Interesting piece on female genital mutilation

Wildflower63,

In so many ways, I agree with you. I am normally very resistant to imposing a viewpoint on anyone.

However, the question here goes far further than removal of sexual pleasure. e.g. Infibulation: New York State Journal of Medicine, Volume 77, Number 6: Pages 729-31, April 1977. (Yes, it's old but it's still true).
http://www.cirp.org/pages/female/pieters1/



I know about this and care, deeply, because I was introduced to the subject by a girlfriend (several years ago) who was writing a postgraduate paper on the subject. I saw some HORRIFIC pictures of the results of such mutilation, enough to make me feel dizzy - and I used to be a medical student.

Sometimes there are things which need a firm voice to say "I think this is wrong" and then EXPLAIN WHY. Education is the way forward - as well as the upholding of laws against such practices in our own countries - where some doctors comply with parents' desires to continue this barbaric treatment.

Your points about the piercings and tatoos of your children are societal concerns you hold...they are hardly comparable (though I'm sure I'd feel the same way if I had children of a similar age!).

I hope you see my perspective - I don't think we (Westerners) have all the answers but, to me, FGM is tantamount to child abuse of the worst kind. Shouldn't we stand up and speak our minds on the issue?

KP

I agree - but (except in our own countries, where we may - and have - simply banned it) we need to speak gently, I believe.

I have a friend who was a midwife in England - I have heard enough to make me want to kill, really - but still...

This site provides an overview of other sites about the subject.

I was looking for ways to support organizations promoting an end to the practice - one such is Amnesty International - here is its website bringing together a number of actions to prevent violence against women, including female genital mutilation:

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm

If, like me, you are looking to support the efforts of people in the areas affected to educate and provide a structure of support to end this horror - these sites may help.
http://www.gmu.edu/student/mrrc/FGM%20PROJECT.html

A very interesting paper on the topic - and discussing the difficulties in changing things, and tactics for doing so: Highly interesting and informative:

www.wgf.org/publications/reports/2000/paper_fgm.pdf

I agree that the best way to alter the practices of a society with a different culture is to first understand their point of view then, if you still want to alter their practice after understanding its rationale, educate them to less destructive ways ("functional alternatives") of achieving the same ends. It is NOT our business to prescribe ends to others. We must respect that aspect of their culture because ENDS reflect VALUES. To impose our values on others is known as ETHNOCENTRISM, and to interpret their ends in terms of our values is known as ETHNOCENTRIC PROJECTION. I think this is a collective version of EGOCENTRISM or EGOCENTRIC PROJECTION, as when, as individuals, we narcisstically interpret and evaluate the actions of our neighbors. But in the case of clitoridectomies it seems that their ends are not to destroy sexual enjoyment for a woman for its own sake but to confine her favors to her husband. If they did not believe that their women were promiscous they would not have to de-motivate them by surgically blocking their pleasure. This would not have much to do with the production of children, Wildflower, only with "illegitimate" children. The husbands could still impose themselves on their wives, even against the will of their wives.Aside from the apparent paranoia of these men, my concern is that their "solution" is draconian, and not endorsed by its victims. I realize that I must qualify much of the above, but I'll do so in response to your reactions.

(edited)

When did we become so superior to dictate our beliefs on an unevolved culture?

so wildflower, when did we decide that one or other of the following is not appropriate to a modern civil society

canabalism
ritual child sacrifice
bull baiting
fox hunting
female genital mutilation
devil worship
scientology
abstinence from pork or shellfish
driving past schools at 80 mph
circumcision male
animal sacrifice


just because the Aztecs ripped the hearts out of their sacrificial victims does not make it acceptable on a cultural equivalence basis, and neither does ripping the clitoris out of girls.

For the record, driving past schools at 80 mph is not really a cultural practice outside of people who want to blatently disobey the speed limit because they can.

