Female Genital Mutilation

[Libra Girl]

Female genital mutilation



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/241221.stm

Female circumcision is often carried out by untrained people

Female circumcision, officially known as female genital mutilation, is one of the most political areas of women's health. Worldwide it is estimated that well over 100 million women have been subjected to it.
Supporters of the practice say it is done for cultural and religious reasons, but opponents say that not only is it potentially life-threatening - it is also an extreme form of oppression of women.
Those who persist in the practice in Senegal will now face a prison term of between one and five years.
Female circumcision is mainly carried out in western and southern Asia, the Middle East and large areas of Africa.
It is also known to take place among immigrant communities in the USA, Canada, France, Australia and Britain, where it is illegal.
In total it is estimated that two million a year are subjected to genital mutilation.
There are three main types of circumcision:

• The removal of the tip of the clitoris;
• Total removal of the clitoris and surrounding labia;
• The removal of the clitoris and labia and the sewing up of the vagina, leaving only a small opening for urine and menstrual blood - a process known as infibulation.

So drastic is the mutilation involved in the latter operation that young brides have to be cut open to allow penetration on their wedding night and are customarily sewn up afterwards.
The aim of the process is to ensure the woman is faithful to her future husband. Some communities consider girls ineligible for marriage if they have not been circumcised.
Girls as young as three undergo the process, but the age at which the operation is performed varies according to country and culture.
Health workers say that the operation is often carried out in unsanitary conditions.
Razor blades, scissors, kitchen knives and even pieces of glass are used, often on more than one girl, which increases the risk of infection.
Anaesthesia is rarely used.
Some girls die as a result of haemorraging, septicemia and shock.
It can also lead to long-term urinary and reproductive problems.
However, girls who have not been circumcised are considered "unclean" in many cultures, and can be treated as harlots by other women. Many men believe the folklore which says they will die if their penis touches a clitoris.
Campaigns are working

Female circumcision is part of the fabric of many African societies
Due to health campaigns, female circumcision has been falling in some countries in the last decade. In Kenya, a 1991 survey found that 78% of teenagers had been circumcised, compared to 100% of women over 50. In Sudan, the practice dropped by 10% between 1981 and 1990.
Several governments have introduced legislation to ensure the process is only carried out in hospitals by trained doctors.
Other countries such as Egypt have banned the operation altogether, but there is significant opposition to change because of the traditional nature of the process and health workers think a less confrontational approach, such as Ntanira Na Mugambo, could be more successful.
Ntanira Na Mugambo, also known as 'circumcision by words', has been developed in rural areas of Kenya by local and international women's health organisations.
It involves a week-long programme of community education about the negative effects of female genital mutilation, culminating in a coming of age ceremony for young women.
The young women are secluded for a week and undergo classes in reproduction, anatomy, hygiene, respect for adults, developing self-esteem and dealing with peer pressure.
Family members also undergo health education sessions and men in the community are taught about the negative effects of female circumcision.
Health workers believe the programme works because it does not exert a blunt prohibition on female genital mutilation, but offers an attractive alternative.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6176340.stm

 

[folcar]

I watched a documentary on a model (forgot the name who was of African decent. She had had this done to her as child and it was in part carried out by her own mother and aunts as i recall. The idea was that no man would want her if this was not done. The disgust i felt at what had been done and why was limitless, this is as serious and disgusting abuse of rights as human kind has ever come up with. It will be a blessed day on this planet when such brutal beliefs become a sad part of a history book.

 

[Libra Girl]

folcar, I echo your sentiments. It is a barbaric custom indeed.

 

[karrie]

Interesting post.

Personally, I think these practises should be approached in the same way as any other elective cosmetic surgery (and I feel the same about male circs). If someone wants to have it done as an adult, all the more power to them. But making the decision for babies or children is a violation of their basic human rights.

I have faith that few educated people, having had a life of getting to know and enjoy their anatomy, would choose to slice it apart.

