretions to accumulate day after day till he gets cancer?! If this pig has to be really there, don’t you agree that he should deserve to get cancer?!". Afifi said that people who die from circumcision are much more than those who die from cancer of the penis. He exclaimed why a female does not have her breasts amputated when she is eight days old to prevent her from getting cancer of the breast that is common in women. Afifi, then explained Nassif’s point of view that refuted circumcision in Islam, stressing sheikh Shaltut’s views that says:
The way I see it is that the opinion of Shari’a (Islamic law) on circumcision is not subject to a written text, but is subject to the common view that considers it wrong to inflict pain on anyone except when necessary according to their best interests, which should overweigh the inflicted pain. After reviewing all opinions on circumcision, we have reached the conclusion that it does not have any religious significance according to Sunna, let alone its existance in Fiqh. This conclusion was reached by some early theologians. One of them expressed it as follows: "There is no valid reference – neither through stories nor Sunna (Prophetic tradition) - to circumcision" (Afifi 1971).
Afifi concluded that insisting on circumcision in the age of space is irrational.
Gamal el Banna is an Egyptian intellectual who wrote his opinion on this subject in an article entitled A Point of View About Male and Female Circumcision (1999). He denied that circumcision is a mandatory Sunna. According to him, mandatory Sunna is what the Prophet was told to do by Allah, or what he said as an explanation to what has been stated in the Qur’an. Neither case applies to circumcision. Moreover, El Banna considered circumcision a contradiction to the concept of the perfection of creation that was stated in the Qur’an. Circumcision does not add anything to the human body but on the contrary it is a sort of amputation. Therefore, we should not impose it on children, and deprive them of what Allah gave them, for it is the child’s right to keep his whole body intact.
Dr. Nawal El Sa’adawi wrote various articles in the Egyptian press on male and female circumcision. The first article was published in October magazine in 1995 in which she told of her experience as a medical doctor at the beginning of her career, when she refused to do this procedure to either sexes, and that was in 1954 when she was newly graduated from medical school. She was convinced that a scalpel should not be used to cut off a healthy part of the body. She mentioned some operations made by doctors as "preventive surgeries" that were later considered by research to be harmful, such as routine appendectomy, tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy, especially if these operations were not necessary. She reviewed some modern studies that proved that circumcision is contraindicated and harmful. She also mentioned the conferences held in Europe and the United States that dealt with this subject. In her opinion, circumcision is a remnant of slavery and idolatry rituals of blood sacrifice. Moreover, she explained the beneficial function of the prepuce and the disadvantages of the procedure in both sexes.
...the health justifications of circumcision
are nothing but excuses to hide its oppressive nature.
Dr. Sa’adawi published another article in Rosal Youssef magazine in 1998 showing the relation of male circumcision to the patriarchal society. She interpreted the story of Abraham’s circumcision that was revealed in the Old Testament, saying that Sarah ordered his circumcision as revenge for his delay in sending Hager and her son Ishmael away. As for the Jewish motto that says "Land in exchange for circumcision" she said that its interpretation needs more study of the ancient slave societies and the history of conflicts on power and land throughout humanity. Dr. Sa’adawi wrote that the health justifications of circumcision are nothing but excuses to hide its oppressive nature. Dr. Sa‘adawi had access to many updated resources on MGM when she taught in Duke University in the United States between 1993-1995. Moreover, she reviewed two theological opinions on circumcision: one by Sheikh Muhammed Abdu and the other by Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut. Both say that there is no relation between circumcision and Islam. Then she expressed the importance of the same procedure in Judaism as a purification of the infant from the birth pollution by the blood shed in circumcision. This ritual was replaced in Christianity with baptism, which was done with water. She said that El Raazi, who was a Muslim Arab doctor who lived in the 10th century A.D., objected to any interference with the healthy human body, including circumcision. She mentioned that El Raazi’s books were forbidden from circulation in Egypt. If these books were available, people would have known that the call against circumcision was not from a Western origin, but it was an old indigenous call that dates back to the earliest debate between rationality and irrationality.
Dr. El Sa’adawi also published an article in Rosal Youssef in 1999, a response to a young mother who had told her that she had tried to defend her baby son’s bodily integrity but did not know how to discuss it with the doctor and family who insisted on circumcising the child saying that it was a beneficial procedure. The mother asked Dr. Sa’adawi to publish some information on the matter. Dr. Sa’adawi reported that after having published her article on the historical and cultural aspects of circumcision, the magazine refused to allow her to publish any medical information on it. However, Dr. Sa’adawi gave brief information on the sensitivity of the prepuce, its immunological function and the harm of removing it. Then, she explained the psychological problems and the traumatic experience that the child is exposed to, and the pain involved, even if it is done under anesthesia, because local anesthesia does not penetrate the five layers of skin, and she also said that general anesthesia is dangerous. Moreover, she explained that circumcision is one of the causes of male sexual frustration and male violence against women, especially their wives.
III) The theoretical framework
A) The first theoretical concept: Gender
My analytical framework is based on feminist gender theory, where gender is sociologically defined as social intervention to shape male and female identities to match the dominant cultural image of masculinity and femininity. This intervention starts in childhood to socialize boys and girls into the presumed patriarchal gender roles. Feminism is rooted in enlightened concepts of emancipation and justice, and tries to interpret the established social organization in terms of these concepts with the objective of bringing about a social change towards a more fair society for the weak and the vulnerable social groups (Lenon and Whitford 1994). The feminist point of view sees that such social change should serve women in the first place, taking their ethnic and class specificity into consideration. However, all social groups that are marginalized and denied their full rights under patriarchy are meant to benefit from social change. Such groups include children of both sexes (Sacks 1980).
a) Patriarchal gender politics and biases
In patriarchal societies, women and children from both sexes have lower social status because of their economic dependence. Women depend on their husbands and children on their fathers for protection and provision of everyday living needs in return for their submission to his authority (Lerner, 1986). The impact of this dependence increases during transitional stages from the traditional social system that is based on subsistence economy – where women do some home activities that have a socio-economic value – to the market economy that does not evaluate these home services socially (Meillassoux, 1972). In such conditions, women are unable to make independent decisions, and whoever tries to do otherwise is unacceptable and considered as a transgressor of her appropriate social limits.
Moreover, in patriarchal societies women cannot participate equally in the relations of ruling since it is men who set laws and customs. Thus, women are inferior and live in a lower social status in these patriarchal societies. Moreover, the female’s most important product in terms of patriarchal gender division of labor are children. However, children are not attributed to mothers and therefore do not belong to her but to their father and his kin after a period of maternal care (Moghadam 1993: 105). Women are responsible for the continuity of such gender politics by their silence (Smith, 1987: 34).
b) Shaping images of masculinity and femininity
Sherry Ortner attributed women’s social inferiority to the patriarchal conceptualization of masculinity and femininity; the female is always linked to nature and the male to culture. Women find their self-satisfaction and creativity in reproduction, whereas, men depend on technology and culture to achieve their creative abilities. Thus, a man is conceptualized as a powerful being, superior, intellectual, pure, dominant; and a woman is conceptualized, on the contrary, as associated to nature, inferior, weak, polluted, submissive, and home bound (Moore, 1988: 12-24).
In traditional societies, reproduction is the female’s essential social role, although the produced children do not belong to her but to their fathers and their paternal lineage as mentioned above; and this role affects young women’s social status. One of the indicators of social status is the individual’s ability to control the products of his/her labor (Moore, 1993: 31-32). Patriarchal gender politics and division of labor deny this right to women.
c) The link between children from both sexes and females
According to patriarchal traditions, a woman’s highest aspiration is to become a mother and especially to reproduce sons. It is her ability to become a mother that defines her social status. (Inhorn, 1996). It is known that women care for their sons more than their daughters because they believe that male children are more sensitive and more vulnerable. Therefore, their main endeavor is to protect them from being hurt or suffering. (Abd el Salam, 1998) According to Smith’s theory that deals with every day life issues as problematic in terms of the dominant relations of ruling, women’s private interests are considered political, exactly like all private matters with underlying social power politics (Smith, 1987). Accordingly, one can reveal the underlying power politics behind the violation of women’s interest in protection of their children by questioning the issues that violate this private emotion, the most important of which is circumcision. According to Smith, dealing with every day life as problematic means that the researcher has to find the link between the problem of her research and the relations of ruling that are represented by the relevant dominant social institutions, knowledge and ideologies. In this context, there is no issue that can be considered trivial or irrelevant as is always claimed by social power holders. This research is important because it reveals the hidden aspects of a practice that appears to be innocent and natural, although this is not the case. I suggest that hidden aspects of social phenomena are even more significant than clearly evident aspects.