Wildflower, many women in America were originally opposed to women's sufferage and other advances, and women who advocated them were looked down on. I don't think this situation with circumcision is much different than that. Women ARE protesting for their rights (if not in those words) and ARE trying to change things. Even in America, it went slowly at first. If I'm not mistaken, in America black men had the vote before any women did. Slavery only went back so far, but that image of women has been around since mideval Europe, or longer.

Okay, sorry for not reading all of above (I'm lazy) but FGM is the cutting off of the clitoris and labia and stitching the wound closed so that there is no (or very little) opening? Is that right?

Although not quite as severe, isn't male circumcision similar? American society accepts that.

Personally I don't understand either practice and don't support anything that is done to a human beings flesh that is not without their full permission.

Of course I think we all have the right to speak our minds or I wouldn't participate in a site like this. Maybe I was misunderstood with my words about tatoos. What I intended to say is that if I find this objectionable, I view this barbaric practice, imposed by family, with complete disgust.

I do think this is wrong, but am not sure whether or not this is a violation of human rights or a culture practice. There are societies that are probably eons behind modern ones. I do think it is right to let them evolve in a way that is their decision, not one imposed by others. I don't really know where to put this surgical procedure in human rights violation. I think that I understand why it is done, but also question a human rights violation by doing it.

I tend to lean towards thinking that adult family members living in a highly male dominated society know what future their young female family member my suffer, if she likes sex, which our bodies are designed to, mutually. I think, as a woman in a fee society, that I have had about enough hell in my life because I chose to have children, but this gives me only hardship of responsibility. My husband does not own me, like a dog, and can't. I can leave him because we don't get along. I can remarry, with no social problems denying me of this. I can choose a profession. I can be educated. I have so many choices these women do not and never will.

These women are owned like our pet dog, but often aren't treated as well as the family pet. I believe (correct me where wrong!) that middle east countries can have their wife inprisoned to prostitute themselves out for a crime of their husbands. I was told that by a navy guy that visited one of these prisons. These adult women have no opportunity at all in life to support their children. Men and sexuality can and does mean very big trouble to a woman in some countries today.

I was shocked and sickened watching the Iraq war with the widows and children and a dead husband. They are not eligible for re-marriage, not being a virgin. I have to admit, if this was a culture I lived in. I would advise, not mutilate, my own daughter, not to marry or have children. If anyone is going to own her, it will be me, who loves her and would never mistreat her.

I also had a friend who immigrated from Ethopia. She was among the more wealthy, in her country. She was thrilled that she could independently choose a job and have a paycheck with her name on it to use how she wished. This was like a dream come true, her words of a woman of a standard of wealth in a male dominated society. She stated that she was never mistreated, but raised very strict, by her mother who knew the demands upon a woman of their country.

The only thing they were allowed to own was their jewelry. You should have seen hers!! She kept it in a safe deposit box at the bank and asked her husband to switch over to have something different to wear. I would easily guess that her jewelry would easily pay for a very nice house, even if sold to a pawn shop.

Freedom of choice was more important to her than the status of wealth in her country. She worked as a nursing assistant. She decided to go to hair school. She had choices that we take for granted. You also have to understand, she was a woman of wealth and education, in her country, not the typical citizen. She knew there was more out there. Most people of oppressed, male dominated countries do not have the benefit of knowledge she was exposed to and know no other life and do not have the wealth to give them the choice, which my friend had, as a person of wealth.

The majority are so used to living under oppression, they don't even question it. They feel trapped, with no choices. Loving parents may be trying to protect their daughters. I think they are, even if this practice is beyond horrible.

A question for members to discuss, not argue about; Do you feel this surgical procedure is a violation of human rights, knowing the culture these people live? Personally, I am still sitting the fence on that one.

Male circumcision cuts off the foreskin. From what I've heard, it's pretty painless, doesn't impair their ability to enjoy sex, doesn't require anesthetic, and there's some claims that it actually helps prevent STDs (I won't speak for their veracity though). The equivalent for a clitorectomy would be cutting off the whole head - not to mention the stitching up thing, which I recall hearing also causes TSS when women start their periods.

