Female Genital Mutilation

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,289
Location
Edge's beanie closet
When will this torture end?

(AP)The World Health Organization said Friday that female genital cutting is a form of torture that must be stamped out, even if it is done by trained medical personnel.

The "medicalization" of ritual genital cutting fails to prevent girls from being permanently scarred, threatening their lives when they give birth later and endangering their babies, WHO said in a report.

Genital cutting "is the worst thing that a medical doctor could possibly do," said Joy Phumaphi, WHO assistant director-general and a former health minister from Botswana. "It is even worse than turning a blind eye, because you are legitimizing violation of a basic human right and violence against an innocent victim."

There can be no justification for doctors and nurses "to come and supervise the torture," Phumaphi said.

The practice — called genital mutilation by opponents — is done primarily in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. It is usually done on girls under 10. More than 100 million women and girls worldwide are believed to have undergone genital cutting, the U.N. health agency said.

Genital cutting usually involves removal of the clitoris. Those who practice it believe the cutting tames sexual desire and increases a girl's marriageability. Genital cutting is done by both Muslims and Christians.

An estimated 3 million women and girls undergo genital cutting each year, according to UNICEF.

"When the world is trying to save animals, when the world is trying to save plants, women in Africa are subjected to unnecessary torture in the name of tradition," said Berhane Ras-Work, president of the non-governmental group IAC, which campaigns against genital cutting. "It is a horrendous practice, it should not be allowed, it should be condemned, it should be stopped."

An increasing number of girls are being subjected to the practice by trained medical personnel, a UNICEF report said last year. While that may help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS through the use of cleaner instruments, the WHO said it was opposed to any proposals that would endorse genital cutting.

"It's the same as attempting murder with a clean knife," Phumaphi said.

WHO's study, published in The Lancet medical journal, found that women who have suffered the most serious form of genital cutting have a 70 percent greater chance of hemorrhage after childbirth compared with women who did not undergo the procedure.

In countries where childbirth mortality rates are already high, "this particular process is practically a death sentence," Phumaphi said.

Children born to women whose genitals have been cut also are at greater risk, the study found. Depending on the severity of the genital cutting, neonatal death rates range from 15 percent to 55 percent higher than babies born to women with intact genitals.

WHO's study involved more than 28,000 women in six African countries where the practice is common — Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan.

Ras-Work said some countries in Africa were doing better than others in trying to end the practice. She cited Burkina Faso and Senegal as places where attitudes were being changed and genital cutting was declining.

Amnesty International's site

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a1

"Sometimes a trained midwife will be available to give a local anaesthetic. In some cultures, girls will be told to sit beforehand in cold water, to numb the area and reduce the likelihood of bleeding. More commonly, however, no steps are taken to reduce the pain. The girl is immobilized, held, usually by older women, with her legs open. Mutilation may be carried out using broken glass, a tin lid, scissors, a razor blade or some other cutting instrument. When infibulation takes place, thorns or stitches may be used to hold the two sides of the labia majora together, and the legs may be bound together for up to 40 days. Antiseptic powder may be applied, or, more usually, pastes - containing herbs, milk, eggs, ashes or dung - which are believed to facilitate healing."
 
"FGM is an issue that concerns women and men who believe in equality, dignity and fairness to all human beings, regardless of gender, race, religion or ethnic identity. It must not be seen as the problem of any one group or culture, whether African, Muslim or Christian. FGM is practiced by many cultures. It represents a human tragedy and must not be used to set Africans against non-Africans, one religious group against the other, or even women against men."

Nahid Toubia, A Call for Global Action
 
This is absolutley astounding - I've never heard of such a thing.

WTF is wrong with the world today?
 
YBORCITYOBL said:
This is absolutley astounding - I've never heard of such a thing.

More people need to be aware that this goes on, I only heard about it maybe five years ago.

One testimony from the AI site

"I was genitally mutilated at the age of ten. I was told by my late grandmother that they were taking me down to the river to perform a certain ceremony, and afterwards I would be given a lot of food to eat. As an innocent child, I was led like a sheep to be slaughtered.

