Female Gential Mutilation (FGM)

[LaVida]

Female Genital Mutilation

What is it?
Female Genital Mutilation is defined as "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons". (World Health Organization)

In the worst case, the vaginal opening is stitched or narrowed almost completely, leaving only a small opening for urine and menstrual blood.

FGM is normally carried out without medical treatment. Anaesthetics and antiseptic treatment are not generally used and the practice is usually carried out using basic tools such as knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass and razor blades.

While multilation can take place anytime between infancy and adulthood, the majority of girls is between 7-12 years old at the practice. In recent years, the age has decreased.

Approximately 100-140 million women worldwide have undergone FGM and about 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk in Africa alone.

While the practice is mostly undertaken in Africa (in 28 African countries in fact), due to migration, cases have also occured in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and some Asian countries.

Different Types of FGM

The WHO classifies FGM in four groups:

Type I

involves the excision of the prepuce with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris.
Type II

excision of the prepuce and clitoris together with partial or total excision of the labia minora.
Type III

excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching or narrowing of the vaginal opening, also known as infibulation. This is the most extreme form and constitutes 15 per cent of all cases. It involves the use of thorns, silk or catgut to stitch the two sides of the vulva. A bridge of scar tissue then forms over the vagina, which leaves only a small opening (from the size of a matchstick head) for the passage of urine and menstrual blood.
Type IV

includes pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or the labia; stretching of the clitoris and or the labia; cauterisation or burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissues, scraping of the vaginal orifice or cutting (Gishiri cuts) of the vagina and introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina.

Consequences for the girls

1st: Severe Pain and Shock

As FGM is usually carried out without any medical treatment and because the genetial area is extremely sensitive, the practice leads to severe pain, so that the girl has to be held down by several adults. The girls often have to live with life-long pain in the genetial area. On top of that, the mutilation can lead to seizures and a state of shock that can cause death.

What is especially traumatizing for the girls is, that most of the time, it's their mothers (or other close relatives) who hand them over to the woman who execute the ritual. The feeling to be abandoned can involve a massive loss of trust and a life-long trauma.

Not less traumatizing is the prohibition that restrains girls from expressing pain. They're not allowed to remark their pain.

2nd: Infections and Transmitted Diseases

As the mutilation doesn't take place in hospitals or at a doctor's office, the hygienic conditions are not sufficient. The tools such as scissors, knives, blades or pieces of broken glass are used on several girls. Since they are not sterilized and disinfected, the infection risk (e.g. toxemia and hepatits) and the transmission of diseases like HIV/AIDS is very high.

Sexual and Reproductive Problems

Depending on the type of mutilation, the ritual has tremendous influence on the women's sexual capacity for experience. If it's type III, the women's vaginal openings have to be cut open for the first intercourse. But as this is seen as a loss of honor for their men, alcohol is used as anesthetic and the women are then penetrated in the way to open the vaginal openings forcefully.

There are more consequences but I will not mention them now.

Why FGM? Cultural Background

FGM has been a long tradition in Africa. Women still think it's good for them. For people from many industrialized countries, it is unclear and absurd how a woman, who has gone through such horror, is willing to pass it to her daughter. I will shortly mention few reasons.

Social discrimination

Women who don't undergo FGM are excluded from society. In many African countries like Guinea, poligamy is practiced but since women are dependend on their husbands for material things, there's constant pressure on women.

Initiation
Many girls are excited for the day although they don't even know what's going to happen. The ritual implies that they have become real women. It's celebrated and the girls receive many presents.

Pureness

Many men and women in African countries believe that women who don't undergo FGM are not pure. In order to increase the chance for girls to find a man that ensures them material security, they undergo FGM.

Illiteracy

The majority of women in Africa never went to school and don't know how to write or read. Therefore, many of them don't know that FGM is a punishable offense.

FGM is a taboo

Not even the women talk about it. If a mother is not sure about the circumcision, she will not discuss it with anyone.


Well, that sure was a lot. I thought, I'd start this thread as it's a topic that is rarely talked about on the media. I think, we need more transparancy. Of course, you can discuss this topic, but I think it's clear that we shouldn't talk about whether this practice is wrong or right. I think, we all agree that it's torture.

If you want to learn more, visit following pages:

https://www.forwarduk.org.uk/

https://www.stop-fgm-now.com/campaign

 

[Kanzler]

I think the information here comes from a Western context and we have absolutely no idea what the people who are a part of this social phenomenon think about it. Even the name used: mutilation. I'm not sure if that's what its practitioners call it. And where it occurs indigenously, it must have broad societal support - from both men and women. I don't see how it would be allowed to happen otherwise.