d) Sex as a means of social control
Several studies have dealt with the relation between the traditional practices that are performed over the human body and politics of social control. The human body is a good medium for social control of the individuals by shaping their bodies to fit the socially acceptable image. This is evident, for example, in the social discourse about the female body figure and weight, if she does not meet these expectations, she is considered socially in need of therapy (Bordo, 1993). Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1987) described three levels in dealing with the human body that start from the concrete to the abstract. The first and the most concrete level is the individual body. On this level, the body is treated as a human body that feels pain and pleasure. This is the level on which the individual is able to experience and respond to subjective concrete sensations. The second level is the social body, on which the body is treated as an abstract object without any individual attributes. On this level, society can inscribe its symbols on the body. The third level is the body politics, on which society interferes to define and control the limits of what an individual can do with his/her body and what is forbidden.
Although sex is associated with the body at the individual level as it is socially defined, sexuality is not an expression of physical drives only but it is a very complex construct of cultural symbols and social conceptualizations of the individuals’ bodies, including the social conceptualizations of femininity and masculinity and their relation to how men and women should appear and act in the specific social and cultural context. Therefore, sexuality, as a social concept, is a mediator between the physical and social aspects of the gendered body (Abd el Salam, 1998). Sex is a physical function which is used by power holders in modern patriarchal society as a means of control over the weaker especially women and children. Therefore, in the age of capitalist transformation, dominant power politics defined the acceptable sexual behavior and what should be written or said or not said about sex. All this was used as a tool for capitalism. And since production is the most important capitalist objective, expression of sexuality was restricted to what helps the achievement of that goal. An acceptable sexual relationship was only that which is between a married couple for the sake of reproduction of labor force. Any other forms of expression of sexuality was socially unacceptable. Both religious and medical institutions did not hesitate to interfere to impose control over sexuality since it was considered a chaotic situation if left without rules to regulate it socially. (Foucault, 1984) When added together, the social alienation that is one of the characteristics of capitalist relations of production and the patriarchal biases against women and children, it is not strange that the society practices its control over bodies of individuals in every possible way so as not to allow any diversion from the main capitalist objective, which is production of commodities in factories and children in families (Trask, 1986).
To end the social bias against women and children, we cannot disregard or marginalize gender issues on the assumption that they are trivial and that the first priority should be given to issues of economic growth in the developing societies. This rationale is over-simplification that disregards the patriarchal social power politics. Therefore, development cannot be complete without taking gender issues into consideration. (Hatem, 1986). This analysis applies to children from both sexes as well as women. Therefore, it is not good for women to keep silent when it comes to issues that harm their children with the excuse that it is not one of the priorities in improving women’s social situation. The powerful do not dominate and control the weak as a result of a conspiracy, but it is the weak who give them the chance to keep their thumb over them by remaining silent. Actually, what makes the weak keep their mouths shut is their sense of isolation, weakness, and their feelings of inferiority, insecurity and lack of self confidence. (Janeway, 1980). According to Foucault’s analysis, exposure of social traditions with relation to sexuality to discussion enhances social change for the benefit of the weak (Foucault 1984: 6-8).
e) Men’s emancipation movement
In patriarchal society, men also have their share of gender discrimination and oppression. Some pro-gender equality men started a male emancipation movement in the West in the first half of the 1970s. The leaders of this movement compared between the advantages they achieved from institutions in the patriarchal society that gave them authority and their suffering from the burdens of the imposed identity and body shaping to meet the requirements of traditional masculine image and role. According to this image, men should not be sensitive but should be rough, violent and strong; and are allowed to create hell for women. Emancipation-oriented men revolted against the idea of preset gender roles, according to which they were expected to be tough and were deprived of having the chance to express their tender feelings freely. They considered that such rigid allocation of gender roles is disadvantageous to men and a factor that increased women’s subjugation. They, therefore, advocated that gender is exactly as class and ethnic identities, none of them should define social roles. That is, gender identity ought to be accepted as it is but social roles should not be strictly pre-defined. Thus, women should be able to reach leadership positions and men should have the chance to act as nurturers and care givers and vice versa. Members of this movement considered the division of roles according to gender as controversial and that this issue will not be solved except by bringing traditional gender roles to an end. Although society gives men the authority that is the upper hand, some men do not feel that they are actually powerful. In such patriarchal societies, the main criteria that asserts manhood is his success in his sexual life with women. Accordingly, he is responsible to take the initiative, and is expected to proceed with all the steps to achieve this goal. And yet, he is not supposed to express his emotions because of the traditional social image of masculinity. This contradictory situation makes it difficult for a man to interact efficiently as a partner. Therefore, he has to act roughly and have a mechanical sexual relationship with his female partner. This situation deprives him of an important part of his human rights. Thus, people who follow the patriarchal social norms suffer from oppression, whether they are males or females. Male emotional oppression is reflected on the female because he uses her to prove his virility to other men. By so doing, the female is turned into a sexual object; and the male turns into an object of success in terms of the patriarchal social norms. Therefore, the two genders turn into objects instead of interacting human subjects. Social theorists consider the transformation of the relationship between men and women from the role to the identity theory as an indicator of moving from the structuralist/functionalist theoretical paradigm as it was described by Talcot Parsons in the 1950s to the feminist theoretical paradigm.
Emancipatory men imagined that their collaboration with the feminist movement will lead to bringing about the expected change in gender relationships. But with the beginning of the 1980s, the male emancipation movement was divided to two groups. One group, the conservatives, thought that feminists concentrated on winning gains for their gender, so, they diverted from the movement and set up their motto which was "Men’s rights," since they considered themselves a victim of oppression and gender discrimination. Instead of allying with feminists as they did when the movements started, they turned against them; because they considered that the feminist movement allowed women to keep their traditional role in society that allowed expression of their natural human feelings, in addition to giving them access to competition with men and sharing the authority that they used to enjoy by virtue of their traditional masculine social role.
As for the progressive leftist wing of the men's emancipation movement, they remained allied with the women’s emancipation movement that aimed at lifting the burdens of the shoulders of both genders. They considered the patriarchal society as going through a critical period and that the only way to overcome it is to ally with women to bring about social change by turning established social institutions – such as the family – into institutions characterized by cooperation, peace and equality between the two sexes. Leftist members of the men’s movement see that patriarchal society shapes men’s bodies to imprint them with symbols of physical strength and violence. Social customs that aim at defining masculinity – such as sports for example – leave its imprints on the male’s body to define their traditional gender identity in opposition to the soft female body. Gender identity is not just a symbolic system of significant signs. It has also concrete material implications, like gender division of labor that allocates private tasks and space mainly to women and public ones mainly to men. Thus, traditional gender identity affects gender social roles. Men are given authority and power, while women are assigned to reproduction and child care. To trespass this crisis and establish social justice, emancipatory men and women think that they should collaborate to improve gender politics (Messner 1998; Martin 1998, Lorber 1998).
B) The second theoretical concept: the intellectual
My theoretical definition of the intellectual and his/her role in social change depends on literature by Antonio Gramsci (Gramsci 1971; Hoare 1971) and Edward Said (1996). Gramsci dealt with the concept of the intellectual in his analysis of the social and class hierarchy and relations, which is a major level of social organization. Although my research deals with gender, which is a minor level of social organization, Gramsci’s analysis is still valid to my research. Edward Said, on the other hand, dealt with the intellectual on a more general level of social organization; by so doing his views can be easily applied on the contemporary intellectuals who are interested in gender issues and can explain their attitudes and opinions and their effect on their proclaimed final objectives.
