FGM

[Witsec7]

Excellent story on NPR with an interview, the woman who was betrayed by her parents at the age of 8.

[Guest Anonymous]

What are FGM and NPR?

[Witsec7]

Female genital mutilation, national public radio.

The show is Here and Now and is usually available on a pod cast. The woman being interviewed is from Egypt.

[browngrl]

Not to speak for the OP but I think FGM is female genital mutilation and NPR is a website (and radio station - but I have only seen the website). Here is the link (to NPR) www.npr.org/

[failsafe]

Female genital mutilation (some people prefer the term Female Genital Cutting) is the practice of cutting, altering or removing a young girl's outer genitals, and is generally practice in Eastern and Northern Africa. It began as a cultural and ethnic practice but is often conflated with a religious (Muslim) practice because it primarily happens in predominantly Muslim nations. It functions both as a show of patriarchy (one of the goal's is to reduce women's enjoyment of sex, to prevent straying outside of marriage, another goal is to keep things "tight" for a husband) and as a cultural beauty ideal (visible external genital parts such as labia are considered masculine and ugly). It's important to remember that not only is the procedure inhumane, but it is often performed in unsanitary conditions, by providers that have little to no medical training.

There are several levels of FGM:

The (least harmful) level is a "ritual nick" which was once suggested as a compromise by the American Academy of Pediatrics for immigrants who want the procedure performed for cultural reasons. I believe the AAP has since retracted this statement. This would be a small nick to the girl's genitals to draw a small amount of blood but cause no lasting harm.

The next level is removal of the clitoral hood or complete excisement of the clitoris itself.

Following that is removal of the labia minora, typically through cutting or sewing together.

The most extreme level is complete excisement of all external genitals, through cutting or burning, so that the skin between is flat across the vulva. A small hole is left for urine.

In the second two, the woman will have to be torn open (usually by a penis, sometimes by a knife or at the hospital) when she does have sex. The procedure is typically performed on young girls (from birth to about age 10) and is sometimes (I believe wrongly) viewed as the female equivalent to male circumcision.

[Almost Quiverfull]

I read an article by a woman from an African country who said that African Muslim women spend their entire lives in pain. If the procedure doesn't kill them then they must endure the pain of sex and then again the pain of childbirth. Many women suffer fistulas and then are outcast from their people. Women who don't have the procedure done cannot expect to be married and they are called names like "clitoris girl" because the people believe the clitoris will grow down to their knees. In Somalia the girls who are raped are first cut open with knives so that the men can rape them. I heard of one father who was forced to watch as his two daughters were cut open and then raped. A new problem has arisen - some of these African communities in Europe and even in the US are flying in "cutters" to have the procedure done to their daughters. It's so ingrained in their culture that it's impossible to convince them that "circumcision" is a truly brutal and unnecessary procedure.

[Sinister Rouge]

The procedure is typically performed on young girls (from birth to about age 10) and is sometimes (I believe wrongly) viewed as the female equivalent to male circumcision.

Are all degrees of FGM compared to routine male circumcision, or just some?

[failsafe]

Are all degrees of FGM compared to routine male circumcision, or just some?

Generally all. I have seen it used as an argument against male circumcision (ie, you think this is okay and that is wrong? This is just as bad as that.) and as a justification for the procedure (ie, you in the West cut boys' genitals, we in Africa cut girls', what is the difference?)

[Black Aliss]

Actually, among the Xosa and probably a number of other nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes infibulation had nothing to to with beauty or patriarchy--it was done for survival reasons, specifically to avoid being eaten by lions. Unmarried girls were in charge of tending the goats, and as such they would be following the herd through the bush, often far from the village. Because the smell of menstrual blood would attract predators, the labia were sewn shut leaving only a tiny opening for urination and menstruation. That opening could be closed off with a piece of plant matter. When the girls would come to a body of water they would sit down, remove the stopper and allow the fluid to release under water. Sexual intercourse would, almost certainly painfully, undo the infibulation. Once a woman had had sexual intercourse it was no longer possible for her to tend herds.

Most, if not all, cultural practices (keeping halal or kosher, for example) originate for reasons of survival. Culture becomes so ingrained in people that they are unable or unwilling to see certain activities as no longer necessary (really,having a rabbi go over your pots and pans with a blow torch when they could just be run through a dishwasher?) because culture reminds us of who we are and where we came from.

I really think that if we were to knock off the feminist anti-patriarchy rhetoric, and maybe adopt the words actually used by the people who practice this ritual instead of labeling it "female genital mutilation" it would be a lot easier to educate parents about why it would be a good idea to give up this practice.