Once I entered the secret bush, I was taken to a very dark room and undressed. I was blindfolded and stripped naked. I was then carried by two strong women to the site for the operation. I was forced to lie flat on my back by four strong women, two holding tight to each leg. Another woman sat on my chest to prevent my upper body from moving. A piece of cloth was forced in my mouth to stop me screaming. I was then shaved.

When the operation began, I put up a big fight. The pain was terrible and unbearable. During this fight, I was badly cut and lost blood. All those who took part in the operation were half-drunk with alcohol. Others were dancing and singing, and worst of all, had stripped naked.

I was genitally mutilated with a blunt penknife.

After the operation, no one was allowed to aid me to walk. The stuff they put on my wound stank and was painful. These were terrible times for me. Each time I wanted to urinate, I was forced to stand upright. The urine would spread over the wound and would cause fresh pain all over again. Sometimes I had to force myself not to urinate for fear of the terrible pain. I was not given any anaesthetic in the operation to reduce my pain, nor any antibiotics to fight against infection. Afterwards, I haemorrhaged and became anaemic. This was attributed to witchcraft. I suffered for a long time from acute vaginal infections."

Hannah Koroma, Sierra Leone


The effects of genital mutilation can lead to death. At the time the mutilation is carried out, pain, shock, haemorrhage and damage to the organs surrounding the clitoris and labia can occur. Afterwards urine may be retained and serious infection develop. Use of the same instrument on several girls without sterilization can cause the spread of HIV.

More commonly, the chronic infections, intermittent bleeding, abscesses and small benign tumours of the nerve which can result from clitoridectomy and excision cause discomfort and extreme pain.

Infibulation can have even more serious long-term effects: chronic urinary tract infections, stones in the bladder and urethra, kidney damage, reproductive tract infections resulting from obstructed menstrual flow, pelvic infections, infertility, excessive scar tissue, keloids (raised, irregularly shaped, progressively enlarging scars) and dermoid cysts.
 
YBORCITYOBL said:
This is absolutley astounding - I've never heard of such a thing.

WTF is wrong with the world today?


Wow. My first recollection of reading about this comes sometime around 10 years ago. But, I agree with MrsS, more people need to be made aware of it so that perhaps something can be done to put the practice to an end.

It's a monstrosity that this is still allowed to go on.
 
verte76 said:
This is still done in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. It's terrible.

Actually, verte, female cirucumcision is viewed with abhorrence by the general public in Saudi Arabia, Syria and the Gulf States. It's mostly a sub-Saharan practice, and pre-dates Islam...actually goes back to the time of the Pharoahs (though i have no doubt some/lots of Islamic clerics and male power elites in Moslem countries would love to keep the practice ingrained in society). In Africa, it's practiced by both Moslems and non-Moslems.

more info here:

http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/fgm.html
 
Well at least one person had to answer for doing it, I wonder how often this is happening in the US :eyebrow:

(AP)An Ethiopian immigrant was convicted Wednesday of the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in what was believed to be the first such criminal case in the United States.

Khalid Adem, 30, was found guilty of aggravated battery and cruelty to children. Prosecutors said he used scissors to remove his daughter's clitoris in his family's Atlanta-area apartment in 2001. The child's mother, Fortunate Adem, said she did not discover it until more than a year later.

Adem, who had no criminal record, could have been sentenced to up to 40 years in prison. He held his face in his hands and wept loudly after the jury's verdict was read.

During her father's trial, the girl, now 7, clutched a teddy bear as she testified on videotape that her father "cut me on my private part."

"This child has suffered, will suffer, the rest of her life," Judge Richard Winegarden told Adem during sentencing.

Federal law specifically bans the practice of genital mutilation, but many states do not have a law addressing it. Georgia lawmakers, with the support of the girl's mother, passed an anti-mutilation law last year. But Adem was not tried under that law since it did not exist when his daughter was cut.

During the trial, Adem testified he never circumcised his daughter or asked anyone else to do so. He said he grew up in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, and considers the practice more prevalent in rural areas.