a) Who is the intellectual?
In Gramsci’s opinion, the intellectual is she/he who has a philosophical conceptualization of the world that can be applied to everyday life. Philosophy in this sense is not specified to the professional intellectuals only but is available to everybody. There is not only one single way of interpretation of life, but every individual forms his/her own concept based on common sense and inherited cultural background - including social beliefs, customs, myths, social views and behavior. After this general level of philosophy that is available to all human beings, there comes the level of critical world view, which is the level of the individual’s acquired awareness of his/her world in terms of critical revision of the established traditional collective wisdom of their communities (Gramsci, 1971). According to Gramsci, intellectuals can not be separated from their class consciousness. Therefore, there are two types of intellectuals: the professional intellectual and the organic intellectual. The professional intellectual, on one hand, is someone who considers himself a leader of other non-intellectuals. On the other hand, the organic intellectual is someone who can not be separated from the masses of people. One of the main differences between the two types of intellectuals is that the organic intellectual does not only have the ability to theorize for and talk about life, but can also offer active participation in humans’ everyday life, and can perceive history in its relation to humanity. Unlike the professional intellectuals who limit their action to their own specialization, organic intellectuals employ their specializations to propel history in a direction that serves to improve the human condition. According to this concept, the intellectuals represent their community and class members in positions of social and political sovereignty (Hoare, 1971).
Edward Said reviewed other thinkers’ definitions of the intellectual. Some considered the intellectual as an individual separated from the group and remote from common people. As for example, Julian Benda who sees the intellectual as a servant of the government, or as someone who is remote from reality living in an ivory tower. Others gave a class definition of the intellectual such as the American sociologist Alvin Goldner who said that intellectuals are elite people who formed a new class that took over that of landlords. People from this class enjoy what Goldner called the culture of critical discourse; and they use a highly specialized language to interact with other intellectuals. Other thinkers, though, did not consider intellectuals as a separate social class but as representatives of their classes. According to Gramshi’s theory of the organic intellectual who is committed to the public issues, Said defined people of our time who spread knowledge to the public as intellectuals. Michel Foucault described the common intellectual as a person who has a specific job, but has the ability to employ her/his experience in other areas beyond his specialization. Edward Said thought that without intellectuals, no modern or anti-modern movements could have been existed, because it is intellectuals who initiate social movements. According to Said, the intellectual who would have the ability to create social change, is he/she who acts in public life as a marginalized "amateur" who is worried about the stagnant status quo. Of course, all societies have intellectuals who are unlike those defined by Edward Said. Some of them serve the government, and others bear attractive slogans but back up reactionary politics in contradiction with their theories. Said called this group "professional intellectuals." Said defined professionalism as trading one’s intellectual expertise for wealth or status. Accordingly, such intellectuals are careful not to go beyond the limits that are accepted by institutions that hire their services. Thus, they could be known as objective and non- controversial persons, hence they become more valuable in the labor market. In Said’s opinion, professionalism is the main threat to the intellectual’s integrity (Said, 1996).
From Gramshi’s and Said’s analyses, one can deduce that there are two types of intellectuals: One is called the professional intellectual who serves the powerful at all socio-political levels. The other type is the intellectual who is in alliance with the marginalized and weak groups. Gramshi called this type the organic intellectual, whereas, Said called him the amateur intellectual. I prefer to call this type "the free thinkers." One cannot deny the co-existence of the two types of intellectuals in all societies, but Gramshi and Said valued intellectuals who side with the weak social groups, for they are the type of intellectuals that can enhance fair social development.
b) The social function of the intellectual
Gramshi elaborated on the concept of the organic intellectual. In his opinion, this type of intellectual is not remote from other social classes. All through history, each class provided its own intellectuals who represented their class and upgraded the social and political consciousness of its members. They had also to face intellectuals of old and conservative classes who try to resist social change; and who are mainly composed of clergy and medical doctors (Hoare, 1971).
According to Edward Said, the function of the intellectual is to eliminate stereotypes that restrict people’s thought and limit their ability to communicate with others. He defined them as personalities who cannot be stereotyped into a dogmatic ideology or political party slogans. They focus on human sufferings, irrespective of the sufferers national or party affiliations. The "knowlegeable professionals" who form the public opinion in a way that pushes people to conform to the established norms create a problem for the "amateur" intellectual. The amateur intellectual, therefore, has an important function. He/she has to attempt to convey facts to the ruling powers. Intellectual are those who have the ability to represent people, and carry new ideas, opinions, and attitudes to and from them. He/she also has the ability to face rigid ideologies and refrain from their replication, because his/her function is to enhance social change and the acceptance of new norms. Said said that the intellectual should represent humanity and speak for weak groups whose issues are usually neglected, because he/she believes that all people have the same rights in the quality of life, and should be treated equally by the powerful decision makers of the society. He should have the courage to face those who violate the weak members’ rights and struggle for justice. By this definition, the intellectual is a public figure; yet, he is independent of powerful and ruling institutions. And since he represents the public, he must accept his social obligation and be ready to face the risk that is imposed on him by his duty. Also, it is his duty to have the ability to associate the problems of his own community with those of similar communities from all over the world.
One of the most important problems that the intellectual faces is the counter views that aim at preventing any social change or challenge to the status quo. Such views numb people’s minds making them unable to think clearly; therefore, they are unable to accept change or new norms. It is always easier to adopt the established ideas and repeat the same social pattern that has been followed over the years. The intellectual who chooses to side with the weak has to reveal to the community how these outdated ideas emerged and developed till they became accepted as established facts beyond doubt. He/she must explain that these "facts" are man-made and not natural givens. Moreover, what a powerful group considers an acceptable "fact" is not necessarily so for their weak counterparts (Said, 1996).
c) The intellectual between conformity and deviance from the dominant norms
According to Gramschi, all people conform to the dominant culture in one way or another, however critically minded they are. The dominant culture of any community at any specific time is composed of various elements that accumulated throughout history. Thus, conformity alone is not a criterion of negative submission to or critical election from the dominant culture. The appropriate criterion is which historical period one conforms to. Some intellectuals inspire contemporary thought to suggest creative solutions to the problems of everyday life. Other intellectuals inspire past and outdated thought and suggest solutions that are inappropriate for actual contemporary reality. A third group of intellectuals may manage their actual everyday life in contemporary practical terms, while they have different theoretical thoughts inspired by traditional cultural beliefs. Gramsci concluded that the first type of intellectuals are capable of positive deviance from the dominant norms, the second type are conformists, and the third type has to reconcile their theoretical conceptualizations with practical facts of life (Gramsci 1971).
Edward Said explained that it is important for the intellectual who aims to bring about a social change for sake of the weak groups to work as an amateur. This is the only way that may empower an intellectual to face the pressures that are exerted on the modern professional intellectuals. The first type of pressure is the professionals’ imprisonment within the limits of their narrow specialization, and belief in their theories as dogmas. The second pressure is exerted upon those who are reputable experts in their profession, taking into consideration that an officially acknowledged "expert" is not necessarily the most knowledgeable member of his profession. Sometimes, ruling institutions give such acknowledgement to an intellectual because he/she conforms to its ideology. Such intellectuals are obliged to limit themselves to the choices of the institutions that hire their expertise. The third type of pressure is the professionals’ and experts’ desire to join the power holders. Thus, they become very keen to please the powerful rulers. Edward Said criticized some intellectuals’ tendency to refrain from siding with the difficult issues, even if they are just issues in principle. He concluded that this tendency is dangerous and even fatal to the intellectual life, because it cools down its inherent hot and enthusiastic spirit.
IV) Research methodology
This social field research depended on semi-structured one-to-one interviews with 23 men and women that were chosen from the intellectuals who declare that they are human rights proponents and FGM opponents. Twelve respondents are women and eleven are men. Twelve respondents are medical professionals, three of them are gynecologists. Among respondents with non-medical professions are two anthropologists. All the others came from various specializations from areas of humanities, law, development and arts. (for further details, see appendix 1)