 

[karrie]

I watched a documentary on a model (forgot the name who was of African decent. She had had this done to her as child and it was in part carried out by her own mother and aunts as i recall.

And see, that's why I think education campaigns should target the idea, not of making it illegal, but of putting it off until adulthood, when the woman can choose. If SHE really feels no man will want her, after being educated about it, then let docs carry it out, at HER request, in a safe environment. No eight year old girl needs to have her genitals up to any man's standard anyhow.

 

[folcar]

And see, that's why I think education campaigns should target the idea, not of making it illegal, but of putting it off until adulthood, when the woman can choose. If SHE really feels no man will want her, after being educated about it, then let docs carry it out, at HER request, in a safe environment. No eight year old girl needs to have her genitals up to any man's standard anyhow.

The problem with your proposal is in a perfect world it would work, this is not an issue in most developed nations where such a strategy would work. This is taking place in 3rd world nations with little resources to put into a society altering education program. The incident i was referring to was conducted without sterile tools, no drugs or pain killers, and certainly by no doctors. It was in fact conducted in the desert as was the custom as i recall and some of the girls actually die from the forced surgery. Eventually this will change as the societies in question evolve and develope, but without serious changes to the world in general i doubt it will end in our lifetime.

 

[able]

Saw a documentary where the girls clitoris was nipped. She stood there, while her father had his arm around her shoulders, another man sliced the clitoris off, she yipped, father comforted her, operation over. I was struck by the fact that she uttered only one yip, and had no tears. Strange, but only to our eyes. Traditions built up over a period of centuries in other countries must have had some purpose that escapes us, for instance I don't understand why the clitoris had to be removed. The only thing I do understand is that the west is becoming more hated everyday, as we attempt to change other peoples lives. I have the time and money to travel, the reason I don't, is because I can never be certain that I won't face personal attack because of real or imagined reasons to get one of THEM back. About the only place I think I can go safely are the ones in the Commonwealth. Figure I'll be going to Australia, but am not partial to taipans, king browns, or other snakes, but at least I know I should avoid them. You can't avoid the entire population of another country.

 

[karrie]

The problem with your proposal is in a perfect world it would work, this is not an issue in most developed nations where such a strategy would work. This is taking place in 3rd world nations with little resources to put into a society altering education program. The incident i was referring to was conducted without sterile tools, no drugs or pain killers, and certainly by no doctors. It was in fact conducted in the desert as was the custom as i recall and some of the girls actually die from the forced surgery. Eventually this will change as the societies in question evolve and develope, but without serious changes to the world in general i doubt it will end in our lifetime.

I know the limitations. The problem is, walking into a culture, and simply telling them 'you're not allowed to do that anymore' doesn't work very well either. No matter what, you have to launch an education program in order to counteract these behaviors. And I think most people who've read a magazine in the last 15 years have read the same article about the same model. Her story is brutal, as are the stories of virtually all the women who are subjected to this.

 

[Josephine]

I think these "traditions" are absolutely disgusting.

I believe this act is simply yet another way of controlling women. And of course they change the language. They call it "female circumcision", to down-play what it actually is...genital mutilation. Which one sounds worse to you?

This isn't like cutting off the forskin off the penis...this is like cutting off the penis.

If a grown woman, who has not been brainwashed or manipulated into believing this needs to be done for her future happiness, decides to have her genitals mutilated, maybe that's a different story, but I doubt that would happen.
This should NEVER be done to children.

If this was a common practise to cut off a man's penis...all hell would break loose.
People scream and freak-out about Loranna Bobbit stories...yet this just seems "cultural".

Please note...I am not suggesting that it's okay to cut off a man's penis!:smile:

 

[Josephine]

I know the limitations. The problem is, walking into a culture, and simply telling them 'you're not allowed to do that anymore' doesn't work very well either. No matter what, you have to launch an education program in order to counteract these behaviors. And I think most people who've read a magazine in the last 15 years have read the same article about the same model. Her story is brutal, as are the stories of virtually all the women who are subjected to this.