Adem's attorney acknowledged that the girl had been cut, but implied that the family of the girl's mother, who immigrated from South Africa, may have been responsible. The Adems divorced three years ago, and attorney Mark Hill suggested that the couple's daughter was coached to testify against her father by her mother, who has full custody of the child.

Adem, who cried throughout the trial and during his testimony, was asked what he thought of someone who believes in the practice. He replied: "The word I can say is 'mind in the gutter.' He is a moron."
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Prosecutors said he used scissors to remove his daughter's clitoris in his family's Atlanta-area apartment in 2001. The child's mother, Fortunate Adem, said she did not discover it until more than a year later.

:eyebrow: OK, that strikes me as a little odd. The mother never noticed a gaping wound on her baby's privates?


I can't imagine ever being socialized to think this practice is acceptable. If a consenting adult really wants her clit hacked off, so be it, but what really gets me about FGM is that these are little girls. Not only are they physically and emotionally scarred for life, they can't ever have sex as it was meant to be, they risk infections, even going pee is painful.
 
Yes it's all about the sexual pleasure issue. I assume sexual pleasure for women is threatening to people who do this. I believe they think it gives women some sort of power they shouldn't have, or will make them whores or something like that. Of course the sexual pleasure of men isn't seen in that way at all by those people. It's just one more brutal way of controlling females.

Yes I don't know how that girl's mother didn't notice the damage done to her, but that didn't seem to affect the verdict in any way. Obviously we don't have access to the trial in its' entirety. I think they do it to little girls so it's done before they can think for themselves about sex and sexual pleasure.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
What is the basis of this barbaric ritual? My first guess is just preventing women from sexual pleasure. Is that it? How do they rationalize this?
Do you have a better way to keep property owned?
 
Liesje said:

I can't imagine ever being socialized to think this practice is acceptable. If a consenting adult really wants her clit hacked off, so be it, but what really gets me about FGM is that these are little girls. Not only are they physically and emotionally scarred for life, they can't ever have sex as it was meant to be, they risk infections, even going pee is painful.

The same can be said for routine male infant circumcision. Especially your last sentence.

Ali
 
AliR said:


The same can be said for routine male infant circumcision. Especially your last sentence.

Ali

It's true, but not NEARLY to the same degree. The POINT of FGM is to make any sexual activity impossible or painful. I'm not sure there really is a point to male circumcision anymore, but when there was I believe it was part of OT covenant, not to make males feel owned and shamed by their own anatomy. I've yet to meet a circumcised male who is emotionally scarred and regrets being circumcised.
 
AliR said:


The same can be said for routine male infant circumcision. Especially your last sentence.

Ali

Very very true. I realize some of the health issues associated with FGM don't apply (talking about complications with childbirth), but really the rest of it is all cultural bias. FGM is certainly a barbaric practice, but saying male circumcision isn't is rather hypocritical.
 
I don't think FGM is merely "cultural bias", it is meant to control and eliminate the sexuality and sexual "power" of women. Unless hatred of women can be deemed to be merely a "cultural bias". I'm not saying male circumcision is always right or always justified- but I don't think you can compare the physical, mental, and emotional effects. I don't think male circumcision was ever designed to control male sexuality or male power , and they can still have sex and sexual pleasure-much more pleasure than a woman who has had her entire genital area mutilated. I would venture a guess that an adult woman (let alone a child) who has had her genitals mutilated in the ways that FGM is performed would have a permanent fear of sex similar to what a rape victim might have-can you say the same about a male who has been circumcised in a normal way? If you could, seems to me there would be numerous men who wouldn't be having sex.


Obviously I'm no expert on the topic of the physical effects of either or both, but that would be my conclusion based upon what I do know.
 
Cultures which practice the various procedures that may fall under the FGM heading don't offer any one rationale for them. "Chastity" is a predominant theme, but other, less common explanations recorded by anthropologists include hygiene; belief that certain genital tissues in both males and females are childishly "hermaphroditic" and should be removed at puberty; or a belief that FGM is required by Islam (which the majority of Muslim scholars categorically reject). If there is a fear of "power" in some sense underlying any or all of these, my guess is that it boils down mostly to fear of illegitimate children (with attendant social consequences) and a belief that one good way to deal with this is ensuring that women won't desire sex enough to pursue it outside of marriage.