I would have liked to organize several semi-structured group discussions with senior and junior activists from both sexes who have experience in reproductive health and activities against FGM. I would have liked to discuss the attitudes, experiences, and beliefs of the respondents on the subject of MGM. However, I could not organize such group meetings. I had to find someone to introduce me to people who could open the gate for me to the group discussions. I brought up the subject of MGM with a young doctor who worked with me as an assistant in the information center on FGM and violence against women, in which I worked as a consultant. This doctor is a member of a non-governmental organization made up of a group of young people who work in development. He promised to introduce me to the chairman of the organization, but the chairman utterly refused to discuss male circumcision in his organization. So, it was impossible to interview this group. As for senior activists who have experience in the field, they come from various organizations, so, I tried to bring them together in a meeting place. Since I am a member of the Association of Health and Environment Development (AHED), I talked with AHED’s chairman and secretary about this subject, who accepted to give me the chance to make the fieldwork meetings there. Although I had solved the problem of a place to work in, I had another problem which was how to bring these people together for two whole hours; even if that meant dividing them into two groups, because their schedules were full and varied.
Therefore, I had to give up the idea of group discussions. I chose instead to make individual in-depth interviews with as many respondents as I could within the time limit of this research. I already knew many individuals who can be approached as respondents because I had done a lot of field activities as a member of the FGM task force since 1994. I was also responsible for the information center that dealt with violence against women and FGM from 1996 to 1999. Therefore, I decided to choose research respondents from both sexes from anti-FGM activists who live in Cairo for several reasons. First, all the FGM advisory group members and many of the activists against FGM live in Cairo. Second, the time limit of the research would not allow me to go to other governorates in Egypt to collect data.
I planned that most of the respondents should be activists. Moreover, I gave priority to those who were more active in fieldwork whether in planning, awareness raising, or advocacy. I decided to allocate three months to collect field data through semi-structured individual interviews with respondents. There was some difficulties in making appointments because this fieldwork was done in Ramadan, which is a holy month for Muslims and it coincided with the Christian celebration of Christmas, and also the New Year vacation. It was difficult for the respondents to give me appointments because of their family commitments during this period. Some of the candidates refused to meet me either because they found the subject matter embarrassing, or because they did not consider it important and therefore, refused to contribute to such a research that studies a "trivial" subject as male circumcision.
Between December 1998 and the early March 1999, I met 25 respondents. At the beginning of each interview, I asked each respondent to choose a pseudonym. Some welcomed this suggestion, whereas others resisted the idea of not mentioning their true names, being public figures who had nothing to fear. Moreover, 5 of them insisted on having their true names mentioned in the research. A few days later, Dr. Nawal el Sa’adawi published a press article against MGM (Sa’adawi 1998), and was attacked by some of the public readers. One of the respondents, then, contacted me asking to conceal his real name because if not, he may face unnecessary trouble. So, I contacted 2 of the 4 remaining respondents who insisted on leaving their names unchanged. But I decided to use a homogeneous method and give all respondents pseudonyms, because declaration of respondents’ real names may create bias against or with their statements, since they are all public figures with fans and foes. On the other hand, use of pseudonyms may help the readers to focus on the significance of the respondents’ statements without being affected by any previous assumptions about them.
All respondents in this research were acquaintances, with whom I had good relationships. Some were friends even. This previous acquaintance facilitated this research, saving a lot of effort and time because it made respondents feel at ease with me during the interviews. It also made the research easier for me, especially that the subject matter can be quite embarrassing. Being familiar with the respondents made them respond without hesitation to my questions. Without this trust, my fieldwork could have been quite difficult. The respondents did not doubt my identity or my intentions. As to how I felt, I was quite free in my conversations with them. Although I am usually a shy person who cannot initiate an extended individual conversation with strangers, and usually I do not feel comfortable speaking to people I do not know. As I said, the male respondents were all from previous acquaintances and I was sure that they enjoy a high intellectual and moral standards, so, I did not feel embarrassed nor expected anyone of them to misunderstand me when I discuss sexuality with them. I tape recorded the interviews on pocket size highly sensitive tape recorder. But I always asked the respondents’ consent before recording. Two male respondents expressed their worry lest they might be identified by their voices. So, I assured them that no one would listen to them except me. Fulfilling my promise, it took me a long time to write down the data by myself without assistance, so, it took all of March and half of April 1999 to finish this task. Each interview took between 45 minutes and 2 hours. But I found technical problems in 2 tapes that I had recorded with one male and one female doctor respondents who called themselves Dr. Adham and Dr. Warda, so, I decided to neglect them because I could not hear the recorded material well.
My previous acquaintance with the respondents was not always an advantage, since at times it had a negative effect on gathering data about memories of personal experience of male respondents of their own circumcision. Although I encouraged all respondents to explain in details their experience with male circumcision, I did not force the males to talk more than they could about their personal experience with circumcision. I was clearly aware that I study a very personal and sensitive subject. Moreover, being a friend caused some embarrassment that I respected and that was a limitation. If I had had more time to interview each respondent more than once, or if I had not been so close to some respondents, or if the person who carried out the interviews with male respondents was a man, much more data could have been collected.
I was careful as much as possible to make the respondents feel that it was them who have the upper hand in the researcher/respondent relationship to encourage them to give me as much information as possible of their personal experience. I allowed them to choose the place and time of the interview on purpose. These meetings were held either at their homes, or in their offices. One of them chose to meet me at the club, and another chose to meet me at a restaurant on the Nile. I agreed to all their suggestions. Although I usually do not like outdoors meetings, respondents' generosity and encouragement made me overcome this problem. I did not offer respondents any material reward in exchange of the interviews. Perhaps I took some flowers for some of them or sweets for their children, but this is a normal behavior, given my close relationship to them. Moreover, I was treated as a guest in their places. This unintentionally gave them a symbolic superior position, which was an asset to the research as it ensured more confidence and comfort for the respondents.
I used to start the interview with a conversation on their beliefs, information, experiences and attitudes towards male circumcision. Then I would suggest that they look at illustrations that show the structure and function of the prepuce. All of the respondents agreed to look at them except for Horeya who refused. I asked them to tell me their opinions of the information I gave them and tell me about their impressions of circumcising their children in the future, and asked about their future public attitudes towards male circumcision in comparison to female circumcision. (see Annex 2 for the details of the steering questions).
After I finished the research, I kept in touch with the respondents especially that some of them were colleagues and friends. Some of them helped me to arrange public meetings to raise the issue of MGM. A few of the female respondents told me that they changed their minds and that they would never circumcise their future children. Every one expressed their interest to see the final draft of this research. Even some were afraid that the research would turn people against me, and this proves that the interviews did not change the respondents friendly feelings towards me.
V) Writing the research
After collecting the data, I started to categorize and analyze them. The research is divided into 5 chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography, and 3 annexes. The first chapter deals with the research hypothesis, its objectives, research questions, and its importance. I included also literature review that highlights the socio-political background of circumcision in antiquity and in modern times, and how circumcision was introduced to the medical institution in the mid-19th century. After that, I explained the two underlying concepts of the research’s theoretical framework which are: 1) the concept of gender, and 2) the concept of the intellectual. Finally, I gave a summary of the research methodology and the fieldwork.
The three chapters after that were dedicated to description of the collected field data. Chapter 2 deals with the respondents’ knowledge of and beliefs about male and female circumcision. Chapter 3 deals with the respondents’ actual experiences with male and female circumcision. Chapter 4 is a description of the respondents’ attitudes towards MGM. In chapter 5, I analyzed the respondents’ beliefs, experiences, and attitudes that were all described in the previous chapters. The conclusion included a general outlook of the subject and a summary of the 4 chapters.
Three annexes are attached to the research. The first is a description of the respondents, in which I was cautious not to reveal their identities. In the second annex, there is the list of questions that were used to steer the interview sessions. As for the third annex, it includes the illustrations that I used to explain the structure and function of the prepuce to the respondents.