On that note, I'm going to get a little graphic, but this subject is a bit on that side.

I have a friend that is a licensed GP and specalized in orthopedics. This guy is a brainiac, but lacks social skills completely. You can figure, no one will be lining up for him to be their doc, but he is brilliant.

Personal problem no one wants to hear about, I know! I have two children, now teens. My second was born in two hours, start to finish. This does cause trauma to the uterus. My problem is not uncommon for any woman who gave birth. My uterus dropped and will need surgical repair, at some point.

Hang in there! I am getting to the point of this!! I was 38 years old when the problem was noticable. I discussed this diagnosis with my doc friend. I wanted a hysterectomy. I don't want any more kids. I don't want any monthly visits.

He was very insistent with his advice against this. There is a biological explanation for this advice. Sex is for the purpose of pregnancy, alone. There are two areas of sexual stimulation, for a woman. The clitoris is one, which allows enough stimlation for sexual penetration. The area of the opening of the uterus is another. This is that mysterious G Spot, no one can figure out, it seems. Stimulation of either can produce orgasm, for a woman because the penis has to be in the right place, biologically speaking, to cause impregnation.

He explained that there is a difference. Women can experience orgasm from either type of stimulation or simultaneous orgasm from both. Women do have preferences or may not. We all know that it does require sperm to enter the uterus to cause pregnancy. There is one, small opening inside the female body that will allow this. I don't really get why people get so stupid about the G Spot, when it is so obivious, but, whatever!!

He explained to me that women who sexually prefer deep stimulation, often have sexual problems after hysterectomy. They can only have clitoral orgasm, after hysterectomy. Nature designed the human body this way. He strongly advised me against this, given many methods of birth control and techniques to stop periods, for women who desire no children.

What I am saying is, cut off the clitoris and this does not necessarily accomplish the goal of a woman not being able to have an orgasm at all. If it were only clitoral stimulation, no woman would necessarily desire sex at all. A hand job or oral sex would be enough for all women, but it isn't. Our bodies are not designed that way at all.

Sorry to be so graphic!! I don't believe that this procedure is going to necessarily stop any woman, with normal desire for the opposite sex, from orgasm at all. Nice try, but this comes from unadvanced societies that use ignorance, not modern knowledge, to make decisions.

It isn't like this knowledge isn't out there. It is. These are ignorant, oppressed people in a society we don't have to live in or we wouldn't have the internet to give our thoughts to begin with. We don't hear the voice of women who have done this to a loved female family member and wont, until their society evolves to that point.

Yeah - but the subsequent trauma and frequent pain and infections might well do the job.

Societies do not evolve. The reason those people do not have the internet is that they do not have the money for a computer and thus the industry is not big there. They are no more ignorant about our culture than we are about theirs, and we are all oppressed somehow.

And I happen to like the C-spot better than the G-spot, but maybe I'm in the minority there. *shrug*

I happen to completely disagree with both posts. Did I say this was not trauma or ignorance of infection doing some home job surgical procedure? No, I didn't. It is not fact that TSS occurs with a period at all. It is infection!! It may not be all too noticable until symptoms get bad. Many people, as a RN, have gone into septic shock (shock due to overwhelming infection) fairly suddenly, like within only two days at most over a simple bladder infection. I'm sure most women have experienced this!

Societies don't evolve? Since when? I'm not historian at all, but there have been major advances in societies in the past century. I don't use my horse to get me to work. I use a climate controlled car. I have see, throughout history, when people demand rights, they get them, but it isn't easy and no one can come in and quick fix it. People have to deeply believe in what rights they fight for or will not fight.

What if the US comes in and tells these people their practice is barbaric, a violation of human rights, and outlaws it. Do you think it will stop? No, because the people don't believe this. People, of all cultures, will only fight for what they believe in, only. They will not fight for what is dictated to them, unless forced to.