Anyhow, to summarize some *warning--rather graphic* info from a couple human rights law books I have containing essays on the topic:

There is one procedure sometimes classified as a form of FGM which could perhaps be described as anatomically analogous to male circumcision, and that is so-called sunna circumcision or clitoridotomy (not clitoridectomy). This is the removal of the clitoral hood and frenulum clitoris, which are the developmentally homologous female tissues to the male foreskin and frenulum. This particular operation is sometimes done on a voluntary basis in the US as a sexual enhancement procedure (which is fully legal), and there are a couple studies apparently indicating that it enhanced sensitivity in the majority of surveyed women who underwent it. Internationally, however, clitoridotomy accounts for only about 3% of all "female circumcision" procedures, according to the World Health Organization.

The most common form by far--accounting for some 80% of the 130 million or so women who have undergone FGM--is what the WHO calls "Type II," which involves both clitoridectomy (clitoridotomy + removal of the clitoris) and removal of the labia minora and labia majora. In other words, ALL of the erectile/engorgeable genital tissues are removed. Anatomically speaking, it is not possible to analogize this to male circumcision because in terms of homologous structures, that would mean removal of the glans penis and both corpora cavernosa, as well as the foreskin, frenulum, scrotum and distal urethra. While sexual satisfaction surveys of women who have undergone this type of FGM are, not surprisingly, rather lacking, everything we know about the nature of women's "erogenous zones" suggests that all genitally derived pleasure, from arousal to orgasm, would be categorically impossible once this procedure has been performed.

Another 15% (again, according to WHO data) undergo the most extreme form, which is usually called "infibulation." This is the same as Type II, with the difference that the outer edges of the labia majora are left, then stitched together, leaving only a small opening over the lower part of the vaginal orifice (the urethra is thus blocked, so urine must run down underneath the stitched skin and dribble out this opening). The girl's legs are then tied together for around two weeks to prevent further disturbing the wounds. The stitches are left in so that the labia will fuse together through scarring, then partially removed (i.e., torn out) prior to first intercourse. They must be fully removed for childbirth, though in some cultures it's customary to restore them afterwards. Unsurprisingly, it's this type of FGM which is most associated with greatly increased risks in childbirth (70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage, according to the recent Lancet study), and it's also the type most likely to lead to severe urinary tract and menstruation-related infections. (However, Type II can also cause severe infections and obstructive scarring, especially when performed with unsanitary equipment, as is most often the case.)

Then another 2% or so fall under the heading of "other"-- partial clitoridectomy or clitoridectomy alone (as the father referred to above was apparently charged with doing to his daughter), various forms of episiotomy-like ritual scarring or singeing, etc. All four "types" are normally performed in prepubescence by female elders or relatives.
MrsSpringsteen said:
I would venture a guess that an adult woman (let alone a child) who has had her genitals mutilated in the ways that FGM is performed would have a permanent fear of sex similar to what a rape victim might have
I don't know about permanent fear of sex (permanent effective disinterest in it, maybe?), but it certainly seems hard to imagine there wouldn't be permanent psychological trauma of some sort with most of these types. Especially when it's your way of being "welcomed" into womanhood by women you always trusted as a child, and the precondition for "wholesome" relations with the man you'll spend the rest of your life with as an adult.
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:
I don't think FGM is merely "cultural bias", it is meant to control and eliminate the sexuality and sexual "power" of women. Unless hatred of women can be deemed to be merely a "cultural bias". I'm not saying male circumcision is always right or always justified- but I don't think you can compare the physical, mental, and emotional effects. I don't think male circumcision was ever designed to control male sexuality or male power , and they can still have sex and sexual pleasure-much more pleasure than a woman who has had her entire genital area mutilated. I would venture a guess that an adult woman (let alone a child) who has had her genitals mutilated in the ways that FGM is performed would have a permanent fear of sex similar to what a rape victim might have-can you say the same about a male who has been circumcised in a normal way? If you could, seems to me there would be numerous men who wouldn't be having sex.