interesting..

[azeth]

Conclusion I) Circumcision: a general overview
Male circumcision has various socio-cultural significances and it had been practiced by different human communities before the appearance of monotheistic religions (Hastings, 1980; Abu Sahlieh, 1999). It is a tradition based on Animist rites. However, many Muslim and Jewish clergy consider circumcision as a rite of their religions as well. At the level of social interpretation, infant male Jewish circumcision could be an alternative for human sacrifice of the first born son; while Arab, African, and Australian adolescent male circumcision could be a rite of passage from childhood to manhood.
...male circumcision is mentioned in neither Qur'an nor Gospels.
Unlike the Bible, male circumcision is mentioned in neither Qur'an nor Gospels. The obligatory requirement of male circumcision by Judaism could be explained by the fact that Judaism represents a closed tribal community with primary social organization that depends on mechanical solidarity. In such social organization similarity is mandatory, and any deviation from similarity is severely punished (Durkheim, 1893). This explains the Biblical threat to cut the soul of any uncircumcised male from his people On the other hand, Christianity and Islam represent more open social organizations, which are nearer to the Durkheiman model of organic solidarity, where differences are more tolerated. Moreover, the Deity in Islam and Christianity takes a more sublime image that does not require human blood sacrifice.
In modern times, some Jewish doctors could introduce male circumcision to the modern medical practice in Victorian England on the assumption that it can prevent masturbation. The practice spread from there to the medical institutions in other English-speaking countries and colonies (Wallerstein, 1980, Hodges 1995). Hence, male circumcision became part of the modern Egyptian medical study and practice. Moreover, modern medical sciences and some medieval medical practices coexist in Egypt. Some barbers are officially licensed to perform male circumcision, bloodletting, leeching, and other minor surgeries, which are known historically as Prophetic medicine (Al Tib Al Nabawy). Peter Gran argues that such practices originated initially in Jewish medicine (Gran 1979). Thus, both old traditional, and modern western beliefs cooperated to establish male circumcision as a surgery that is willingly demanded by people and supplied by surgeons.
This gliding movement is the natural mechanism
of sexual pleasure in human males.
Otherwise, sex is performed by a frictional movement,
which is less satisfactory to both partners.
The exact anatomy, histology, and physiological sexual function of the male prepuce were ignored till the 1990s, when they were studied and described by the Canadian doctor John Taylor (Taylor 1996 (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/)). Unlike the widely prevalent belief among circumcision proponents that the prepuce is just a piece of skin, which is not as significant as the head of the penis, it was proved that it is a highly specialized tissue. It contains sensory receptors of light touch, which are lacking in the head of the penis. It was thought that the only function of the prepuce is its being a protective cover to the head of the penis. But more recent research argue that protection is a mutual function between the prepuce and the head of the penis, where the latter provides shape to the former, and facilitates its gliding movement during coitus (see appendix 3). This gliding movement is the natural mechanism of sexual pleasure in human males. It stimulates the specific sense receptors of the inner layer of the prepuce to generate a pleasurable sensation. Otherwise, sex is performed by a frictional movement, which is less satisfactory to both partners. The situation is made more difficult by the lack of the natural male lubricant, which is normally produced by specific glands in the prepuce (Taylor 1996, Bigelow 1992). There were also some earlier studies on the prepuce (Deibert, 1933; Wright, 1970 (http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright2/)). Such studies proved that the prepuce is an integral part of the normal male genitalia. Nevertheless, Egyptian medical texts do not mention any of its useful functions. Given the above-mentioned information, circumcision is a deliberate amputation of a healthy part of another non-consenting person’s body. It is an amputation that is performed on helpless children according to cultural pressures (Zoske 1998 (http://www.noharmm.org/zoske.htm)). According to Denniston (1997), mutilation is any injury that results in removal or alteration of the appearance or function of a body part. Thus, male circumcision, which has similar cultural, social, and biological bases as female circumcision, could be considered genital mutilation.
II) Circumcision: for whose interest?
...they circumcised them because they were afraid to obey reason
and challenge a conservative tradition.
Respondents who are parents of male children did not think that they gain any personal benefit by circumcising their sons. They suffered because of their children’s sufferings. However, they circumcised them because they were afraid to obey reason and challenge a conservative tradition. Acting like this, these intellectual respondents who used to lecture against FGM on "rational basis" behaved exactly like grassroots people who circumcise their daughters. Analysis of the respondents’ experience with their own and sons’ circumcision revealed that it is not in the child’s best interest. They reported memories of bleeding, stress, pain, urinary tract infection, and behavioral changes after male circumcision. Even the only respondent who could trespass the shock of his circumcision because he got a lot of psychological support and social compensation during and after his ritual circumcision ceremony said that other boys who were circumcised along with him were really shocked in spite of the supporting ceremony. Some of his peers resisted, tried to escape, and expressed verbal and non-verbal protest against circumcision.
Male and female circumcision do not serve men, women, or children
as social categories. It rather serves the persistence of
patriarchal gender power balance...
So, male and female circumcision do not serve men, women, or children as social categories. It rather serves the persistence of patriarchal gender power balance that presupposes a peculiar symbolic formation of the body to establish a clear gender differentiation. Accordingly, circumcision removes the delicate, protective, and sensitive (all feminine characteristics) part from the male genitalia; and the strong, hard, active (all masculine characteristics) part from the female genitalia. Because circumcision results into useless unnecessary pain and harm for the individual, it is not a health procedure. It is a practice with symbolic and political nature. Its hygienic justifications are nothing but a tool to put such social body politics into action.
In addition to its role in gender power politics, circumcision establishes hierarchical power relationships at different levels of social organization. It encourages conformity to old traditions for no other reason apart from their antiquity, discourages taking any initiative towards change, and requires repression of any sympathy with individual sufferings if such sympathy challenges a tradition. Thus, continuation of circumcision establishes a model of behavior characterized by absolute submission to the orders of seniors and an inclination to keep the status quo. This model is publicly known as "abd el ma’mour", i.e. the slave of the major. This model conflicts with some key social roles of the intellectuals. Intellectuals have to use updated knowledge for ongoing revision and development of theories and practice in order to develop a better future for their communities. The intellectual respondents whom I interviewed stated that they act against FGM because modern medical and social sciences told them that it hinders women’s development, and consequently social development. This attitude is correct. However, to be consistent, the same approach should be adopted in all social issues. Nevertheless, intellectuals are not a homogeneous entity, neither are they separate from all other social groups.
The same approach is needed to break the silence
around male circumcision.
So, as part of the community, intellectuals are aware of the predominant social biases. I think that they need wide discussion of their own biases before they can really assimilate new knowledge instead of their older beliefs. This process took place in the issue of FGM in Egypt. The barrier of silence was broken by persistent social interaction about the issue. Men and women were encouraged to exchange experiences and points of views on FGM. Researchers contributed in the process by their field studies and situation analyses. The same approach is needed to break the silence around male circumcision. Men need to be encouraged to express their experiences, biases and feelings, with all due respect to whatever they express. The data given by men need to be analyzed, so that they can be provided by different interpretations for their biases. When this happens, it will enhance the adoption of a consistent intellectual and humane attitude towards MGM, exactly as it happened with FGM. Moreover, it will enhance the settlement of a comprehensive vision for gender issues. Social construction of femininity and masculinity is the focus of gender politics. Moving towards more egalitarian gender power politics will improve the social conditions of men and women. This will be impossible with addressing social construction of femininity alone.
III) Medical doctors and male circumcision