It seems almost impossible to educate an entire country...or continent about respecting women and their physical rights. If it's your culture or tradition to mutilate women and control them, how can they just be educated on why they shouldn't do that?
I mean, I have no idea how to change this, it just seems like we have known about this disgusting abuse for decades, and yet...it continues and in fact flouishes!:x

 

[karrie]

I think these "traditions" are absolutely disgusting.

I believe this act is simply yet another way of controlling women. And of course they change the language. They call it "female circumcision", to down-play what it actually is...genital mutilation. Which one sounds worse to you?

This isn't like cutting off the forskin off the penis...this is like cutting off the penis.

If a grown woman, who has not been brainwashed or manipulated into believing this needs to be done for her future happiness, decides to have her genitals mutilated, maybe that's a different story, but I doubt that would happen.
This should NEVER be done to children.

If this was a common practise to cut off a man's penis...all hell would break loose.
People scream and freak-out about Loranna Bobbit stories...yet this just seems "cultural".

Please note...I am not suggesting that it's okay to cut off a man's penis!:smile:

Hmmm... there are many forms of gential mutilation, and many of them are in fact very similar to male circumcision. Talk to any male with an intact foreskin, and ask him if they think male circs qualify as mutilation or not... many will say 'heck yeah', and are no more willing than women to give up their pleasurable bits. The foreskin contains most of the nerves in a man's penis and has been equated to the clitoris in that respect. Most femal circs don't prevent intercourse, but merely remove many of the nerves, the same as male circumcision. Only the most extreme variety, where the woman is sewn up, doesn't compare. Even then, it brings to mind the little boy I know who had had to have corrective surgery to 'untie' his penis due to unusual scarring. Poor little guy scarred crooked and ended up with it curling up on one side. Or, there was that one case study in gender reassignment, where the doc screwed up (the one article I read said he set the cautering iron wrong and burned the baby's penis completely off) and the family had to raise their son as a girl.

Anyway, those examples are not highly representative of the general population, but, male circumcision is still not a far cry from female.

 

[Josephine]

Hmmm... there are many forms of gential mutilation, and many of them are in fact very similar to male circumcision. Talk to any male with an intact foreskin, and ask him if they think male circs qualify as mutilation or not... many will say 'heck yeah', and are no more willing than women to give up their pleasurable bits. The foreskin contains most of the nerves in a man's penis and has been equated to the clitoris in that respect. Most femal circs don't prevent intercourse, but merely remove many of the nerves, the same as male circumcision. Only the most extreme variety, where the woman is sewn up, doesn't compare. Even then, it brings to mind the little boy I know who had had to have corrective surgery to 'untie' his penis due to unusual scarring. Poor little guy scarred crooked and ended up with it curling up on one side. Or, there was that one case study in gender reassignment, where the doc screwed up (the one article I read said he set the cautering iron wrong and burned the baby's penis completely off) and the family had to raise their son as a girl.

Anyway, those examples are not highly representative of the general population, but, male circumcision is still not a far cry from female.

I know that some men believe that circumcision is wrong and should be left for them to decide, and that's fine. But I see a great difference between what men go through and what women go through in terms of circumcision.