[Sinister Rouge]

Hmm. I could see a comparison being made between the two when it comes to a ritual nick or removal of the clitoral hood, and both do reduce sexual pleasure, but to compare routine male circumcision to the complete removal of the clitoris, labia and external genitals seems to not only provide unneccesary hyberbole but also minimalizes the trauma that these girls go through. I remember reading some of Waris Dirie's interviews and an excerpt from her memoirs regarding FGM and her description of the procedure, as well as how she wasn't even able to menstruate or urinate had me in tears - it really is torturous. My heart breaks for these girls.

[failsafe]

Actually, among the Xosa and probably a number of other nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes infibulation had nothing to to with beauty or patriarchy--it was done for survival reasons, specifically to avoid being eaten by lions. Unmarried girls were in charge of tending the goats, and as such they would be following the herd through the bush, often far from the village. Because the smell of menstrual blood would attract predators, the labia were sewn shut leaving only a tiny opening for urination and menstruation. That opening could be closed off with a piece of plant matter. When the girls would come to a body of water they would sit down, remove the stopper and allow the fluid to release under water. Sexual intercourse would, almost certainly painfully, undo the infibulation. Once a woman had had sexual intercourse it was no longer possible for her to tend herds.

Most, if not all, cultural practices (keeping halal or kosher, for example) originate for reasons of survival. Culture becomes so ingrained in people that they are unable or unwilling to see certain activities as no longer necessary (really,having a rabbi go over your pots and pans with a blow torch when they could just be run through a dishwasher?) because culture reminds us of who we are and where we came from.

I really think that if we were to knock off the feminist anti-patriarchy rhetoric, and maybe adopt the words actually used by the people who practice this ritual instead of labeling it "female genital mutilation" it would be a lot easier to educate parents about why it would be a good idea to give up this practice.

I don't disagree with you, though I admit, I am not enough of a cultural relativist to see anything of value in the practice. However, certainly the terms female circumcision, female infibulation and FGC are becoming more common terms and rightly - parents do not see themselves as "mutilating" their children (whether or not they are), and certainly are resistant to take advice from someone telling them they are.

I don't know enough about the very early history of FGM/FGC/infibulation to tell you what the precise early cause is. I don't mean to imply that African women are passive victims of a patriarchy (because FGM is often, perhaps primarily, practiced by women on girls and is often pushed for by the female members of the family -- see Ayaan Hirsi Ali's experience). But my anecdata (which seems reasonably supported by several global organizations such as the WHO) through several friends and acquaintances who have experienced it (who are primarily from Somalia, one of the countries in Africa where FGC is practiced on and by nearly all women) is that it IS strongly believed that if a woman is NOT cut, she will become (or is) sexually promiscuous, "loose" and unlikely to please a man, and likely to stray from her husband. There is very much an element of (on the female side) "no man will want you if you are not sewn" and, from the male side, "a woman who is not sewn is a whore." This attitude changes markedly upon move to the West but still persists, particularly in Somali ethnic enclaves and among older Somali men. As the WHO puts it: "FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido, and thereby is further believed to help her resist "illicit" sexual acts. When a vaginal opening is covered or narrowed (type 3 above), the fear of pain of opening it, and the fear that this will be found out, is expected to further discourage "illicit" sexual intercourse among women with this type of FGM."

Whether or not that's a key part or even an element in the discussion with and argument to convince practitioners of FGM to stop the practice is a different issue. I am NOT subscribing to a "white people saving the barbaric browns" theory, but it is hard for me to apply any lens of cultural relativism to a practice that can leave a 3 year old's genitals literally burned away and flat as the palm of your hand.

[bananacat]

Actually, among the Xosa and probably a number of other nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes infibulation had nothing to to with beauty or patriarchy--it was done for survival reasons, specifically to avoid being eaten by lions. Unmarried girls were in charge of tending the goats, and as such they would be following the herd through the bush, often far from the village. Because the smell of menstrual blood would attract predators, the labia were sewn shut leaving only a tiny opening for urination and menstruation. That opening could be closed off with a piece of plant matter. When the girls would come to a body of water they would sit down, remove the stopper and allow the fluid to release under water. Sexual intercourse would, almost certainly painfully, undo the infibulation. Once a woman had had sexual intercourse it was no longer possible for her to tend herds.

Most, if not all, cultural practices (keeping halal or kosher, for example) originate for reasons of survival. Culture becomes so ingrained in people that they are unable or unwilling to see certain activities as no longer necessary (really,having a rabbi go over your pots and pans with a blow torch when they could just be run through a dishwasher?) because culture reminds us of who we are and where we came from.

I really think that if we were to knock off the feminist anti-patriarchy rhetoric, and maybe adopt the words actually used by the people who practice this ritual instead of labeling it "female genital mutilation" it would be a lot easier to educate parents about why it would be a good idea to give up this practice.

Do you have any sources to back this up? It sounds suspiciously like an after-the-fact attempt to save face. Humans have come up with countless ways to deal with menstrual blood and/or avoid predation. It seems like quite a stretch that they would go so far as unsanitary and painful surgery. They could have left only boys or just younger children in charge of the herds, or found some other way to catch the blood. I'm also not convinced that lions would be that attracted to menstrual blood, especially since humans have never been a common food source for lions.

[Black Aliss]

Do you have any sources to back this up? It sounds suspiciously like an after-the-fact attempt to save face. Humans have come up with countless ways to deal with menstrual blood and/or avoid predation. It seems like quite a stretch that they would go so far as unsanitary and painful surgery. They could have left only boys or just younger children in charge of the herds, or found some other way to catch the blood. I'm also not convinced that lions would be that attracted to menstrual blood, especially since humans have never been a common food source for lions.

It was either a cultural anthropology or women's studies class, I forget which, just one of those easy courses you take to balance out the two physical science classes with labs that you know are going to run your life for the next 15 weeks. There were guest lecturers. The one who gave this particular lecture wasn't xhosa (sorry, I misspelled it the first time) but her family history did include the semi-nomadic lifestyle although not for the previous two generations. And no, she herself had not been infibulated.

[Kelya]

It was either a cultural anthropology or women's studies class, I forget which, just one of those easy courses you take to balance out the two physical science classes with labs that you know are going to run your life for the next 15 weeks. There were guest lecturers. The one who gave this particular lecture wasn't xhosa (sorry, I misspelled it the first time) but her family history did include the semi-nomadic lifestyle although not for the previous two generations. And no, she herself had not been infibulated.

I just read through a ton of scholarly material looking for this explanation and can not find it anywhere, from WHO to autobiographical accounts. I disbelieve.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Actually, among the Xosa and probably a number of other nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes infibulation had nothing to to with beauty or patriarchy--it was done for survival reasons, specifically to avoid being eaten by lions. Unmarried girls were in charge of tending the goats, and as such they would be following the herd through the bush, often far from the village. Because the smell of menstrual blood would attract predators, the labia were sewn shut leaving only a tiny opening for urination and menstruation. That opening could be closed off with a piece of plant matter. When the girls would come to a body of water they would sit down, remove the stopper and allow the fluid to release under water. Sexual intercourse would, almost certainly painfully, undo the infibulation. Once a woman had had sexual intercourse it was no longer possible for her to tend herds.

Most, if not all, cultural practices (keeping halal or kosher, for example) originate for reasons of survival. Culture becomes so ingrained in people that they are unable or unwilling to see certain activities as no longer necessary (really,having a rabbi go over your pots and pans with a blow torch when they could just be run through a dishwasher?) because culture reminds us of who we are and where we came from.

I really think that if we were to knock off the feminist anti-patriarchy rhetoric, and maybe adopt the words actually used by the people who practice this ritual instead of labeling it "female genital mutilation" it would be a lot easier to educate parents about why it would be a good idea to give up this practice.

I'd have the see the original source material for this before giving it any credence.

The idea that keeping kosher is or was done for health reasons has no factual foundation. It's part of the category of ancient Biblical laws for which no reason is given or logically inferred. Since health reasons are specifically cited as the reason for some other laws, it makes sense that they are NOT the reason for these laws. As for methods of kashering pots and pans - this is a combination of ancient Jewish law and modern science. In some cases, the ancient texts mention how to kasher a specific type of material, in other cases modern science determines whether a material (like plastic) is porous or not. The blow torch is only needed for a few items; in other situations boiling is fine. The dishwasher question comes up all the time, and it really depends upon both the rabbi and the specific type of dishwasher.

[kamcho_papio]

I just read through a ton of scholarly material looking for this explanation and can not find it anywhere, from WHO to autobiographical accounts. I disbelieve.

I did the same thing, and I concur. It sounds like cultural backformation.

[emmiedahl]

My problems with this story: The Xhosa consider herding a male-only activity, and they do not even practice FGM, so it is a moot point.

btw, Nelson Mandela is a Xhosa.

More info:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Xhosa.aspx

http://www.roediger.co.za/Touring%20Documents/Xhosa.pdf