Physicians consider the sexual and excretory organs as dirty body parts. Such medical bias plays a role in the continuation of MGM. Society considers medical doctors as knowledgeable people who give health care. Moreover, getting doctors’ services requires a sort of financial ability. Wealth and education are positive social attributes. Thus, community members who seek medical doctors’ services and obey their instructions (or rather their biases) are considered well-to-do and educated persons. On the other hand, retention of the prepuce is considered as a mark of ignorance, negligence, and poverty; because medical doctors disdain it. Nevertheless, other body parts, like the mouth, are known to be dirty according to objective bacteriological criteria. Even one of my medical professors used to tell us that the mouth is dirtier than the anus. However, no doctor will rush to cut parts of the mouth or extract teeth as a "preventive" measure. In these two examples (the mouth and the male genitalia) medical doctors behave according to their social biases not to their scientific knowledge. Analysis of the body parts that are either excised by doctors for "prevention" of diseases, or are thought by some of them as "useless" (like Dr. Afkar’s beliefs towards the toes) reveal a relationship between the doctors’ and the traditional cultural biases towards the same body parts. For example, a social researcher in North Africa found bias against the uvula (the projecting tissue between the tonsils), and that barbers used to excise it from children’s throats as a traditional ritual surgery (Prual 1994). The modern medical analogue to this practice is "preventive tonsillectomy" that prevailed in medical practice for a long time, till studies proved the relevance of the tonsils as part of the immune system. Dr. Afkar’s thoughts about the toes could be a theoretical analogue to the tradition of foot binding which was practiced in China on girl children. The practice ended when the Chinese people broke the silence around it. There is even a study that found a link between Chinese foot binding and African infibulation (Mackie 1996).
The fact that medical doctors still perform male circumcision indicates the need for more elaborate social studies about the relationship between the traditional cultural biases and the professional medical practices. In the chapter that describes the respondents’ experience with male circumcision, we find many indicators that signify that medical doctors handle circumcision as a traditional ritual wounding rather than as a scientific surgery. Contemporary society assumes that doctors should provide people with healing and preventive services that are based on the most updated medical science. In this respect, taking science as a reference serves the community’s best interests. That is why doctors should not take traditions as their point of reference when they conflict with physical integrity and psychological welfare. Hence, they should stop performing circumcision. When circumcision is tested according to the criteria of modern science, we find that it is a surgery in search of a justification. For the last one and half centuries, medical doctors changed their justification for male and female circumcision from treatment to prevention. Similarly, they always changed its indication to fit the most feared disease of the time. So, they first recommended circumcision to treat and prevent masturbation, then venereal diseases, then cancer, to end with AIDS.
Prevention and treatment of masturbation was the first justification to be invalidated by research. Accordingly, medical doctors stopped performing FGM. Although venereal diseases, cancer, and AIDS were equally invalidated by medical research as justifications for male circumcision, doctors continued to perform MGM, and justify it by the need to conform to the dominant social traditions.
Medical practice in the third millennium should follow
more updated scientific and ethical models.
It is time for the medical profession to trespass the last centuries’ models of handling the human body, which are described by Foucault in his book The Birth of the Clinic (Foucault 1975). Medical practice in the third millennium should follow more updated scientific and ethical models. I think that breaking the barrier of silence around MGM will raise a wide debate among medical doctors about this issue, exactly as it happened with FGM. Such a debate would attract the most enlightened and scientific minded doctors to the new model, which would encourage them to stick to the first principle of the medical ethics "first, do no harm." Surgery should be the last resort in any medical plan for treatment of sick persons, and it should never be performed on healthy persons. Ethically and scientifically speaking, there is nothing called "preventive surgery." Doctors will change their attitude towards MGM when they start to recognize that it is not appropriate to repeat the ideas of a minority of Victorian doctors, who ignored that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis, and interferes with the natural mechanism of sexual satisfaction (see appendix 3). The Victorian doctors’ ideas pre-dated the British occupation of Egypt. Now, with Egypt’s liberation, is it not high time for the minds of Egyptian doctors to be liberated too?
Revision of the medical institution’s attitude should include medical education as well as medical practice; because it is important to disseminate the most updated information to medical students and young doctors, as well as to the public. Moreover, criticism of the traditional cultural biases, bearing in mind the modern information should be encouraged, with the health interests of the children in focus. This criticism should take place through ongoing medical education. With the great evolution of scientific discoveries in our time, education is no more a close-ended process "khatm el ilm." Doctors should not consider what they studied to fulfill the requirements of their degrees as a perpetual given. All of the medical tools, whether they are pills or scalpels, are double-edged weapons. Various users use weapons differently. Criminals use weapons to serve their personal interests; executors use weapons to serve legal sentences; and medical doctors use weapons to heal people’s sicknesses. Thus, it is doctors’ duty to use their tools according to the most updated medical knowledge, not to their own cultural biases.
The medical institution is also responsible for translation of medical knowledge and making it available to the public. Scientific writings are not similar to artistic ones. For example, novels, paintings, or symphonies will always have the same significance to the audience. This is not the case with theories of science, because unlike products of art, they develop and change with time. That is why scientific writings should not be translated once and for all. The latest edition of any medical text should be consulted before publishing a new edition of its translated version. Without this necessary precaution, re-printing of old medical theories will turn into a tool for deceiving the public instead of enlightening and upgrading their awareness.
IV) Feminist intellectuals and MGM
Feminism...is for building new and fairer social politics
for both genders, especially children.
After she knew the new information about anatomy and physiology of the male prepuce, Dr. Salma stated that she felt like bursting into tears, and that such information should not be concealed from men, who have every right to know it. This is a consistent feminist attitude. Women suffered for a long time from patriarchal social obstacles that hindered their acquisition of knowledge, which may help them to improve their status (Smith 1987). Women will not gain more benefits or empowerment by playing the same unfair role with the assumption that men are the primary beneficiaries from the new information about their bodies’ anatomy and physiology. Feminism is not for women only. It is for building new and fairer social politics for both genders, especially children. Now, with the defeat of the false hygienic justifications for male circumcision, its ugly and unfair face is revealed: a blood and flesh sacrifice presented to the patriarchal society.
Women will also benefit from defending male children’s rights.
The results of the study show that women intellectuals are currently more ready than men intellectuals to launch the issue of MGM. They are more ready to accept change and stop circumcising their own sons, or advising others against male circumcision. Women will also benefit from defending male children’s rights. When women acknowledge that gender issues include men’s rights as well, more open-minded men will support women’s rights.
(W)omen are recommended to take the initiative to encourage men
to break the barrier of silence about MGM, to support them,
and be understandable when some of them show resistance or denial.
Of course, that does not mean that women should dominate the advocacy against MGM. It rather means that women are recommended to take the initiative to encourage men to break the barrier of silence about MGM, to support them, and be understandable when some of them show resistance or denial. Bringing an end to the silence that surrounded such a taboo issue for thousands of years needs patience and persistent efforts to move MGM from the arena of political and ideological conflict to that of the right of bodily integrity for all as a basic human right.
Women’s defense of men’s right to bodily integrity and their work against MGM will not have a negative impact on their struggle against FGM. On the contrary, work against MGM will defeat the argument that is used by some doctors that they can perform a sort of FGM analogous to male circumcision, on the assumption that the later is a simple "beautification" and non-harmful procedure.
When women revise their attitude from the issues of other weak social categories they will win a lot. First, they will win the direct personal benefit of protecting their own children from a useless, hazardous, and maybe fatal injury. Second, they will get a general benefit, because their new attitude will prove that the women’s rights movement is useful to women, men, and the society as a whole.

