Feminism and sexual mutilation(Français : Féminisme, sexisme et mutilations sexuelles)

"Know the virile,But keep to the feminine:Welcome the world with open arms."Lao-Tzu, Tao Te King

"Feminism ain’t about women,that’s not who it is for;it’s about a shift in consciousnessthat will bring an end to war." Pete Seeger ("Which side areyou on?")

"That wound"We'd like to sew in the height of desire,"Like a seam upon pleasure"That we'd want to see closed forever,"Like an open door upon death." Léo Ferré

"And the sharks mutilated... women and children first!"

"The foreskin is the female element in a male.” William Van Lewis, quoted by Georges Wald, his teacher atHarvard and medicine Nobel prize

The clitoris being the feminine phallus, allexcision that damages it, which is practically alwaysthe case, is a slaughter intended to forbid pleasureto women and reduce their sexuality to reproduction;the tip of the clitoris, the equivalent of the glans(not quite, as we shall see), is removed or gravelydamaged. The list of its often-most-serious outcomesdocumented by the WHO is long.

Immediate complications:5 to 15% immediate mortality due to physical orpsychical shock,extreme pain likely to provoke cardiac arrest anddeath,a high risk of haemorrhage,a high risk of serious infection (tetanus notably) andfever,difficult scarring.

Serious long-term complications20% deaths and very frequent horrible long-termcomplications at deliverydifficult delivery, excessive bleeding, caesareansection, need to resuscitate the baby, etc.Lesions of adjacent organs: fistulas, prolapse, keloidscarring, cysts,Necessity of ulterior surgical operations. Forinstance, when the mutilation provokes the closure or

2

the shrinking of the vaginal aperture (type 3),reopening will be necessary to enable the woman tohave sexual intercourse and give birth(desinfibulation). So, the vaginal aperture issometimes closed several times, included afterdelivery, which increases the immediate and long termrisks.dysmenorrhoea,sterility,vaginal damageurethral, vesical (incontinence, acute or chronicurinary retention, repetitive cystitis, urinarycalculus formation),intestinal (incontinence, "women who stink") damage,abdominal pain,pelvic and vaginal infection,genital ulceration,sexual troubles (destruction of an erectile organ,chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia in 56% casesaccording to Dr Foldès), frigidity (in two thirds ofthe cases),a higher risk of contracting STIs..

The psychological damage: anguish, post-traumaticstress disorder, depression, suicide attempts, isimportant too.

(sources: WHO, Gynécologues sans frontières, Americanacademy of pediatrics).

Excision is never medically necessary, circumcisionvery rarely (less than 1% of men1). The physiological

1 http://www.photius.com/rankings/circumcised_men_country_ranks.html

3

damage of excision can only rarely be compared withthose of circumcision2.

Note: this article is speaking out against thecastrator and prison feminism that has cracked down onexcisers and against the sexist disregard forcircumcision. That feminism begins to be challenged.Whereas the French Chiennes de garde (Guard she-dogs)excluded from their forum those who was attackedcircumcision for the sexist motive that it would beoff-topic, June 14, 213, in La Sorbonne, ChristineLazerges, Présidente de la commission nationaleconsultative pour les droits de l'homme, opening thefounder assembly of Excision, parlons-en, declaredthat feminine and masculine sexual mutilation isdiscriminatory. Similarly, at the meeting of Excision,parlons-en that took place in the Palais de la femmein 2019, a member of the French Society of sexologygave a lecture against circumcision. Aggressivelyinterrupted by an extremist: "This is not the topic ofthe meeting!", he answered her politely. But when Iasked a Muslim with a large scarf who, excised, hadjust spoken against feminine sexual mutilation: "Willyou have your sons circumcised?" and she answered:"That is not the topic.", I get angry, went up on thestage and told her: "Madame, you are sexist, it isinadmissible." She answered nothing.

The fundamental motive of sexual mutilation is,

for leaders the subjection of the people, for parentsthat of children, by the terror inspired as well by anatrocious torture as by an implicit threat ofeviration and death. Imagining that, in those crimes,

2 http://ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html

4

mothers would be dupes of fathers, issues fromgullibility or hypocrisy. Sexual mutilation is, aboveall, an instrument of the war of generations and onlysecondarily of that of sexes. Ignoring that, mostfeminists bury their head into the sand in a sexistway. They do not realize, as the German reformistrabbis showed, that circumcision is a practice ofexclusion of women. The American feminist MiriamPollack largely developed that3; an orthodox Jew butopposed to circumcision, she masterfully demonstratedthat circumcision is a sexist and male chauvinistmatter. European feminists should follow in herfootsteps and rise against both practices jointly.Apart from the physical trauma, excision andcircumcision aim at dominating girls and boys by adreadful psychological trauma. The latter is intendedto impart an against nature morality; it pretendsitself more pure, chaste, virtuous but discriminatesagainst other ethnic groups by the hyper-racism of amoral superiority founded upon a physical differencesurgically imposed on the child. That Puritanism isthrust forward on the child by means of a threateningaffective blackmail: "If you do that (autosexuality),if you refuse the 'circumcision', you are no longer mychild!" The matter is threat of loss of love,exclusion and thus death. Sexual mutilation forbidsautosexuality through terror, in the aim of making useof the individual and their sexual lives. Adults onlysuffer from after-effects without realizing it.

Ignoring that is passing by the essential of thephenomenon of alienation by infantile trauma. Thatanalysis gathers sexes against the perverse hold, the

3 Pollack M. Circumcision: identity, gender, and power by Miriam Pollack.http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/circumcision-identity-gender-and-power

5

physical-ideological domination settled by both sexexploiters. The principal enemy: the ruling classes,women and men alike, should not be mingled with "men"just as the victims as women. Like hazing, sexualmutilation is intended to comfort the power of theelders over the younger. Hazing is nowadays forbiddenby law. It is abnormal that circumcision should notyet be. Men and boys have as much right to theirforeskin as women and girls to their clitoris.

Without encumbering themselves with that ethicalconcern today largely spread4, 5, mysandrous feminists,the most often Western, do not fight the excision ofthe foreskin for the motive that "it is men'sbusiness". They are blind, in an ant-strategic way, tothe fact that excision only exists in circumcisingcultures. Since mothers are accomplices of the crime,their attitude is grossly hypocrite. But it is aboveall ignorant of the cultural fact. On the one hand,the circumcising masculinism that conversely affirms:“Excision is women’s business.” is accomplice, andeven responsible for excision, on the other hand, thelanguage itself likens both mutilations: the Arabian(khetan) and several African languages use the sameterm to designate circumcision and excision. Formillenniums, African myths report the symmetry of thefeminine and masculine specific organs forautosexuality. Their excisers want to "purify" theindividual of them, for two fantasmatic reasons: theywould provide too much pleasure, which would incite todebauchery, they look like those of the other sex. But4 Earp B. Female genital mutilation (FGM) and malecircumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse?5 Carmack A. Female genital mutilation,” “circumcision,”“gender-conforming surgery”: why the double standard?http://adriennecarmack.com/female-genital-mutilation-circumcision-gender-conforming-surgery-why-the-double-standard/

6

the deep reason for excision is to guarantee fidelityand paternity. The second reason is that of themisguided morality of which we spoke here above.Rather than inciting the individual to master theirimpulses, it chooses to attenuate pleasure in men andsuppressing it in women. The feminist attitude is alsoignorant of biology. Concerning the sexual function,both organs must be brought together6. The very greatfrequency of the absence of "anejaculatory mini-orgasms in series"7 in circumcised men proves it.Those orgasms strongly look like clitoral orgasms. Afeminine mini-penis, a masculine mini-vagina, theclitoris and the foreskin are the specific organs forpersonal pleasure. Some ethnic groups accept the fact,others mutilate boys, and some also mutilate girls.But the sexist are also the victims of the taboo thatnames the sexuality of children with derogatory terms,so that they amalgamate minors and women. Sexualmutilation must be considered in a dynamic,transgenerational, and not static vision, whichenables to make the guilt weigh not upon the other sexbut upon the primitive ancestor who, thousands ofyears ago, invented them in order to ensure hispossession upon his harem. All have been the victimsof violent parents, responsible for the violence ofthe adults that their children become. "You are notborn a woman/man, you become one."8. The fact that,for both sexes, sexual mutilation gives the right tomarriage well shows that before its fulfilment, theyoung person is considered a minor. For, like6 Bertaux-Navoiseau M. A lip both erogenous and protective oferogeneity, the foreskin is a sexual organ; its ablation is amutilation.7 Bertaux-Navoiseau M. A preliminary poll: 81% of circumcised men ignore the anejaculatory serial mini-orgasms (the male minis), 91% of the intact enjoy them.8 Beauvoir S. Le deuxième sexe.

7

circumcision, excision strikes minors, little girlswho, no more than their brothers, have a right tospeech. Those feminists do not face the fact that theissue is to know whether authority must be exertedthrough the ordinary educational violence of theknife, spanking, slaps, and other humiliations, orotherwise. Their gender perspective9 10, theiridealistic and maternalistic approach, their hatred ofexcisers rather than of excision, are inappropriate.If men circumcised with the complicity of their motherare accomplices of the operations from afar, contraryto the rumour spread by those feminists, they do notfinance it; the cost is low and women pay for it.Therefore, ascribing to men alone the responsibilityof sexual mutilation is unrealistic, sexist, and aboveall unproductive. Sexual mutilation is particularlysevere in the ablation of the erectile organ and thevulva of women, not mentioning the long-term havocfrequently endured by neighbouring organs. But thatfact is of purely physiological order. It does notallow concealing the ethic, psychological, andjuridical dimension of the phenomenon. Both-sex sexualmutilation is a crime against humanity.

In societies where woman is a commodity, excisionreduces feminine sexuality to the function ofsubstitute of the foreskin. So, it is the ultimate,logical complement of circumcision. Indeed, inpolygamous cultures, those ablations, threats ofeviration or death, aim or aimed, on the one hand, atimposing virginity and fidelity through reducing theeagerness of young women by infirmity and terror, and,9 Pollack M. Circumcision: identity, gender, and power by Miriam Pollack.http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/circumcision-identity-gender-and-power10 Zoske J. Male circumcision: a gender perspective. Journal of men's studies, 1998 6 (2), 189-208.

8

on the other hand, still through terror, at dissuadingsons from rivalling their fathers towards youngspouses. Unconsciously, circumcision threatens thelittle girl as well as the little boy. So, sexualmutilation is one of the tools of the perversion ofthe female to male relationship in matriarchal-patriarchal societies (treatment of women as servantsrather than equals, seclusion at home or under thedress, obsessive care for purity, negation of theright to education and work, selling as merchandise,forced marriage, forbidding of marriage withforeigners, repudiation, absence of right to divorce,polygamy, impunity of rape, stoning of the adulterous,"honour" crimes, forced obesity, stretching of oral orvulvar labia, of the neck, breast ironing, etc.). Oneof the worst repression of the autonomy and sexualityof the individual, it traumatizes, terrorizes andmakes the child and the adult guilty. But, bypretending to the exclusivity of sexual mutilation –it is tempting in the struggle against domineeringmales – numerous Western feminists pervert theproblematics. They make it an affair of adults,whereas mutilation is precisely assumed to mark theentrance into adulthood. Grounding itself upon astatic rather than dynamic and transgenerationalperspective, that interpretation bends the deepmeaning of a violence that is exerted against both sexminors. It must be said and repeated that before beingfeminine or masculine, sexual mutilation strikesminors. If it aims at adult sexuality as much as atinfantile sexuality, it is the most often exerted inchildhood or youth. To be convinced with it, it isenough to report that in Africa, in front of thereaction of authorities which forbid femininemutilation, the latter strikes younger and youngerlittle girls who begin to defend themselves with the

9

support of the police in some countries. They evenstrike babies (before 5 years old in the majority ofcases according to the UNICEF) and sometimes at birth,in the hospital, which, in some cases (Indonesia),makes the mutilation more severe than the traditionalone.