That being said, it doesn't sound the most appetizing to me, especially when there's a lot of pain occurring without consent. However, I don't think it's in our place to intervene. While it's proper to voice one's disgust and opposition to the practice, there's a fine line between that and imposing one's culture on somebody else.

Also LaVida, are you European?

 

[LaVida]

Well, as I said, the ritual is something that is celebrated. A sign of showing that the girls have become women, so to speak. But the girls involved don't have a clue at all what awaits them. I also stated that if a girl is not circumcised (I don't actually like the word, it's a euphemism.), she will become an outcast as said girls are supposed to be not pure.

Actually, the practice is often forbidden even in the countries where it is practiced. But as most women in these countries (I'm mainly speaking of African countries here), don't know how to read or write, they don't know their rights either. They think it's completely normal and some even think it's practiced throughout the world. They don't know that it's punished in other countries.

There are a lot of African women (some are mentioned on the 2 web pages I listed above) who were circumcised but came to Europe at some point who now fight actively against it. For example, there are some organizations who educate people in said countries and tell them why it's not right.

"Not appetizing"? Sorry, is this a joke? This practice is undertaken without any medical treatment, without any anaesthetics.

For example, on this site (https://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm), it says:

"Mama tied a blindfold over my eyes. The next thing I felt my flesh was being cut away. I heard the blade sawing back and forth through my skin. The pain between my legs was so intense I wished I would die."

It is our place to intervene. (And I don't mean pushing one's culture on another.) It's a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It's torture. These girls are not asked if they want to have it done. It's a tradtion that bears many health risks for the girls. Some even die from it. It is not OK to accept it, even if it comes from a cultural background.

Here's another page to clarify things:

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

And here's a short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cRIrwnzD7g&t=0m51s

 

[Kanzler]

How do you propose intervening without pushing Western culture onto them? You describe "circumcision" as a euphemism, except that's probably how they see it. I'm not even sure if you can accurately describe it as torture - people torture to get something out of the victim, yet who's benefiting from this other than tradition?

I don't agree with the practice, but I think we should be careful about how we go about expressing it. Change must come from not only having good intentions, but also mutual respect and understanding.

 

[LaVida]

Of course one needs to understand the culture to actually change anything. The word "intervene" might be too harsh in this context. You can't just bump in there and expect people to change their habits. And no, it's not about pushing Western culture onto them. By educating them why FGM is wrong (e.g. health risks, physical/psychological problems for the rest of the life), you don't push any culture on them. I don't talk about forcing Western values on them but rather about how to educate them that no more girls have to suffer such severe pain and consequences. Very often, it is women who formerly were part of such a community who want to fight FGM.

Those women basically have no choice. In these regions, adults don't see it as torture, rather as an obligation because otherwise, the girl will not find a man who'll care for her, the girl will not have a save future.

For the girls (often, they're only children), it is torture. Many women who come from said cultures and fight against FGM say so too.

I'd like to quote this:

Virtually every country in the world agrees that female genital mutilation is a violation of a female's human rights. It is seen as an extreme form of discriminating against females in the community. As most procedures are carried out on young girls, it is also a violation against children's rights.

source: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/241726.php


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMCQk-TBHPA

This is a short documentary in which 2 girls are mentioned who come from a culture that practices FGM. Early on, one of the girls says that women have no position in her community. Those women are clearly oppressed. She also mentions myths about FGM. In the Western part of the world, women used to be oppressed as well. Just because something has a cultural background doesn't mean it's right and should be sticked to.

By the way, I found a great documentary about two girls who refuse to be cut and want to go to school.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qadz-es0E&t=13m59s

 

[twocows]

FGM gets a lot of media attention but MGM doesn't. Part of this is misinformation spread about the supposed "benefits" of this practice (many of them not supported by statistical data; plus, none of these problems can't be prevented by proper hygiene and treated with other practices that don't involve genital mutilation).