i disagree

[Goobles]

Reading comprehension FTW.


That's my line..

[xshayla701]

azeth nooooooo

[Glaani]

I laughed at the bouncing weenie. :) Thanks for the link!

[stormlord]

.....i disagreeEpic reply.

I'll join you hasbinbad. I'm glad I didn't get circumcised after reading that.

Personally, I think that if nature gave us foreskin then there must be a purpose. I also don't think it would be very comfortable not to have the foreskin. In fact, just thinking about it makes me recoil. Kind of like when someone scratches their fingernails on the chalkboard. It would also make a mess faster.

Thank you god for foreskin.

While they're at it why don't they cut off our lips? That way people could see our teeth better.

What is this:The two authors stated that circumcision diminishes the ability of the brain center of sexual pleasure to respond to stimuli. Moreover, it eliminates the secretion of smegma, which is a male genital lubricant with a gentle odor that is attractive to females. They believed that the changes that are the result of male circumcision decrease their attractiveness to females and make males of the tribe less irritable and more tolerant to one another. Therefore, tribal leaders find it easier to control circumcised males and direct them.So is that saying that circumcision might reduce sensation and secretions?

Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma
Wright states that smegma is produced from minute microscopic protrusions of the mucosal surface of the foreskin and that living cells constantly grow towards the surface, undergo fatty degeneration, separate off, and form smegma.In healthy animals, smegma helps clean and lubricate the genitals.

Link:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smegma&page=6
"Analogous to tears, smegma is the compilation of secretions by ectopic sebaceous glands located in the prepuce, the seminal secretions of the Cowper's gland and the prostate, the mucin content of the secretions of the urethral glands, and the sloughed epithelial cells. It provides the necessary mucosal lubricant and moisturizer and is rich in sexual pheromones. The prepuce normally prevents detection of this phenomenally charged scent until the glans is exposed at the time erection takes place." - Robert S. Van Howe, MD

"Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma." - Thomas J. Ritter, MD
"Is smegma useful? Yes, certainly. It lubricates the cavity between the foreskin of the penis and the glans, thus allows smooth movement between them during intercourse ... Nature has ... provided a natural ointment, smegma, to ensure easy lubrication and protect this delicate region of the male genital organ. / To secure its even distribution, smegma is formed from the whole inner surface of the foreskin cavity ... Smegma production ... is concentrated in the cells of innumerable small prominences, minute microscopic protrusions of various shapes and sizes found on the inner surface of the foreskin cavity ... Sexual intercourse becomes a regular feature of life (in adulthood) and the function of smegma assumes its full value ... Freshly formed smegma ... is a wholesome lubricant--making for ease in erection and smoothness in sexual intercourse." - Joyce Wright, MD

Link:
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/
Without correct treatment, ill health of the foreskin is liable to worsen - formation of smegma continues and, without outlet or access for cleaning, deposits collect and harden within the foreskin cavity. Such compact masses of smegma can lead to chronic disease, and even prepare the way for cancerous changes.

Cancer of the penis is not common in the United States but is frequent in certain tropical countries. It is almost always associated with uncleanliness and longstanding ill health of the penis. Usually a preceeding phimosis is present. Since the tumor commonly develops with such a closed foreskin cavity, it has been considered that retained smegma could be the cancer-inducing agent. [CIRP note: Cancer of the penis is now known to be associated with the presence of the human papilloma virus (HPV). Cancer of the penis may occur in both circumcised and uncircumcised men if HPV is present. Additional risk factors are hygiene, genital warts, and number of sexual partners. Smegma is not now believed to be carcinogenic.]