As disgusting as I find this practice, I have not yet heard the voices of anyone but of privilege of birth of the right country. Since none of us have to live with this culture, don't you think we should hear more than one side of the story before criminalizing female family members who love their own? I do. Do you honestly think that people in all countries have adequate medical care? They don't and that is fact!

What do you want, global welfare? Sorry, but you have to earn anything you get out of life. So do these people of oppressed countries. If they have no beliefs that they are willing to risk their own lives over to give future generations a better life, than so be it, for now. That will change. Mark my words on that one.

Societies change, but they don't "evolve" in the sense that they get "better" over time. Governments might get better or worse, but you can't say the same for societies. You might think your climate-controlled car is some hot stuff, but it pollutes the air, and breaks, and causes wars in the middle east so that you can drive it, and kills small animals. Sure, you get speed, but that might not be a necessity in other cultures as it is here. Cars used to be things that rich people bought for shits and giggles, until they created suburbs to boost sales.

And what does this have to do with rights anyway? Everyone wants rights. But what if someone offered you the right to murder people? Would you fight for it, just because it was a right? Obviously, it's not the same thing, but it took a LONG time to get rights here, and this is the f*cking country of rights. Why do you need it to go faster there before you believe that people are fighting?

You should read the articles on the thread - people are fighting it, people who live in these "backward", "underevolved" societies even. If you think they don't care, there is a wealth of information on the subject that you have been steadfastly ignoring.

I never said anything about global welfare - you're just making things up now.

Ruio, I don't think we really disagree at all. We are using different phrasing. I think we are looking at the exact same thing from a different angle is all.

I think you went a little too far with the rights thing. You bet, if I had the right to murder, I would have a dead husband instead of a nasty divorce. In reality, it would be so much easier on me if he were dead. Instead, I get an expensive legal battle and emotions of grief, but he isn't dead. He is alive and well. He will hurt me for his own self gain. I have to deal with the pain, disappointment, rage, ect.

You can't have rights without responsibility. When ethics fail, the law steps in. I have no plans of killing my husband at all. I don't have the right to take his life or he mine. We have a responsibility to society not to behave in this way. We have legal rights when one crosses the line against us, which I will use. I also have to take the responsibility for my own life choices and deal with it in an ethical way.

Back to the topic. Correct, I didn't read articles. They are usually too lengthy and put me to sleep, but I understand the problem. There are obvious differing points of view, among the people. There are people who feel this is a human rights violation. There are family members who disagree and still practice this horrible procedure.

It is my personal belief, throughout history, things have changed for the better, which is what I mean by using the term 'evolve'. England no longer has a King or Queen, by birthright making rule on the people. People demanded change, for the better, and got it. Examples like this are all over the world that live by something better today.

For anyone interested, Care2, which raises funds for various environmental and human and animal welfare groups, is changing its breast cancer campaign for a while, soon, to supporting Amnesty International's campaign against violence against women. Amnesty include female genital mutilation amongst what they are campaigning against. You will therefore be able to donate just by clicking when the Amnesty fund-raiser begins.

www.care2.com

Oops - Care2 are now instituting that campaign as a separate one:

http://stopviolence.care2.com/i?p=184119931

I donate to the NRA only. Go ahead, laugh at me! I like the cause. That is where my donations go. Charity begins at home, right? I don't feel like giving cash to impoverished losers who don't try, in a country that has a lot to offer. I don't donate towards medical advances that drug companies already have stock holder investment to cash in.

Give me a better cause to send my hard earned cash? This is their battle to fight, not mine. As wrong as I feel it is, it is not my country and culture that I have true understanding of. People need help to help themsleves, such as education, but the government already throws enough cash at that. I can't find much worthy these days that administration doesn't eat up the cost with a few pennys for every donated dollar being wasted.

Donate where you wish, Wildflower.