I'm attaching a quote...I know it's long, but it's good. If men truly feel that their circumcision is abuse and indeed mutliation, they need to do something about it. These women in Africa are trying to stop it. I see a GREAT difference in male and female "circumcision".
"
The debate over female circumcision is relatively recent. The practice was rarely spoken of in Africa and little known in the West until the second half of this century. In the 1950s and 1960s, however, African activists and medical practitioners brought the health consequences of female circumcision to the attention of international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO). Still, it was not until 1979 that any formal policy statement was made: A seminar organized by WHO in Khartoum to address traditional practices affecting the health of women and children issued recommendations that governments work to eliminate the practice.1
During the following decade, the widespread silence surrounding female circumcision was broken. After African women's organizations met in Dakar, Senegal, in 1984 to discuss female circumcision and other detrimental cultural practices, the Inter African Committee Against Harmful Traditional Practices (IAC) was formed. With national committees in more than 20 countries, the IAC has been important in bringing the harmful effects of female circumcision to the attention of African governments. In addition, other African women's networks and organizations that had focused primarily on such issues as reproductive health, women's rights and legal justice became involved in working against the practice. Such groups as Mandalaeo Ya Wanawake in Kenya, NOW in Nigeria and New Woman in Egypt now include the elimination of female circumcision among their goals.
With shifts in emphasis came new language: Although activists and clinicians continued to refer to female circumcision when working directly with women in the community, policy statements and other documents began to use the term "female genital mutilation." That term was used in the first international document to specifically address the practice, the Programme of Action adopted by the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994.3 The Program refers to female genital mutilation as a "basic rights violation" and urges governments to "prohibit and urgently stop the practice...wherever it exists."
In the Platform of the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, female genital mutilation was cited as both a threat to women's reproductive health and a violation of their human rights.4 In addition to making general recommendations, the Platform specifically called on governments to "enact and enforce legislation against the perpetrators of practices and acts of violence against women, such as female genital mutilation...." Notably, the drive to include language specifically condemning female genital mutilation in the Platform was led by Africans.
There are three basic types of genital excision, although practices vary widely. In the first type, clitoridectomy, part or all of the clitoris is amputated, while in the second (often referred to as excision), both the clitoris and the labia minora are removed. Infibulation, the third type, is the most severe: After excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, the labia majora are cut or scraped away to create raw surfaces, which are held in contact until they heal, either by stitching the edges of the wound or by tying the legs together. As the wounds heal, scar tissue joins the labia and covers the urethra and most of the vaginal orifice, leaving an opening that may be as small as a matchstick for the passage of urine and menstrual blood.9
The overall proportion of women who have undergone each type of circumcision is not known, although clitoridectomy appears to be by far the most common procedure. It is estimated that about 15% of all circumcised women have been infibulated, although an estimated 80-90% of all circumcisions in Djibouti, Somalia and the Sudan are of this type.10"
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2313097.html

 

[karrie]

I know that some men believe that circumcision is wrong and should be left for them to decide, and that's fine. But I see a great difference between what men go through and what women go through in terms of circumcision.

Your post still addresses mainly infibulation, which I said is the one that doesn't compare. But circumcision, the removal of the clitoris and or labia, is equivalent. And there are men who are speaking up, men who have launched law suits trying to claim back their human rights. Taking a conscious baby and slicing off pieces of their reproductive organs is just as brutal and painful for men as it is for women.

 

[Josephine]

Your post still addresses mainly infibulation, which I said is the one that doesn't compare. But circumcision, the removal of the clitoris and or labia, is equivalent. And there are men who are speaking up, men who have launched law suits trying to claim back their human rights. Taking a conscious baby and slicing off pieces of their reproductive organs is just as brutal and painful for men as it is for women.

Well then, fantastic that those men are speaking up and launching law suits! There's nothing wrong with that...just as there's nothing wrong with me as a woman stating that this female genital mutliation is wrong and abusive.

And why shouldn't infibulation be discussed? That is a form of "female circumcision" and it is horrible and unhealthy and can kill a woman or child (depending on the age of the victim).

But, again, I disagree that both are equally "brutal".

 

[karrie]

Well then, fantastic that those men are speaking up and launching law suits! There's nothing wrong with that...just as there's nothing wrong with me as a woman stating that this female genital mutliation is wrong and abusive.

And why shouldn't infibulation be discussed? That is a form of "female circumcision" and it is horrible and unhealthy and can kill a woman or child (depending on the age of the victim).

But, again, I disagree that both are equally "brutal".

Um, I never said you shouldn't speak up.