I wish we as a society could agree on the pretty simple idea that mutilating someone's genitals without their consent is wrong.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I hate to sound like a derp and shift the subject but I don't understand why everyone freaks out about FGM when circumsizing a baby boy is a-okay in our culture. It can be ****ed up really easily and cause severe pain in intercourse, urination, masturbation, whatever else involves the penis, and quite frankly it's purpose is outdated and based only in religion, and there is little to no scientific evidence to show that the operation actually has benefits. Anyone who feels it's "unclean" doesn't realize that well... you can clean there either way. It's not like men had a profound number of infections there before it became common practice. In fact, it's more of a cultural thing than anything. The perception of uncircumsized genitals, male or female, comes from a cultural perception. It's crazy that so many women don't think it's natural unless it's actually mutilated at such an early age.

Oh, by the way, it's common practice not to use anesthetics through the operation because they're "too young to remember it" anyhow.

It freakin' disgusts me that people think that's okay. How about we not do it to ANYONE?

Why not just leave our bodies the way they were meant to be?

And then I just saw twocow's post and I'm happy to see I'm not the only person who thinks this

On a final note, I recall once while at work, a family talking about their baby boy, and the dad said "Oh, they screwed up cutting your weiner so we're gonna have to have them do it again"... like, holy ****... people think that's okay

 

[Kanzler]

I agree with the meaninglessness of male circumcision. The "hygeine" argument, it's absolutely ridiculous. It just doesn't hold up.

 

[LaVida]

Yeah, same here. I also think that male circumcision is no better than female circumcision. I mean, if an adult decides to be circumcised, then it's their business but if parents want their children to be circumcised, then this is a whole different topic. I think no one should decide something over somebody else's body. When I started this topic, I only had FGM in mind. That's why I didn't mention it in my opening post. Feel free to start a topic about male circumcision, though.

When it comes to different cultures and religions, it's good to be open-minded. Just because something is different, it doesn't automatically have to be bad. But in all honesty, I personally think that none of the major religions is 100% right. (This also applies to many cultures.) In one way or another, they curtail people's rights. And if that happens, it's (in my opinion) not right to simply watch and accept it quietly. Like with these women in some African countries for example. They're clearly oppressed and are regarded inferior to men. But often, it's because those women don't know any better.

By the way, here's another great documentary about two African girls who refuse to be cut (which is something very extraodinary in their country) and want to go to school.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qadz-es0E

Please, if you have 30 minutes on your hands, watch it.

If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, watch at least a few minutes of this part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qadz-es0E&t=13m59s

I think this is one of the bravest and most ambitious things I've seen so far.

 

[Livewire]

It's hard to objectively judge the practice because we're all looking at it through a western lens. It's their culture, if they want to practice such things, then go ahead. It's no more barbaric than some of the things we do to our own, so.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

It's hard to objectively judge the practice because we're all looking at it through a western lens. It's their culture, if they want to practice such things, then go ahead. It's no more barbaric than some of the things we do to our own, so.

This is totally true. This is why we should justify slavery, brutal torture, genital mutilation in general and what not, because it is their culture after all.

FGM (and MGM to a slightly lesser extent) is an actual health issue so maybe culture can go suck it if people are dying of infections and having severe complications later in life due to a cultural action. Generally removing a sensitive part of your body for no real reason outside of culture is kind of barbaric, regardless of what side of the fence we're on.

 

[Esper]

FGM (and MGM to a slightly lesser extent) is an actual health issue so maybe culture can go suck it if people are dying of infections and having severe complications later in life due to a cultural action.

This more or less sums up my feelings. We're usually talking about children and adolescents (although I did just learn that it became common in the US after WW2 when a lot of soldiers were circumcised in the belief it would cut down on infections). I feel that children generally shouldn't have non-life saving surgery, particularly if it's painful, risky, and offers dubious benefits. If there is a medical reason to perform a circumcision then, sure, do it, but otherwise let things go and leave people to make their own decisions when they're old enough and can make those kinds of decisions for themselves.

Maybe I'm too dismissive of other cultures, but I feel like sometimes "culture" is just an excuse to do bad things and avoid criticism from even within the culture.

 

[LoudSilence]

I don't necessarily agree with BlahISuck and Livewire's hands-off position, but allow me to play Devil's Advocate here for a bit and say what they're getting at is that we (Western cultures in particular) have a particular viewpoint on what is "right" and "humane" that others might not have.

All of us feel like there are rights everyone has that are totally obvious, but the fact of the matter is that how one defines "rights" is subjective and varies based on the peoples in question. It is easy for us to chalk it up to ignorance/lack of education (we typically associate this with impoverished "lesser" countries), but that only works with the assumption that

1) what they'd teach if they had education is what we think is right
2) modernity and civilisation is determined by a nation's economic status (in which case Western society is the paragon of these two virtues)

For the record, I think genital mutilation is abhorrent beyond belief and is abuse in every sense of the word, but I want to stress that that is my viewpoint and the general populace in the region under our scrutiny may not see it that way simply due to cultural differences.

