Female circumcision

[Cloud]

or; a major human rights violation most people don't know about. It's now banned in Eritrea. This is good news. Too bad Eritrea is such a tiny country; but at least it's a step in the right direction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070405/...ircumcision_dc

This is of importance to me because it is often associated with body piercing. You may recall a few years ago when Georgia tried to pass a bill against this practice which was so broad it would also ban female genital piercing.

If you are not up on the topic, let me describe: Female circumcision is also called Female Genital Mutilation (there's that M word again, Wolf); female genital cutting, etc. It encompasses a range of acts up to and including removal of the entire external genitals and infibulation (sewing up the entrance to the vagina), and is widely practiced throughout Africa, in certain Muslim communities, and around the world where immigrants have moved.

This practice has been condemned as a human rights violation, in that it often is performed on children unable to give their consent (as with male circumcision); and also frequently performed with crude, non-sterile implements.

Now before you say, OMG, it's horrible, we should stamp it out (and I kinda feel the same)--the situation is far more complex than that. In most places practicing this custom, a woman is not considered human or eligible for marriage if she is not circumcised according to custom. It's been going on for thousands of years, and it's going to be hard to stamp out.

If you want further info, try this fact sheet from the WHO:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

[freshnesschronic]

Hmm. As long as they don't allow it in the States and it's not affecting our culture, I can't tell some other culture "stop practicing...your culture!" Because certainly Americna culture would never allow it and I'm for the preservation of OUR culture, as well as the preservation of whatever culture chooses to practice it.
So did I do a good job of taking both sides?

[Cloud]

as you can see, it's a difficult issue, which is certainly acknowledged by the World Health Organization and other human rights groups. The more modern, educated women in these countries are fighting against it, but it's an uphill battle.

And make no mistake, it DOES occur in the United States, legally prohibited or not.

[DanaC]

The more modern, educated women in these countries are fighting against it, but it's an uphill battle.

I think that's the key cloud. Those women need support and assistance. If they seek that support and assistance, we should make it available. I don't see any other way really, that isn't going to actually drive more people towards it as a reclamation of their culture in the face of western imperialism. We have to enure that those women who are trying to fight it have the resources and the help on the ground that they need. It needs to be organised by them so that their actions are not just dismissed as a western intervention.

Hideously complicated situation. An American friend of the family, is working in this field and has written some fascinating papers. There is no easy answer. Often when parents do decide not to put their girls through this, the girls themselves are so bulllied by the other children (especially the other little girls) that they beg for it to be done. Also there are many cases of parents returning from trips away to find that the grandmother has had the procedure done in their absence. Fathers and mothers are often divided on this to. In some cases (particularly in some of the more traditional villages) the mother has no real say in it and is unable to prevent it happening. But....in some other cases where the man has decided he doesnt want this doing to his daughter, the mother has it done secretly because she believes it is in her child's best interest.

There are areas where there has been a resurgence of the practice as a way of reclaiming cultural identities as the colonial powers withdrew.

In some areas, it is believed (quite genuinely) that without this procedure, the girl's cliterus will grow until it resembles a penis. That is the sort of thing that education can tackle directly. But as cloud says, this has been going on for thousands of years. Ending the practice will be a difficult and drawn out process.

[Cloud]

"hideously complicated" indeed. Thanks for your post, Dana, you are completely correct. Another factor that complicates the issue is that there is no consistency either in the actual procedure performed or the rationale behind it. Some groups say its to prevent health problems, some say it's to prevent overdeveloped sexuality, and therefore adultery, others I think just do it because they've always done it. It's a right of passage into adulthood or simply person-hood for most.

One of the best approaches, I think, is to keep the ritual, but substitute a "pretend" action; e.g., instead of actually removing the genitals, just make a ritual bloodletting.

[Pie]

We women do get a "ritual bloodletting" -- it's called menstruation.

But God told them toooooooooo!

It enriches our lives so .

[Aliantha]

I think you may find your life enriched beyond your imagination once a few other feminine members of this forum see your last post rkz.

[TheMercenary]

I had always thought it was associated with Islamic religions in Africa, but I guess not:

"In cultures where it is an accepted norm, female genital mutilation is practiced by followers of all religious beliefs as well as animists and non believers. FGM is usually performed by a traditional practitioner with crude instruments and without anaesthetic. Among the more affluent in society it may be performed in a health care facility by qualified health personnel. WHO is opposed to medicalization of all the types of female genital mutilation.

The age at which female genital mutilation is performed varies from area to area. It is performed on infants a few days old, female children and adolescents and, occasionally, on mature women.

The reasons given by families for having FGM performed include:

psychosexual reasons: reduction or elimination of the sensitive tissue of the outer genitalia, particularly the clitoris, in order to attenuate sexual desire in the female, maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, and increase male sexual pleasure;
sociological reasons: identification with the cultural heritage, initiation of girls into womanhood, social integration and the maintenance of social cohesion;
hygiene and aesthetic reasons: the external female genitalia are considered dirty and unsightly and are to be removed to promote hygiene and provide aesthetic appeal;
myths: enhancement of fertility and promotion of child survival;
religious reasons: Some Muslim communities, however, practise FGM in the belief that it is demanded by the Islamic faith. The practice, however, predates Islam. "

[Cloud]

as you can readily imagine, the multiplicity of reasonings, the variation in the practices, and the diverse geographical areas and cultural groups that practice it make this all that much harder to eradicate

[xoxoxoBruce]

I fear it will never be eradicated. Laws won't work, not even when it's something that is normally exposed in public. For something not seen in public, forget it.

Education might....someday. But with the cultures and reasons so diverse, you'd have to come up with a different campaign in every country, maybe every tribe, or even every village.

I'm not saying don't try, but damn, it sounds impossible even with a shitload of resources, which of course don't exist.

I'm sitting here wondering if it would be most productive to convince the mothers or fathers? I'm thinking the fathers. Not just because of the third world power balance, but if you can convince the males that cut females are less desirable, or not at all, the mothers and girls will come around quickly.

Am I wrong?

[Cloud]

I don't pretend to be an expert on African culture, but I'm sure any successful campaign would have to have a strong grass-roots component, combined with education; tailored to each group.

It's surprising, because you come across woman in these cultures even arguing for it. It's hard for us as outsiders, really, to judge, but even if it doesn't rise to the level of human rights violations, there are certainly health consequences.

Can you imagine having your vagina sewn up, with only a small hole to allow for menstruation? The hole has to be opened, painfully, by your husband for intercourse.

And you have no clitoris.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Tradition and superstition are very powerful forces.

[Cloud]

This appeared in the news today. Egypt outlaws female circumcision

A step in the right direction, but unfortunately it may move the practice underground, with even less sanitary conditions.

[wolf]

I doubt that the practice was carried out under sterile conditions even when it was considered "legal."