Then, circumcision of boys, even when it ispractised alone, is an obvious threat of eviration ofboth sex children. Women who, with the appallingblessing of the Académie nationale de médecine,assert:

"... I am personally hostile to circumcision, but there isno removal of the organ with loss of the function..."11

ignore that the removed foreskin is a functionalsexual organ, for three reasons: the skin is an organand the foreskin is not dead skin, it is the lipprotecting the mucosa and the erogeneity of the glans,it is a major erogenous zone. They even say:

"Excision is a mutilation like the castration of the glanswould be..."5

That is inaccurate since, on the one hand, theablation of the glans forbids ejaculation and thusreproduction12, and, on the other hand, there is norestoration of the glans. Not preventing reproduction,excision of the clitoris keeps intact the power ofwomen. It is a great difference with the excision ofthe glans.

11 Weil-Curiel L. Colloquium "Mutilations sexuelles féminines.Un autre crime contre l'humanité." (Académie nationale demédecine). Aspects judiciaires : l'excision et la loi.Supplément to the Bulletin de l'Académie nationale de médecine 2004, 188(6), 11412 Money J. Components of eroticism in man. II. The orgasm andgenital somesthesia. J nevr mental dis 1961 (132): 290.

10

Above all, the feminist should admit thepsychological obviousness that, as the geneticmutation inducing an unusual propensity to breast andovarian cancer that affects Jewish Ashkenazi womenseems to show, circumcision heavily threatens girlstoo, with the entire related trauma.

Excision, "that crime of males"13

That is only true about excision for eroticmotive, cf. our article: “Some like it dry!”14

The feminist interpretation grants men theresponsibility of a crime the most often perpetratedby women and which the latter are adamant advocatesof. Actually, women and men are parties to the crimeas regards the motives: dominating the human personthrough imposing the reason of force by terror and byforbidding and making guilty pleasure, beginning withinfantile and youthful sexuality.

In their blindness, those feminists accuseopponents of sexual mutilation who refuse to focusupon gender distinction without, of course, denyingthe self-evident seriousness of the damage provoked byexcision, of "suspiciously amalgamating" excision andcircumcision. They do not hesitate to wantonly affirmthat both mutilations would have nothing in common,that circumcision would not be a mutilation, and eventhat it would be done “for the sake of the child”15.Introducing a sexist discrimination into the

13 Veil S. Préface du supplément à Bull. Acad. Nat Méd, 2004, 188, n° 6, 10 juin 2004.14 15 Veil S. Lettre du 20 décembre 2006 à l'auteur. In Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Simone Veil lamentable, communautariste et sexistesur la circoncision.https://www.academia.edu/33736430/Simone_Veil_et_la_circoncision_lamentable_

11

fundamental rights to the body and freedom ofreligion, they moreover ignore, on the one hand, thefact that the foreskin is not only the lip of theglans but also a sexual organ as much, and even morerichly innervated as the clitoris, and its rigoroussymmetrical in its part of "feminine" organ forautosexuality, on the other hand, the seriousness ofthe accidents of masculine mutilation. Besides, on theone hand, they make excision a pure expression ofmasculine domination as if the excisers (mostly women)were not its agents, on the other hand, they forgetthat circumcision is also an expression of maternaldomination and a secret revenge against men. Accordingto them, Awa Gréou would be a martyr of masculinedomination. But they applauded her sentencing to sevenyears imprisonment without remission by the criminalcourt of Paris.

The feminist attitude finds its power ofseduction in the tremendous ravages provoked byexcision. It also backs itself upon the strength oflove towards the mother, of which it both uses andprotects the pure and holy image through unburdeningher of all responsibility. With the unconscious aim ofleaving that image intact, the sexist feminist thesischarges "men" with the responsibility of the adults’crime.

But with reason do they conflate all kind offeminine sexual mutilation: infibulations, excision ofthe clitoris, its hood, the inner and outer lips, aswell, as the African activist Khadi Koïta insisted, asthe mutilation by a simple prick, so-called symbolicbut traumatizing and assaulting human dignity:

"And some think that the symbolic must be saved by makinga small incision to shed a little blood, all that in thename of that famous respect of cultures. But we would wantto tell physicians in the whole world that we, women, are

12

against all act of medicalization, whatever its form, thata physician must treat, heal, repair, save a life and notdestroy, and above all not mutilate in the name of therespect of disastrous-for-health customs or traditions."16

Completing Khady’s words, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, anotherrenowned fighter against excision, compares that"symbolic" pinprick to circumcision:

"Strictly speaking, an incision of the clitoris is lessdramatic than male circumcision."17

That is obvious and the paediatricians of the Americanacademy of paediatrics well deserved the outcry theyprovoked in the USA when, in 2010, their Committeeproposed that prick in the aim to prevent excision onthe American soil. Therefore, bravo for Khady’s fullyjustified conflation! First because organizing horrorinto hierarchy by classifying types of mutilation byorder of seriousness is unaware of the core of theissue, then, because any physical assault from adultsprovokes a psychological trauma. That trauma is due tothe humbling of the child forced to endure a wound totheir sex and to the decay of the adult in their partof authority able to teach morals through the soleconviction of their speech. That decay and humiliationare lived as a betrayal. Ignoring the mutilation ofthe feminine part of man’s sex is not suspect butguilty – upon a background of misandry – of denial ofthe reality of the psychological and physical harm ofmasculine excision. The alleged symbolism would be

16 Koïta K. Contexte historique et socio-culturel des violencesinfligées aux femmes. Supplément au Bulletin de l'Académienationale de médecine 2004, 188 (6), 10 juin 2004 session(colloquium "Feminine sexual mutilation, another crime againsthumanity. Knowing, preventing, acting."), p. 73-78.17 http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/think-male-circumcision-worse-incision-girl-aayan-hirsi-ali/

13

excluded for women but kept for men?! Shame on those,female or male, who rise up for a drop of littlegirls' blood whilst forgetting the sometimes-deadlyhaemorrhages and infections of little boys18! It alsoseems that excision of the hood of the clitoris isless painful than circumcision19. If Mrs Koita'sstatement blocks the way to excision, it also blocksit to circumcision.

If excision is particularly sexist from fathers,husbands and brothers, it is not because of its aimidentical to that of circumcision: domination of youngpeople through putting them under unconscious terror,but because of its odious unconsciousness of theravages it provokes. The latter are today minimized by"clean" excision, practised on a large scale underanaesthesia in African and Indonesian hospitals. Forwe are reaching the point where the repressivereducers of the hastily said infantile sexuality tryto pass excision off as a merely cosmetic operation,symmetrical to that of the foreskin, without takinginto account the loss of a considered-immoral erectileorgan. However, surgical genius today succeeds inrestoring the clitoris, the nerve endings of whichsubsist, buried under the scar. Their bringing to thesurface enables to stop the pain and recover some useof the eradicated organ. But no surgery will everbring their foreskin back to the circumcised.

In summary, sexist feminists commit two mistakes:one on the side of the agents: masking the conflict ofgenerations behind the war of sexes through accusing"men", which absolves women and the ruling classes,one on the side of victims: discriminate their ownsons through refusing to protect them as if they were

18 http://ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html19 https://elles176.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/female-genital-mutilation-survivors-elles-share-their-stories/

14

foes. All that conceals the real aim of sexualmutilation and other attacks against the human body:dominating the population, more particularly youth andwomen, in order to exploit it. Those who struggle withno ulterior motive against all forms of underminingthe physical integrity, dignity and autonomy of thehuman person in their most vulnerable age do notlinger in counter-productive comparisons. As MarilynMilos would say: "The shrieks of children undergoingthe knife are indistinguishable."

An anonymous feminist sorts things out in anAfrican forum:

"Western women hijack African women’s struggle againstexcision and make it a discriminative practice of Africanmen against their wives. Against this policy of division,black women have risen by protesting against "whitewomen’s maternalism" and creating their own concept ofstruggle that takes into account women first in whatconstitutes their essence and their complementarities withmen. This is "Africana Womanism", invented by an African-American, which is different of the concept of Europeanfeminism that has a posture of fighting and oppositionbetween men and women...

Yes, excision is harmful to the health or our women. Itmust be eradicated. We contrive to do it as fast aspossible but in the spirit of preservation of peace andsocial cohesion and not in the spirit of oppositionbetween men and women by insinuating that it is adiscriminative practice against our women. There where itappears so, it is due to the exterior contribution ofIslamic religion that grants the woman a subordinateposition."20

The great reason why African women are not sexistconcerning excision, like Western women, is that all

20 http://www.grioo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45371 (message129, 25.3.4)

15

of them experience in their mind, and sometimes theirown flesh, that their men and children are themselvesmutilated.

What precedes remains discreet upon the "UncleTom's cabin" racism of Western feminists. The latterbursts out in their fierce determination for obtainingthe condemnation of excisers. French courts and MaîtreLinda Weil-Curiel, a specialist in the defence ofvictims of excision, seem forgetting two fundamentalprinciples of criminal law: "There is no crime ormisdemeanour without the intention of harming."(article 121-3 of the criminal code) and: "Is notcriminally responsible the person who acted under theinfluence of a strength of constraint to which theywere not able to resist." (article 122-2), whichforbid all criminal penalty for sexual mutilation. Itis scandalous that persons belonging to cultures whichdo not have the same values as ours should becondemned illegally. Only substantial civil damagesshould discourage mutilators.

Rosemary Romberg-Weiner, an American feminist andactivist against circumcision, professes a similarview to that of African feminists, and she is notalone21:

"Much has been expounded on feminism. Men’s rights arealso gaining in recognition. But the time has come to growbeyond that. In an arena with one gender pitted againstthe other, no battles will ever be won. Instead, we mustrecognize that we are all humans together on this planet.We must strive for human liberation in this. Allowingwholeness and completeness for our own children’s bodies,

21 Steinfeld R. Male circumcision is a feminist issue too. (77)Male Circumcision is a Feminist Issue Too | Rebecca Steinfeld -Academia.edu.

16

and acknowledging and healing from our own wounds is butone step along the way."22

She is notably accompanied by Doktor and ProfessorTobe Levin von Gleichen, the founder of FORWARD:

Similarly, Emma Watson’s declaration at the UNO wasnot a feminist declaration:

"I think it is right that I should be able to make decisionsabout my own body."

And “Excision, parlons-en” (Excision, let’s speakabout it) has no right not to speak of the excision ofthe foreskin.

To conclude, in the same way as the hypocrisy offathers who deny all responsibility in the excision oftheir daughters: "It's women’s business." is unfair,mums who, like the French "Chiennes de garde" (GuardShe-Dogs), affirm that circumcision would be men’sbusiness in order to refuse to rebel against it, dodgeas much their mothering responsibility as the link ofcause to effect between circumcision and excision.Since men are likely to fight excision moreefficiently than women, that attitude is highlycounter-productive.

22 Romberg-Weiner R. Male circumcision as a feminist issue.http://www.noharmm.org/feminist.htm

17

CLITORIS AND FORESKINby Susan Peer

One woman's way to educate others about male genital mutilation

By Susan Peer

One woman's view

If I talk to women about circumcision and they don't seem to get it, then I make it personal. Sometimes I tell a story. (This probably works better between women.) I'll tell them to:

Imagine that you are admitted to a hospital for some minor surgery. On waking up from the anesthesia, you realize that your inner labia and the hood over your clitoris have been cut off.

When you confront your doctor, he explains that the tissue that was removed was "redundant" and not necessary for sexual functioning.

He goes on to say that you will be much easier to clean and have less odor, there will be less chance ofinfection, and he felt that you would look "better", more aesthetic.

He says that when he told all of the "risks" and "benefits" to your family, they gave informed consent for the procedure.

18

How would you feel?

Now imagine that you were awake and resisting, but they did it anyway.

If they don't get it right away, they usually will later, when they are alone.

Susan Peer

Parents of Intact Sons. Information about the advantages of keeping your sons intact and support group for parents of intact boys.Susan Peer, RR 1, Box 1324- A, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301. Tel:717-223-1337.

19