The poor girls in those articles are children. If something hurts them they will say it, if it scares them they will speak of that fear and question what is happening to them. Those are natural instincts which eventually get quelled through normalisation and being brought up to believe a certain thing is acceptable. Eventually they will not question it anymore, just like their mothers.

You must realise this process of normalisation occurs in our societies also, just with different ideas (nothing so disgusting, but this is just how cultures work...the people around you do/say something enough and you start to believe it's ok and right).

Having said all of that, I really wish there were something we could do. Not out of some sense of obligation due to our global standing or self-righteousness as the "saviour of the world" (talking about America here specifically), but because there are children being hurt and no social construct is worth that.

 

[Kanzler]

It's one thing to fight for human rights and it's another to intervene in such a way that screams "we're better than you". I don't think it's easy to separate these ideas, and the gravity of how complex this issue is should be respected. Live's point on objectivity is spot on. A lot of the opinions being expressed do convey a sense of cultural superiority for me. What I think is the best thing to do, if you want to make a change, is to frame it as a health issue - that way it is measurable with clear benefits and costs that everybody can agree on. As a Chinese immigrant, I've seen way too much "well-intentioned" comments and opinions that I perceived to be stained with cultural superiority. Were they anything on the scale of female genital cutting? No, but I don't think the magnitude of something you disagree with should compromise your respect for the dignity of the other party. It's not just any superiority complex, such an attitude only comes from the mindset of people who believe they are on top of the world.

 

[Livewire]

Let me clarify: If there was a way to change the way they think about the practice without coming across as a new brand of western neo-colonialism, then I'd be more or less inclined to go along with it. And even if the attempt was made, native practitioners would still probably interpret it in an ethnocentric reach into their way of life by the 'white man'.

Consider the alternative: You prevent the modifications, and then the girl is a societal and cultural outcast amongst her own people - as good as dead. Which is more cruel? So there's really no way to win, unless you change the "culture".

 

[LaVida]

Actually, if you had read my posts carefully, I stated that there are actually some women who used to belong to said culture (or who still belong to it) and have founded organizations with the aim of educating people there. This is not only about "the white man forcing Western values on them". There are girls/women of said cultures that actually disagree with the practice.

The whole practise of FGM is mainly due to illiteracy. Women or people generally in these regions believe things that are simply wrong. For example, they consider clitoris and labia to be masculine parts that are dangerous and poisonous organs and must be removed for health risks. It is believed that they will kill a baby during birth and will also cause trouble to the
man during intercourse. (Source: https://www.african-women.org/documents/behind-FGM-tradition.pdf )
They also do it because they think an uncut girl is impure and thus, a man won't want her.

You can see that these women mainly follow the tradition for reasons that are untrue. If one would clarify things to them (and state that mutilation actually has great health risks for the women during birth etc.), many of them would probably cease to practice it.

Please watch at least 2 mintues of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qadz-es0E&t=13m59s

I know, I already posted this, but I doubt many people on here have watched it.

I completely agree with LoudSilence on this. This is not about forcing Western culture on them. It is about protecting children from injuries that are simply unnecessary. It's mainly about education and clarifying things.

 

[Kanzler]

I completely agree with LoudSilence on this. This is not about forcing Western culture on them. It is about protecting children from injuries that are simply unnecessary. It's mainly about education and clarifying things.

You can say this all you want, but would they trust you? That's the problem with simply having good intentions, the bottom line is that you have to communicate with respect and dignity if you want their ears and not their spears (it rhymes but it's racist as hell lol i'm keeping it doe XD). Miscommunication and mistrust happens all the time, and it's even worse in a post-colonial context. I think saying that "this is not about forcing Western culture on them, but..." doesn't help convince anybody - perhaps makes it harder to convince someone since now they perceive you as not even being aware of what telling them what they should or not do sounds like - it comes across as insensitive. I'm not directing it at you specifically, just highlighting how important it is to place yourself in the others' shoes and understand why they do what they do and where they come from. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but disagreement is best communicated with sympathy and understanding.