Nevertheless, experimental investigation of this so-called "smegma theory of genital cancer" has had little direct bearing on cancer in the male sex. Rather, it has been concerned with the causation of cervical carcinoma in in women. (cancer of the neck of the womb.) This might be conceivably be induced by smegma transferred to the vagina by the male during sexual intercourse.

Such research is beset with difficulties. In the first place, distinction must be made between normal smegma and accumulated smegma, which has undergone a variety of changes in the warmth of the foreskin cavity. Hence, any potential cancer-inducing property could well lie in products formed by chemical breakdown or bacterial action rather than in smegma itself.

A further problem arises in collection of fresh smegma in sufficient amount for experimental research. For this reason some workers have used smegma from horses because these animals produce it is large amounts. But despite repeated inoculations of horse smegma into the vaginas of laboratory animals, the results have been conflicting with regard to its inducing malignant disease.

Clearly a number of factors are involved in the causation of malignant disease of the genital organs. Whether smegma does or does not play a part will be known only when the causes of cancerous changes in general become clear. [CIRP note: It is now clear that smegma is not a carcinogen. Cancer of the genital organs are caused by HPV and smoking. See Cancer for more information.]

Meanwhile, personal hygiene and care of the penis rank high as a protection against chronic disease. Remember that it is stale and accumulated smegma that is a source of ill health for the penis. Freshly formed smegma, washed away regularly and constantly replenishing itself, is a wholesome lubricant - making for ease in erection and smoothness in sexual intercourse.This is interesting. Perhaps ancient cultures performed circumcision to help prevent diseases and/or cancers of the penis because they did not properly clean it? Makes sense since primitive cultures do not clean themselves very well. Seems like a great way to do it would be to go for a swim in the creek?

Then again, a recent study in the UK found little to 0 cancer cases in egyptian mummies. They theorize that cancer did not exist in pre-industrial times in any significant amount.

Here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320507/Cancer-purely-man-say-scientists-finding-trace-disease-Egyptian-mummies.html

[Sephrana]

Mad props to Hasbinbad for posting the anti-circ info and to Stormlord for seconding the opinion.

I was pro-circ until I read a bunch of info about it about 10 years ago and it opened my eyes SIGNIFICANTLY. Only about 40% of boys born in America are circ'd today. I didn't butcher my son and i'm glad! How could someone look at their perfect baby and decide to chop off part of him/her in mutilation...that's totally beyond me.

Also....circumcision HURTS the baby....why would you want to cause that pain in someone so teeny?! Just my two cents :P

Originally posted by Stormlord

This is interesting. Perhaps ancient cultures performed circumcision to help prevent diseases and/or cancers of the penis because they did not properly clean it? Makes sense since primitive cultures do not clean themselves very well. Seems like a great way to do it would be to go for a swim in the creek?

I'm not sure about the ancient reasons for starting the process. But in America in 2010 the only real argument FOR male genital mutilation is that uncircumcised males have a higher chance of catching HPV and HIV from unprotected sexual contact. If you wrap it - you shouldn't have a problem.

ALSO Men can now get the Gardisil shot which will protect them from HPV (And therefore could prevent penile cancer...as HPV is the leading cause of penile cancer.......Also according to the last pediatrician my kids had....it's becoming one of the leading causes of throat cancer in men...... I had asked him if Gardisil had been approved for male injection yet because it would help prevent men from getting it etc and he was telling me about the journal article he had read :P Interesting side note there!)

[Akame]

I'm not sure about the ancient reasons for starting the process. But in America in 2010 the only real argument FOR male genital mutilation is that uncircumcised males have a higher chance of catching HPV and HIV from unprotected sexual contact. If you wrap it - you shouldn't have a problem.



Always fun to jump smack dab into the middle of someone elses conversation but to sum up (and since I've had similar conversations with Sephrana before and feel perfectly comfortable covering this topic with them):

Religious:
Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham's people, there were lots of reasons as to why blood had to be involved, all of which became moot when Jesus did what he did and was considered basically the past present and future blood sacrifice. Baptism became the sign of the covenant from then on.
Sidenote: Both circumcision and baptism are symbolic and not salvation ensuring.


Other:
It was believed for a while that circumcision was healthier in the long run for the boy medically so was kept as a common practice, with today's advances in modern medicine and simply put, hygiene practices, that belief is being discarded and we are definitely seeing a decline in circumcision because of it. It also is likely a continuing Jewish practice.

http://thegurglingcod.typepad.com/thegurglingcod/images/2008/02/12/the_more_you_know2.jpg

[Sephrana]

Always fun to jump smack dab into the middle of someone elses conversation but to sum up (and since I've had similar conversations with Sephrana before and feel perfectly comfortable covering this topic with them):

Religious:
Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham's people, there were lots of reasons as to why blood had to be involved, all of which became moot when Jesus did what he did and was considered basically the past present and future blood sacrifice. Baptism became the sign of the covenant from then on.
Sidenote: Both circumcision and baptism are symbolic and not salvation ensuring.


DUDE! (:D) I TOTALLY shoulda known this. What's wrong with me!? :eek:

P to the S - Akame - Of course you should feel perfectly comfortable covering this topic with me. ;) *EDIT* Since we've discussed religion :P

[Akame]

DUDE! (:D) I TOTALLY shoulda known this. What's wrong with me!? :eek:

P to the S - Akame - Of course you should feel perfectly comfortable covering this topic with me. ;) *EDIT* Since we've discussed religion :P

Come on, read that book!

Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

Gen 17, if you keep reading that included Abraham getting clipped at 90+ and his 13 year old son, and any servants they bought too /shudder

No thank you I'll just go get baptized, a dip in the creek sounds much more appealing.

[Phallax]

Gotta love how a simple comedic video turned into such a serious discussion. I swear this community doesnt understand the word fun or funny at all.

[Akame]

Gotta love how a simple comedic video turned into such a serious discussion. I swear this community doesnt understand the word fun or funny at all.

Or some people can only sit in the gutter of that so called "fun" for so long.

[Hasbinbad]

It was believed for a while that circumcision was healthier in the long run for the boy medically so was kept as a common practice, with today's advances in modern medicine and simply put, hygiene practices, that belief is being discarded and we are definitely seeing a decline in circumcision because of it.
Soap > genital mutilation.

[Akame]

Soap > genital mutilation.

That may be your opinion, but it does not change the fact that it is why some people still do practice circumcision, and my goal was to be informative.

[Akame]

Food for thought for you Hasbinbad


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/health/18global.html?_r=1&ref=policy

[bizzum]

Food for thought for you Hasbinbad


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/health/18global.html?_r=1&ref=policy

Best Part: "A 1901 study in The Lancet noted that few British Jewish women died of it (although it erroneously concluded that they were protected by avoiding bacon)."

Lesson: don't put meat in your mouth if you don't want a disease.

[nemethor]

i submit that most men who are vehemently opposed to mgm are compensating for insecurities about their uncircumcised kelbasa. thoughts?

what's brown and sounds like a bell?
DUNG!!!