What I said was that male circ and female circ are very much the same. The assertion that it would equal cutting off a penis doesn't apply to most cases of female circ (this was why I was saying infibulation is not equivalent, not that you shouldn't talkabout it). Most are equivalent to male circ. Both are disgusting, and men ARE speaking out. Human rights are human rights. Frankly, I don't understand why people speak out against one and not the other.

 

[Josephine]

Um, I never said you shouldn't speak up.

What I said was that male circ and female circ are very much the same. The assertion that it would equal cutting off a penis doesn't apply to most cases of female circ (this was why I was saying infibulation is not equivalent, not that you shouldn't talkabout it). Most are equivalent to male circ. Both are disgusting, and men ARE speaking out. Human rights are human rights. Frankly, I don't understand why people speak out against one and not the other.

Sorry...I didn't mean to imply that you told me to keep my mouth shut or anything!:smile:

I understand that some men think of circumcision as mutilation and I'm glad they're fighting for their rights...I think that's great. BUt the fact is that infibulation does occur with women, as mentioned int eh quote I put in, it's very common practice in some parts of Africa. But how common is the removal of the male penis, calling it "circumcision"?

Like I said, personally I see a difference, but I understand that you don't. And yes human rights are human rights!

But...the people who are performing the "circumcisions" on women in africa are male doctors and the women are creating organizations and whatnot to stop this mutilation. This is being done to women by men. I don't actually know this...but I would guess that most of the doctors are male as well, performing "circumcisions" on men. If the women had control and were able to make the decisions about their own medical care, I doubt they would decide to do this procedure.

 

[Josephine]

Question for any men in this thread...if you were circumcised as a baby...do you wish you had been given the chance to make that decision yourself? I'm not trying to disprove you Karrie...at all. The thing is, I've always just figured that if I had a baby boy, I would get him circumcised...and my husband agrees, but if this truly seen as mutilation to most men, that is something that would definately tip the scales!

 

[tracy]

Question for any men in this thread...if you were circumcised as a baby...do you wish you had been given the chance to make that decision yourself? I'm not trying to disprove you Karrie...at all. The thing is, I've always just figured that if I had a baby boy, I would get him circumcised...and my husband agrees, but if this truly seen as mutilation to most men, that is something that would definately tip the scales!

People generally think what they have is what's normal. The women mutilating little girls all were mutilated themselves and consider that to be normal, better, cleaner, whatever. If they didn't they certainly wouldn't be doing it to their daughters. Does their perception of it change the reality at all? Does it make it acceptable?

 

[karrie]

Sorry...I didn't mean to imply that you told me to keep my mouth shut or anything!:smile:

I understand that some men think of circumcision as mutilation and I'm glad they're fighting for their rights...I think that's great. BUt the fact is that infibulation does occur with women, as mentioned int eh quote I put in, it's very common practice in some parts of Africa. But how common is the removal of the male penis, calling it "circumcision"?

Like I said, personally I see a difference, but I understand that you don't. And yes human rights are human rights!

But...the people who are performing the "circumcisions" on women in africa are male doctors and the women are creating organizations and whatnot to stop this mutilation. This is being done to women by men. I don't actually know this...but I would guess that most of the doctors are male as well, performing "circumcisions" on men. If the women had control and were able to make the decisions about their own medical care, I doubt they would decide to do this procedure.

lol. Okay... all I was saying was that there are many kinds of female circ, and most (aside from the most severe) are comparable to male circ. I don't think infibrulation is comparable, except in cases of medical accidents.

But, from what I know of the history of female circumcision, it was often done by the women in the tribe, to the women in the tribe. Only recently have male doctors taken over, trying to save these girls from dying at the hands of a tribeswoman with a sharp rock. But, that's just what I've gleaned from articles on the issue.

 

[earth_as_one]

Different types of female circumcision exist. Some are not all that different from a male circumcision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Nasty stuff in general.