Skip to main content

Female Vs Male Circumcision:The Role of Agency,Structure and Meaning

In this reflection, I argue that to achieve equitable health care, it is necessary to listen to all the agencies within a population. I use agency in this context to mean the different perspectives about a health issue within a population. Using Darby & Svoboda’s (2007) argument about the framing of male and female circumcision as a basis for my argument, I argue that presenting only a particular line of argument may inhibit equitable health care services in that it may lead to the formulation of policies that may not be representative. In addition, I argue that the presentation of a particular agency as seen in the Nigerian context with respect to circumcision symbolizes the role of structure in shaping policy decisions. By structure, I mean the social system that allocates resources within the society. I begin by looking at circumcision in the Nigerian context. Following this, I invoke the author’s findings to show how the framing of female circumcision symbolizes a hegemonic structure.
Darby & Svoboda’s (2007) critical examination of the framing of the two forms of circumcision, the male and the female strikes me as interesting because of the prominence the issue occupies in Nigeria. Many Non Governmental Organizations have become advocates of the eradication of female circumcision often described as female genital mutilation (FGM). Consequently, several efforts are geared towards eradicating the procedure. The central argument is that FGM decreases the erotic sensation of the women; therefore it is described as injustice to the women. Policies to support the eradication of FGM are being crafted in different states. Interestingly, no attention is paid to the circumcision of the men (MGA).
But in their study, Darby & Svoboda (2007) make startling revelation about the similarity between both procedures (FGM & MGA). By juxtaposing FGM and MGA, the authors argue that both procedures are similar in that they entail the removal of sexual erotic parts of the body. Additionally, the authors flaw the notion that FGM decreases sexual pleasure of the women. Quoting a Nigerian study, the authors state: “Okonofua and colleague in 2002 examined 1836 Nigerian women who had been subjected to either FGA type 1(71 percent) or type 2 (24 percent). They found no significant differences between cut and uncut women in their frequency of reported intercourse in the preceding week, or month, the frequency of reports of early arousal during intercourse. There was also no difference between cut and uncut women in their reported ages of menarche, first intercourse” (Darby & Svoboda, 2007, p.310). This revelation considerably weakens the arguments by advocates who describe FGM as injustice. Based on the above quotation, it is also reasonable to conclude that the argument that FGM is injustice to the women is unfounded.
Darby & Svoboda’s (2007) interrogation of the privileging of female circumcision over male circumcision is thought provoking. From a Critical Cultural lens, it raises a fundamental question about social structure. It also raises an epistemic question. For instance, how did female circumcision get to be framed as injustice against women? Or better still, whose agency does this point of view represent. Is it representative of all the agencies? At the same time, it gives us interesting clue about how policies are made.
My intent here is not to sound as a male chauvinist, nor to dismiss FGM as trivial, but from a Critical Cultural lens to illustrate how a particular structure or agency could influence public values and consequently lead to the articulation of policies. For example, the sea of interventions geared towards eradicating FGM emerge from the values that have been attached to FGM due to the framing of female circumcision as injustice. The question is that if the both procedures are similar as illustrated by the authors in their argument, why female circumcision should be privileged over male circumcision, food for thought.

Popular posts from this blog

Zionist hate mongering, the race/terror trope, and the Free Speech Union: Part 1

March 15, 2019. It was a day of terror. Unleashed by a white supremacist far-right terrorist. Driven by hate for brown people. Driven by Islamophobic hate. Earlier in the day, I had come across a hate-based hit piece targeting me, alongside other academics, the University of Auckland academic Professor Nicholas Rowe , Professor Richard Jackson at Otago University, Professor Kevin P Clements at Otago University, Dr. Rose Martin from University of Auckland and Dr. Nigel Parsons at Massey University.  Titled, "More extremists in New Zealand Universities," the article threw in the labels "terror sympathisers" and "extremist views." Written by one David Cumin and hosted on the website of the Israel Institute of New Zealand, the article sought to create outrage that academics critical of Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid are actually employed by universities in New Zealand. Figure 1: The web post written by David Cumin on the site of Israel Institute

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems wit

Tova O’Brien and pedagogy of whiteness

So Tova O’Brien was looking for a click-bait opportunity to draw in listeners to her podcast and she found the migrant activist and Green Party politician Dr. Sapna Samant to pick on. In a gotcha moment, Tova shared with the Green Party co-leader James Shaw a series of posts made by Dr. Samant on whiteness, Hindutva, and multiculturalism, asking him if the tweets were OK. We don’t understand from listening to O’Brien’s podcast if her research team actively researched Dr. Sapna Samant’s social media posts, or whether these selective screen captures of Dr. Samant’s tweets were sent to her by someone wanting to target Samant. The thoroughly unresearched piece is poor journalism, reflective of the mediocrity that is perpetuated by whiteness , the hegemonic values of the dominant white culture in settler colonies. If indeed her research team had discovered the tweets, it’s worth interrogating why the social media posts of a migrant woman activist on whiteness are of interest to O’Brien’s po