This following is a tangent (about my fave subject lolololol) but I think it's an opportunity to explain just why understanding the other side is so important. As we all know, China is massively increasing its military spending. The United States (at least some Republican policymakers) see it as China developing its capabilities to challenge US power and upset the balance of power in Asia. Of course, the Chinese say "it's not about challenging the US, it's about defending Chinese interests and becoming a greater contributor to security in Asia" but does that convince anybody - especially when people are already suspicious to begin with? And so there's plenty of dialogue between the leaders and hopefully everybody feels more or less at ease with rising Chinese power because now everybody's on the same page about what the interests are. I thought it was a great way to illustrate why one has to understand where the other side comes in any disagreement, especially if there's little trust. Saying "it's not about x, it's about y" is rarely enough.

 

[Esper]

Do the people in societies that practice circumcision do it because they want to? You're gonna find a lot of places that are run by men, men who have a lot of power, and I would bet that you'd find a lot of women who would say they don't want to follow the practice of circumcision (or perhaps other practices) but are hesitant to say so publicly for fear of retribution. I think things could improve if all the people in a particular culture are empowered to speak their minds and not have to fear for their safety or future because they don't agree with the ones in power. I can't predict what would happen if everyone were free to follow their own beliefs, but I have to believe it would at least allow for choices and that some would choose differently than what their culture dictates.

 

[Kanzler]

Do the people in societies that practice circumcision do it because they want to? You're gonna find a lot of places that are run by men, men who have a lot of power, and I would bet that you'd find a lot of women who would say they don't want to follow the practice of circumcision (or perhaps other practices) but are hesitant to say so publicly for fear of retribution. I think things could improve if all the people in a particular culture are empowered to speak their minds and not have to fear for their safety or future because they don't agree with the ones in power. I can't predict what would happen if everyone were free to follow their own beliefs, but I have to believe it would at least allow for choices and that some would choose differently than what their culture dictates.

That's the very thing I'm getting at though. I don't believe anybody in their indigenous culture believes that their culture dictates to them, since these are norms that we are talking about. We can't really talk about culture the hard and fast way you're doing it here, since while culture can be analyzed in such a way, culture isn't authentically experienced in that way. While there are women want to get away from circumcision, it's not like there aren't women who believe in the institution.

Of course you're going to disagree with it, but notice how it makes no sense once you've placed it in an individualist and feminist worldview. You see the culture as something perpetuated by those in power, and that kind of person is being oppressed, and that somebody's to blame for all of this - but that's definitely not how the majority of people living that culture see it. I mean, to frame it in such a way that somebody's culture is "bad for them" and that people "actually" don't want it is rather insincere. You're placing a lot of division in the way you interpret their culture and that's something they don't really see and can find offensive.

In this light I'm beginning to see why certain peoples would reject Western culture. While you might not care about Western culture, Western culture cares about you ... maybe a little too much.

 

[Esper]

That's the very thing I'm getting at though. I don't believe anybody in their indigenous culture believes that their culture dictates to them, since these are norms that we are talking about. We can't really talk about culture the hard and fast way you're doing it here, since while culture can be analyzed in such a way, culture isn't authentically experienced in that way. While there are women want to get away from circumcision, it's not like there aren't women who believe in the institution.

Of course you're going to disagree with it, but notice how it makes no sense once you've placed it in an individualist and feminist worldview. You see the culture as something perpetuated by those in power, and that kind of person is being oppressed, and that somebody's to blame for all of this - but that's definitely not how the majority of people living that culture see it. I mean, to frame it in such a way that somebody's culture is "bad for them" and that people "actually" don't want it is rather insincere. You're placing a lot of division in the way you interpret their culture and that's something they don't really see and can find offensive.

In this light I'm beginning to see why certain peoples would reject Western culture. While you might not care about Western culture, Western culture cares about you ... maybe a little too much.

I'm not quite sure what the defining line between an indigenous culture and a non-indigenous culture is. Are you saying that someone in an indigenous culture isn't able to see outside the norms of their culture? (Not sure what you mean by "hard and fast way".) We are living in a pretty interconnected world and even remote, impoverished places can have some knowledge of other cultures and ways of doing things.

I don't see all culture as perpetuated by men in power. I see men in power using culture to their advantage, cherry picking what aspects of culture work best for them and perpetuating their own interpretations of the culture and not allowing for alternative ways of living in their culture. Like Iran (not an "indigenous" culture or one that practices circumcision as far as I know) they celebrate Ashura, but the state says people should celebrate it one way with their particular edits and omissions. Some people don't mind of course, but some want to celebrate it in ways the state doesn't want them to. All still part of the same culture though.