Obviously I'm no expert on the topic of the physical effects of either or both, but that would be my conclusion based upon what I do know.

I think I wasn't that clear in my post...what I meant is that Western acceptance of male circumcision while condemning FGM is due to cultural bias; we've all grown up with cutting - in fact I know more than one woman who is turned off, even disgusted by the sight of an uncut man's genitalia.



Very true that the power dynamic associated with FGM separates it from circumcision, only the actual physical act is comparable.

Also the unsanitary way in which it's done (in the bushes, or with scissors, etc)...not to mention that as a father I could never raise any kind of blade to my daughter.
 
CTU2fan said:


I think I wasn't that clear in my post...what I meant is that Western acceptance of male circumcision while condemning FGM is due to cultural bias; we've all grown up with cutting - in fact I know more than one woman who is turned off, even disgusted by the sight of an uncut man's genitalia.

Very true that the power dynamic associated with FGM separates it from circumcision, only the actual physical act is comparable.

Also the unsanitary way in which it's done (in the bushes, or with scissors, etc)...not to mention that as a father I could never raise any kind of blade to my daughter.


Then what exactly is the point of bringing it up in a thread like this? It seems to happen every time FGM is discussed, even though we all seem to agree it's comparing apples to oranges...
 
Liesje said:



Then what exactly is the point of bringing it up in a thread like this? It seems to happen every time FGM is discussed, even though we all seem to agree it's comparing apples to oranges...

When did I say it was apples to oranges? Because it's certainly not...and what gets brought up "in every thread about FGM" isn't my concern. What I'm saying is while the power dynamic isn't there, the physical mutilation is very very comparable. In both cases it's slicing away at a child's genitalia because of tradition or whatever.

Hell I think some folks even throw a party over it, just like with one of the FGM cases cited...and have it done by a non-doctor to boot...
 
CTU2fan said:


When did I say it was apples to oranges? Because it's certainly not...and what gets brought up "in every thread about FGM" isn't my concern. What I'm saying is while the power dynamic isn't there, the physical mutilation is very very comparable. In both cases it's slicing away at a child's genitalia because of tradition or whatever.


But that's the only comparison, like apples and oranges both = fruit and that's about it. It's not really the same at all. My concern with it always coming into these discussions is they turn into "well, people have been doing this to guys for centuries so yadda yadda yadda..." It tends to downplay the significance of FGM or turn the focus towards circumcision, which is an entirely different issue. I've seen many a circumcised male penis and the physical mutilation isn't comparable (unless it was done wrong). FGM often leaves such extensive scarring that just going pee can be painful, for life. It's a lifelong health hazard, not just for the short time while it's still healing. Not only is part or all of the clitoris removed, but often other areas are sewn together in such a way that any form of sexual activity and childbirth are risky. Male circumcision is so vastly different, it's not even worth bringing into this type of discussion, unless there's some useful comparison....
 
This makes me so appalled and angry i can't even begin to describe it.

Just another way thats shows the STUPIDITY and ARROGANCE of men and their followers in this world. I cannot understand how they honestly believe forcing this pain onto a woman is something the think they have the right to do

argh im angry...i can't think properly
 
I don't think it's fair to exclusively blame men. I'd bet there are women who've had it done who will allow and even advocate it being done to their daughters.

Also, I was just reading the wikipedia entry on FGM, and it says that "infibulation" is actually performed by a women and the wounds are maintained by female relatives. Here is an example (don't look unless you really want to know):
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billede:Infibulation.jpg

Basically, the woman sews everything shut. When the girl is basically forced to have sex (since she will be married as early as age 12), another woman has to open the wound, then close it again and tie the girls legs together so it can heal. Then, they cut it back open for childbirth, close it, heal it, open it again for sex, and so on....

I also thought this bit was interesting:
The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act. In 1990, this term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa. In 1991, the World Health Organization recommended that the United Nations adopt this terminology and subsequently, it has been widely used in UN documents.

The use of the word “mutilation” reinforces the idea that this practice is a violation of the human rights of girls and women
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom